Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGap Analysis Matrix for Recommendations ReportJefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix Page 1 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Article I. Purpose 18.22.010 Purpose – Generally Could be revised to be more consistent. Does not cite implementation of the GMA or the County’s Comprehensive Plan. (2) Does not specify that the CASP method is allowed only for single-family residential proposals. Revise to include reference to goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of GMA and Comprehensive Plan. See example language in CTED 2007. Consider clarifying that CASP method is for residential developments. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007) Article II. Administrative Provisions Standard for jurisdiction - None Inconsistent with GMA. Code does not include provisions for jurisdiction of critical areas. Consider adding a new section titled “Jurisdiction” that provides definitions and designations of critical areas. See Footnote 1 for example language. Adherence to federal and state standards; WAC 365- 190 Standard for critical areas review process and application requirements - None Inconsistent with guidance. Code does not include requirements for critical areas review and applications. Consider adding a new section titled “Critical Area Project Review Process” that provides direction for applicants and the critical area review process. See Footnote 2 for example language. Taylor language to ensure it is consistent with current County procedures. Improve clarity/user friendliness for applicants and consistency with guidance. CTED, 2007 Standard for best available science – None Inconsistent with GMA and guidance. Code does not include a best available science requirement or note special consideration of anadromous fisheries. Consider adding a section that states that critical area/special reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science. See Footnote 3 for example language. CTED, 2007 Standard for mitigation sequencing – None Inconsistent with GMA. Code does not include a general mitigation sequencing requirement. The mitigation Proposed impacts to all critical areas and their buffers must adhere to the mitigation sequencing steps. Consider adding a section Adherence to federal and state standards WAC 197- 11-168; CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 2 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change sequence is currently only applied to wetlands (18.22.350). that lists the steps; see example language in Footnote 4. Standard for unauthorized alterations and enforcement - None Inconsistent with guidance. Code does not include standards for unauthorized alterations in critical areas and enforcement of violations. Consider adding a new article titled “Unauthorized Critical Area Alterations and Enforcement” and using example language shown in Footnote 6. CTED, 2007 18.22.020 Applicability Could be revised to be more consistent with state guidance and for clarity. Code contains general applicability language (18.22.020). Ecology has suggested that Applicability sections include statement about compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements. Consider expanding the Applicability section to provide a more specific list of “regulated activities” that apply to all critical areas generally. See Footnote 5 for example language. Consider adding another subsection that specifies that critical areas permit approval does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements. See Footnote 7 for example language. Clarity/ User friendliness Ecology guidance (verbal) 18.22.050 Coverage Could be revised for clarity. The contents of this section overlap with ‘Applicability’ (18.22.020). Consider merging this section with 18.22.020 to improve clarity for applicants. Section (2) should be revised to state than any action taken in a critical area “or its buffer” designated under this chapter… Improve clarity ease-of- use. 18.22.070 General exemptions Gap or missing protection. Code does not include requirements for minimizing impacts to critical areas. Consider revising the introductory language to: “All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid or minimize impacts to critical areas, and that alteration of a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored at the responsible party’s expense. The following developments, activities, and Critical area impacts resulting from exempt activities should be minimized as much as possible. CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 3 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change associated uses shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter, provided that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local, state, and federal laws and requirements:” 18.22.070 (1) General exemptions Inconsistent with GMA. Section exempts existing and ongoing agricultural activities. Remove provision. Agricultural activities are no longer exempt from critical areas regulations though are regulated in JCC 18.20.030. Provisions indicating allowances for farmed wetlands could be added to Article VII Wetlands with a reference to JCC 18.20.030. RCW 36.70A.700: GMA amendment establishing Voluntary Stewardship Program (July 22, 2011) and removal temporary allowance for agricultural exemptions (RCW 36.70A.560). Also case law (Clallam County v. WWGMHB, 2005), pre-existing agriculture can generally no longer be exempted from the CAO. 18.22.070 (4) General exemptions Could be revised to be more consistent with GMA. Code exempts maintenance of drainage ditches. Change “drainage ditches” to “drainage ditches that do not meet the criteria for being considered a fish and wildlife habitat area” to ensure consideration of anadromous salmonids. WAC 365-190 In some environments, existing drainage ditches may be completely manmade, or may be streams that were historically straightened and ditched, that may still provide fish habitat. 18.22.070 (5)(b), (6) General exemptions Inconsistent with guidance. State guidance does not support exemptions for construction activities or activities that would require construction permits. Consider removing subsection (b) and revising Sections 5 and 6 using example language provided in Footnote 8. CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 4 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.070 (8) General exemptions Inconsistent with guidance. Code does not require mitigation for critical area impacts from emergency actions. Revise to include mitigation requirements. Consider using language provided in Footnote 9. CTED, 2007 18.22.070 (9) General exemptions Could be revised to be more consistent. Code exempts maintenance of artificial wetlands and artificial ponds. Consider changing “artificial wetlands and artificial ponds” to “artificial wetlands and artificial ponds that do not meet the criteria for being considered a fish and wildlife habitat area.” Or consider the following replacement language: “Development involving or near artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to grass-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features, except wetlands, streams, or swales created as mitigation or that provide habitat for salmonids.” In some environments, manmade wetlands or ponds may be ponds that were historically straightened and ditched, which may still provide fish habitat. 18.22.070 (11) General exemptions Could be revised to be more consistent. Code exempts maintenance of irrigation ditches, reservoirs, and ponds. Change “ditches, reservoirs, ponds” to “ditches, reservoirs, and ponds that do not meet the criteria for being considered a fish and wildlife habitat area” In some environments, existing ditches, reservoirs, or ponds may be completely manmade, or may be ponds and streams that were historically straightened and ditched, which may still provide fish habitat. 18.22.070 (12) General exemptions Could be revised to be more specific. BAS supports low-impact, passive recreational boating, such as canoeing or kayaking. Remove “boating” and replace with “canoeing” or “kayaking” CTED, 2007 18.22.070 (14) General exemptions Could be revised for clarity. Exemption appears to cover artificially created wetlands. Remove provision. Artificially created wetlands will be addressed in the definition of wetland (see Suggested Change to 18.22.300). Internal consistency Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 5 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change The relevant language in the definition is: “… Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds…” 18.22.070 (18) General exemptions Inconsistent with BAS. Code allows public trails through a wetland buffers (critical area). The allowance of trails (public or private) without mitigation is not supported by BAS. Trails in the outer portion of the buffer could be allowed. Remove provision or review “Allowed Buffer Uses” in Bunten et al. (2012). Also consider adding a mitigation requirement and moving the provision to Article VII. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication #05- 06-008 (Granger et al. 2005); Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012) 18.22.070 (20) General exemptions Inconsistent with BAS and guidance BAS does not support exempting any construction-type activities in critical areas. Remove “drilling or digging” from provision. CTED, 2007; Granger et al. 2005 18.22.080 (3)Nonconforming uses Inconsistent with guidance. Provision does not specifically limit activities to within the current footprint. Revise to state the limits on expansion of nonconforming uses and structures outside of the current footprint. Consider the following: “A legal nonconforming use or structure may be maintained or repaired without limitation by this chapter so long as the activities do not increase the previously approved building footprint or are approved under the County’s nonconformance chapter JCC 18.20.260.” CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 6 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Article IV. Frequently Flooded Areas 18.22.140 Incorporation by reference Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS and GMA. This section and the floodplain management ordinance JCC 15.15 do not require compensatory floodplain storage for riverine floodplains. In Jefferson County, these floodplains are associated with: the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers; and Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon Creeks. No requirement for considering potential impacts from changing climate conditions. No mention of channel migration zones (CMZs), which are currently housed under the Article V. Geologically Hazardous Areas Consider requiring compensatory storage for all permitted floodplain fill within the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, and Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon Creek floodplains. Consider adding requirements to incorporate information about future climate conditions into project proposals, such as addressing rising sea levels, tsunami, high tides with strong winds, and extreme weather events. Consider protecting high risk channel migration zones (CMZs) from development impacts beyond the minimal requirements for vegetation retention in JCC 18.22.170 (CMZs are currently included in the code as a geologically hazardous area). NMFS 2009; PSP 2010; FEMA 2013a and 2013b; Ecology 2015a. Opportunity to strengthen consistency with FEMA Region X’s Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Guidance (2013a) and Model Ordinance (2013b). 18.22.140 (2) Incorporation by reference Inconsistent with GMA Section 2 reference to WAC 365- 190-080(3) applies to general critical areas. Revise reference to WAC 365-190-110(2) for minimum guidelines. Also add language to clarify that the section does not apply to land uses and modification within shoreline jurisdiction. Incorrect reference to WAC 365-190-110 Article VI. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) 18.22.195 Could be revised for Redundant with 18.22.010. Consider removing 18.22.195. Internal consistency and Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 7 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Compliance alternatives clarity. clarity 18.22.200 Classifications/ designation Could be revised for clarity. Title of Article, “Classifications/designation” is redundant. Sections 1 and 3 are redundant with each other. Consider revising Title to “Designation”. If the above revision is made, consider combining the two sections together and labeling as “Designation and Definition.” Improve clarity and ease- of-use. Improve clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.200 (1) Classifications/ designation Could be revised for clarity. Section does not state that Type S streams, lake, and marine shorelines are regulated under the SMP. State that Shorelines of the State are regulated under the SMP. Improve clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.200 (3) Classifications/ designation Inconsistent with GMA. Inconsistent with BAS. Section 3 includes some but not all of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area types that are listed by the GMA and its implementing regulations. Missing: Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat and Waters of the state as defined in RCW 90.48.020 and classified in WAC 222-16-030. Section 3(h) references incorrect systems identified using the DNR Washington Natural Heritage Program Update this section with the regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area types that are listed in WAC 365-190-130 and in example code by CTED (2007). Revise Section 3(a)(i) to include species that are designated as federally endangered, as follows: “Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by…” Consider noting Sections 3(d) through 3(f) that refer to resources managed under the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Replace “high-quality wetland ecosystems and high quality terrestrial ecosystems” to “rare plant species and high quality ecosystems”. Compliance with GMA (WAC 365-190-130). CTED, 2007 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/na tural-heritage-program Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 8 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.220 Sources used for identification Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS. Article does not include additional sources: WDNR Natural Heritage Program database; WDFW and NWIFC State-wide Integrated Fish Distribution maps; and WDNR Natural Area Preserves and Conservation Area maps Add sources to list in Article: WDNR Natural Heritage Program database; WDFW and NWIFC State-wide Integrated Fish Distribution maps; and WDNR Natural Area Preserves and Conservation Area maps. Also consider explicitly stating that activities in Sections 4 through 6 are managed under the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Provide up-to-date resources for applicants and staff. 18.22.230 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA) maps Could be revised for clarity. Section is redundant with 18.22.030 and 18.22.230 to some extent. Consider adding contents as a listed source under 18.22.220. BAS supports using county habitat maps as a mapping source. Eliminate redundancy and improve consistency between sections. CTED, 2007 18.22.250 Regulated activities Could be revised to be more consistent. Section may have redundancies with other chapters. If the above suggested changes are made to Article II and a new section for “Regulated Activities” is added then the content in this section should be reviewed for redundancy and placed in a new section or under JCC18.22.270 (Protection standards). Eliminate redundancy and improve consistency between sections. 18.22.265 Habitat management plans – When required Inconsistent with guidance and could be revised for clarity Code provision mentions bald eagles and is vague about what triggers an HMP (mentions but does not define “protected species”). Revise to state: “When a development proposal is located on lands that are classified as a FHWCA (defined in 18.22.200) or when the applicant proposes to…” Bald eagle is no longer listed at the state or federal levels. It is still classified as State Sensitive by WDFW. It is the discretion of cities and counties to continue to protect eagles under local regulations (pursuant to GMA). Improve clarity and update based on new bald eagle protection requirements. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conse rvation/bald_eagle/index.h tml 18.22.270 (N/A) Inconsistent with BAS Code does include a mitigation Revise to include a new section for mitigation, Knight, 2009. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 9 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Protection standards and guidance. requirement for FWHCAs. see Footnote 10 for example language. 18.22.270 (5)(b)(ii) Protection standards Some buffer widths are inconsistent with BAS. Should be revised for clarity and potentially consistency with BAS. Table 18.22.270(1) sets standard buffers that range from 50 feet to 150 feet. The standard width for Type S is lower than BAS recommended buffers (250 feet, minimum 200 feet). The division between the two categories of Type Ns streams is unclear. Table 18.22.270(1) only includes a reference to WAC 222-16-030 for stream type determination (Note b) Increase standard buffer width for Type S streams to be consistent with state-provided BAS recommendations. If the 20% grade refers to the stream channel itself, then the distinction should be removed and all Type Ns streams should have a 75 foot standard buffer. If the 20% grade refers to the buffer itself and its potential for mass wasting, then the buffer width for Type Ns streams with greater than or equal 20% grade should be higher to be consistent with state-provided BAS recommendations. Consider including a description for determining stream typing in the table or in a previous subsection (such as 18.22.200). May, 2003; and Knutson and Naef, 1997 Improves clarity and ease- of-use. Consistency with Knutson and Naef, 1997 18.22.270 (5) Protection standards Could be revised to be more consistent. Section includes some but not all BAS requirements for determining FWHCAs buffer widths. Does not include a provision to allow the administrator to increase standard buffer widths based on site-specific factors. Include a provision that allows the administrator to increase the standard buffer or require buffers for FWHCAs based on a set of factors such as: 1) type and intensity of human activity proposed land uses on the site and adjacent sites; 2) recommendations contained in the applicant’s habitat management plan; 3) species-specific management guidelines published by WDFW; and, 4) specific composition of land adjacent State guidelines refer to BAS requirement (WAC 365-190-030 (3)(a)(v)) include establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from habitat areas and protect habitats of importance. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 10 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change to FWHCA (e.g., slope with potential for mass wasting). Article VII. Wetlands 18.22.290 Stewardship alternative Could be revised for clarity. Redundant with 18.22.010. Consider moving the final sentence in 18.22.290 to 18.22.010 and then removing the section. Internal consistency and clarity 18.22.300 Classification/ Designation Inconsistent with GMA. Definition for wetlands is not included in this Section and the wetland definition in Chapter 18.10 is not entirely consistent with the RCW/Ecology guidance definition. Include wetland definition in Section and update definition to be consistent with RCW/Ecology guidance. See Footnote 11 for example language. Bunten et al., 2012 18.22.300 (1) (2) Classification/ Designation Inconsistent with BAS. Could be more consistent with BAS. Could be revised to be more consistent. Section 1 and 2 reference outdated wetland delineation and rating manuals. Section 2 does not specify how long a wetland delineation is valid. Section (2) exempts small wetlands without requiring a special report. Revise Sections 1 and 2 to refer to the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements and the Washington State Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Section 2 could be improved for consistency with BAS by specifying that wetland delineations are valid for five years. BAS supports allowing small wetlands to be exempt by requiring a special report to verify wetland conditions meet criteria for exemption. Consider including a requirement for a special report in this section. Compliance with federal and state requirements (WAC 173-22-035, WAC 365-190-090) Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letters RGL 05-02 and 08- 02 set a five year standard on wetland determinations. Bunten et al., 2012 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 11 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.310 (N/A) Regulated activities Could be revised to be more consistent. Section 6 includes vague and broad language (e.g., (5) “obstructions” are not defined, (7) “that would alter the character of a regulated wetland” is not defined) If change is made to Article II to add a new section of general “Regulated Activities” then this section would not be necessary. Remove section if change is made. Improves clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.310 (9) Regulated activities Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS. Section 9(a) allows public trails through wetland buffers, which is supported by BAS. However, trails should be allowed only in the outer portion of the buffer. In addition, mitigation should be required for buffer impacts resulting from trail placement. Consider the example code language in Bunten et al. (2012) XX.050.H “Allowed Buffer Uses” and revise Section 9 for consistency. Granger et al. 2005; Bunten et al. 2012 18.22.330 (2) Protection standards Inconsistent with BAS. Inconsistent with BAS. Section 2(a) references outdated delineation manual. Section 2(d)(i)(B) includes definition for “Qualified wetland evaluator” that seems out of place and references outdated rating manual. Revise Section 2(a) to refer to the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. Consider removing definition from this section. Definitions are in JCC 18.10; a recommendation for the definition for qualified professional is near the end of this table. Compliance with federal and state requirements (WAC 173-22-035) Compliance with state requirements (WAC 365-190-090) Improves clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.330 (3) Protection standards Could be revised to be more consistent. Section 3(a) references an Ecology guidance document instead of the rating manual used to categorize and rate wetlands. Section 3(b) does not include a Revise Section 3(a) to refer to the approved wetland rating manual. Compliance with state requirements (WAC 365- 190-090) Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 12 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Could be revised to be more consistent. Could be revised for clarity. description of the three land use impact types or reference the corresponding tables. Section 3(c) allows three buffer options for development proposals. The “apparent boundary option” is not found in other codes and contains vague language. Consider revising to include descriptions and/or referencing the corresponding tables. Provide a set of criteria for where and when this option is used (i.e., only used in agricultural lands during the early growing season) and how the determination is made. Or consider removing provision. Improve clarity and ease- of-use. Item identified by County staff. 18.22.330(7) and (8) Protection standards Could be revised to be more consistent. Could be revised to be more consistent. There are limited standards for when buffer reduction and/or averaging is or is not allowed. Section 7 and 8 do not state that any proposed buffer decrease should result in no net loss of wetland and buffer functions and values. Code does not list any specific Consider incorporating the following requirements into Sections 7 and 8: Buffer reduction should only be allowed under limited circumstances, where adherence to the standard buffer is not possible and there would be no increase from the current level impacts to wetland from proposed activities in the buffer. Proposals for buffer reduction should demonstrate, at a minimum: the existing buffer is highly degraded, the entire length of the buffer cannot be reduced, and the reduced buffer area is restored. Buffer averaging should only be allowed if it will provide equal or greater protection of current wetland functions and values. Revise section to include specific wetland Granger et al., 2005 Granger et al., 2005 Granger et al., 2005 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 13 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Could be revised to be more consistent. measures to minimize wetland impacts from adjacent land uses impact minimization measures, as shown in Table 8C-8 in Appendix 8-C e in Ecology’s wetlands guidance. Table 18.22.330(1- 3) Inconsistent with BAS. Could be revised for clarity. Could be revised for clarity. Could be revised to for clarity. The habitat function score ranges in the code are inconsistent with the latest version of the Ecology wetland rating system. No changes are recommended to the specified minimum buffer widths; in general, they are consistent with BAS. Each table begins with a bulleted list describing land use types. If Section 3(c)(iii) is removed than the last column in each table wouldn’t be necessary. Tables are generally consistent with BAS, but are confusing to read. The habitat score ranges need to be updated to reflect the new 2014 scoring system (see Consider moving land use type descriptions to Section 3(b). Remove last column in each table if change is made to 18.22.330.3(c)(iii). Consider using smaller text or minimizing size of table. Or consider revising structure to make Tables more clear as shown in Tables 8C-4 through 7 in Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios (Granger et al. 2005). These tables were updated in 2014 to be consistent with the revised wetland rating system. Hruby, 2014 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pr ograms/sea/wetlands/ratin gsystems/2014updates.ht ml) Clarity/User-friendliness Improve clarity and ease- of-use. Clarity and ease-of-use. Updated tables are on Ecology webpage http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pr ograms/sea/wetlands/ratin gsystems/2014updates.ht ml (Scroll down near bottom of webpage) Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 14 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.330 (N/A) Protection standards Inconsistent with BAS. Article does not include provision to allow the administrator increase a wetland buffer, if and when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The administrator should have authority to increase a wetland buffer width up to 50% if the wetland contains a threatened or endangered species or the surrounding land is susceptible to sever erosion and/or steep slopes. Consider example code language in Bunten et al. (2012) for this provision. Bunten et al., 2012 18.22.340 Noncompensatory enhancement Unnecessary under GMA. Section describes two types of noncompensatory enhancement with some detail but several vague requirements. County staff note this provision is not used. Remove entire section. Update to reflect current County procedures. 18.22.350 (N/A) Mitigation Inconsistent with BAS. Inconsistent with BAS. Code does not include a stated preference of mitigation actions for permittee responsible mitigation. Code lacks references to BAS sources for compensatory mitigation. Add a new subsection for preference of mitigation actions for permittee responsible mitigation, which should be, in this order: restoration, creation, and enhancement. Consider example code language in Bunten et al. (2012) for this provision. Revise to include the following required references: Wetland Mitigation in Washington state-Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans- Version 1 (Ecology Publication #06-06-011b) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, Western Washington (Ecology Publication #09-06-32). BAS indicates that wetland restoration has a better likelihood of replacing wetland functions as opposed to creation, etc. Bunten et al. 2012 Bunten et al., 2012; Ecology 2006a and 2006b Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 15 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.350 (1) Mitigation Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS. Section 1 description for mitigation sequencing isn’t completely consistent with BAS guidance. Provisions will be redundant if general mitigation sequence is added to introductory section of CAO. Remove entire section if recommendation to add a general mitigation sequence section to Article II is implemented. Or Update section using example language in Footnote 4. WAC 197-11-168; CTED, 2007 18.22.350 (3) Mitigation Inconsistent with BAS. Recent Ecology/Corps guidance indicates that mitigation banks and ILF programs have a significantly greater likelihood of mitigation success, as opposed to permittee-responsible mitigation. If a bank or ILF program is available in a given area, the Corps has recently started requiring that the bank/ILF be utilized (as opposed to on-site mitigation). There is no allowance for the use of mitigation banks and ILF programs; federal and state agencies are now requiring the use of these mitigation programs, if and when they are available. Consider adding a new subsection that allows for mitigation banks and ILF programs, and consider specifying that mitigation using banks or ILF programs is preferred over permittee-responsible mitigation (regardless of location), if the wetland alteration falls within the service areas of an existing bank or ILF program. Consider using example language in Footnote 12. Inconsistent with current federal mitigation preference Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. Final Rule. (Federal Register 73(70): 19594-1970) Article VIII. Special Reports 18.22.360 (N/A) General requirements Could be revised for clarity. Code does not include general provisions for special reports to be prepared by a qualified professional. Revise to include a new section that requires preparation by a qualified professional. CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 16 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Code does not include incorporation of best available science. Code does not include set of general requirements for critical areas/special report content. Revise to include new section for incorporating best available science. Consider including a new section with a set of general minimum report requirements to improve consistency between individual critical area report requirements; see Footnote 13 for example language. CTED, 2007; GMA (RCW 36.70A) Improves clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.370 Waivers Could be revised for clarity. Section 1 does not include code reference (JCC 18.22.010) to goals, purposes, and objectives. Include reference in section. Improve internal consistency and clarity. 18.22.440 (3) Habitat management plan Could be revised to be more consistent. Section does not include requirement for identifying any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area. Include new subsection requiring identification of species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species. CTED, 2007 18.22.450 (2) Wetland delineation report Could be revised to be more consistent. Section includes some, but not all BAS requirements for qualified professionals. Consider revising section to include certified professional wetland scientists or non- certified professional wetland scientists with a minimum of five years’ experience in the field of wetland science and with the experience preparing wetland reports. CTED, 2007 18.22.450 (3) Wetland delineation report Inconsistent with BAS. Section 3(c)(i)references outdated wetland delineation manual. Revise section to refer to the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. Compliance with federal and state requirements (WAC 173-22-035) 18.22.450 (3) Wetland delineation report Inconsistent with BAS. Code requires some but not all minimum reporting requirements for wetlands. Revise to include minimum requirements. See Footnote 14 for example language. Bunten et al., 2012 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 17 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.450 (4) Wetland delineation report Could be more consistent with BAS. Code requires some but not all BAS reporting requirements for mitigation plans for wetlands and/or buffers. Revise section using example language provided in Footnote 15. Bunten et al., 2012 Article IX. Alternative Protection Standards – Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs) Critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) – all sections Consistent with BAS and GMA. The CASP provisions appear to be sufficient to provide equal or greater protection of critical areas because: article applies to only a subset of critical areas; includes clear and stringent performance standards with a focus on functions on values; requires a thorough report documenting site conditions and proposed development including goals and objectives; requires an as-built plan; requires long-term maintenance and monitoring; includes plans for contingency; and has an enforcement provision. The CASP article appears to lack the requirement of performance bond (typically 120% of mitigation/restoration cost). Add provision requiring a performance bond. CTED, 2007; Granger et al. 2005 Article X. Implementation Strategies 18.22.570 through 630 NA NA Consider removing sections that are not used. Or Review and revise against current County implementation practices. Item identified by County staff. Update to reflect current County procedures. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 18 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Article XI. Watershed Monitoring 18.22.640 Watershed monitoring NA NA Review and revise against current monitoring practices. Update to reflect current County procedures. Article XII. Adaptive Management 18.22.650 Adaptive management NA NA Consider removing sections that are not used. Or Review and revise against current County implementation practices. Item identified by County staff. Chapter 18.10 Definitions 18.10.020 B Definitions Could be revised to be more consistent. Inconsistent with BAS and guidance. The definition for “best available science” references WAC 365- 195-900 but does not include other important criteria established in the WAC. The definition for “buffer” does not make reference to critical areas or legally established, functionally isolated areas (JCC 18.22.095). Revise definition to include “WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195-925”. Revise definition to be more consistent with definition included in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012) and reference JCC 18.22.095. CTED, 2007 Bunten et al., 2012; also improves consistency between sections. 18.10.020 C Definitions Inconsistent with BAS and GMA. Code does not include a definition of “critical areas”. Consider including a definition for “critical areas” that is consistent with definition found in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012). WAC 365-490 Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 M Definitions Inconsistent with BAS. The definition of “mitigation” does not include the mitigation sequence. Revise definition to be more consistent with definition included in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012). Bunten et al., 2012 and adherence to federal and state standards. 18.10.020 O Definitions Inconsistent with BAS. Code does not include a definition for “ordinary high water mark”. Consider including a definition for “ordinary high water mark” that is consistent with definition found in guidance (Bunten et al., Bunten et al., 2012 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 19 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 2012). 18.10.020 Q Definitions Could be revised to be more consistent. The definition of “qualified wetlands consultant” does not include all of the qualifications required by WAC 365-195-905. Consider revising definition to be more general so that it can apply to multiple critical areas (FWHCAs, geohazards, CARAs, etc.) and not just wetlands. See guidance (Bunten et al, 2012) for example language. WAC 365-195-905 Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 S Definitions Inconsistent with BAS. Code does not include a definition for “stream”. Consider including a definition for “stream” that is consistent with definition found in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012). Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 W Definitions Inconsistent with GMA (RCW 36.70A.030) The definition of “wetland” provided in JCC 18.10.020.W is not entirely consistent with RCW/Ecology guidance definition. Revise definition to be consistent with RCW/Ecology guidance. See Footnote 9 for example language. Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 Definitions After the suggested revisions are made to the CAO, consider re-visiting the definition section to make sure that the applicable terms are defined, and that the definitions are consistent with those in the GMA and guidance materials. Footnotes 1Possible language for NEW section “Jurisdiction” (From CTED Handbook 2007): A. The [city/county] 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 this Title include: a. Wetlands as designated in Wetlands [Chapter X.20]; b. Critical aquifer recharge areas as designated in Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas [Chapter X.30]; c. Frequently flooded areas as designated in Frequently Flooded Areas [Chapter X.40]; Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 20 of 29 d. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Geologically Hazardous Areas [Chapter X.50]; and e. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas [Chapter X.60]. C. All areas within the [city/county] 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 this Title. 2Possible language for NEW section “Critical Area Project Review Process” (From CTED Handbook 2007): General Requirements A. As part of this review, the [city/county] shall: 1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant; 2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas; 3. Determine whether the proposed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas; and 4. Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses the impacts and avoids impacts to the critical area associated with the project. B. If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the [city/county] shall: 1. Require a critical area report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional; 2. Review and evaluate the critical area report; 3. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this Title; 4. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized; and 5. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this Title. 3Possible language for NEW section “Best Available Science Standard” (From CTED Handbook 2007): 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. 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 WAC 365-195-925. 4 Potential language for NEW section “Mitigation Sequencing” (From WAC 197-11-768 and CTED Handbook 2007): Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 21 of 29 (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action (usually by either finding another site or changing the location on the site). (2) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts. (3) Rectifying adverse impacts 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. (4) Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods. (5) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations over the life of the action. (6) Compensating for adverse impacts to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. (7) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. 5Possible language for NEW section “Regulated Activities” (adapted from Bunten et al., 2012): The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any regulated activity that potentially affects a critical area or its buffer unless otherwise exempted by these regulations. Where a regulated activity would be partly within and partly outside a critical area or its buffer, the entire activity shall be reviewed pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. Applicable activities are as follows: 1. Removing, excavating, disturbing, or dredging soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter or materials of any kind. 2. Dumping, discharging, or filling with any material. 3. Draining, flooding, or disturbing the water level or water table, or diverting or impeding water flow. 4. Driving pilings or placing obstructions. 5. Constructing, substantially reconstructing, demolishing, or altering the size of any structure or infrastructure. 6. Destroying or altering vegetation through clearing, grading, harvesting, shading, or planting vegetation that would negatively affect the character of a critical area. 7. Activities that result in significant changes in water temperature, physical or chemical characteristics of water sources, including quantity and pollutants. 8. Any other activity potentially affecting a critical area or buffer not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this chapter as determined by the department. 9. The construction of new recreation trails within the buffer, which shall be low intensity, designed, and constructed of permeable materials which protect water quality, allow adequate surface water and groundwater movements, do not contribute to erosion, and are located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas, and designed to avoid or reduce the removal of trees. 6Possible language for NEW section “Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement” (From CTED Handbook 2007): Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 22 of 29 A. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Title, 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 Title. B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by 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). 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 1. For alterations to critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area, provided that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; c. The critical area 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; and d. Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in Section X.10.250 (Mitigation Plan Requirements) shall be submitted to the [director]. 2. For alterations to flood and geological hazards, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area, provided that, if the violator can demonstrate that greater safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre-development hazard; b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. D. Site Investigations. The [director] is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Title. The [director] shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property. E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this Title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Title is committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Title 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 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 23 of 29 violation of any of the provisions of this Title. The civil penalty shall be assessed at a maximum rate of ________ dollars per day per violation. (The amount of the penalty needs to be decided locally and should be consistent with other adopted civil penalties. Commonly, the penalty is $1,000 per day per violation) 7Possible language for NEW section “Relationship to Other Agencies and Regulations”: a. These critical areas regulations shall be in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the City. Compliance with other regulations does not exempt the applicant from critical areas regulations. In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other City regulations, those regulations which provide the greater protection to critical areas shall apply. 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. 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 or conditional use permits, shoreline variances, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic project approval (HPA), Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. 8Possible language for 18.22.070 (5) and renamed to “Operation, Maintenance, or Repair” (From CTED Handbook 2007): Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems, that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance includes vegetation management performed in accordance with best management practices that is part of ongoing maintenance of structures, infrastructure, or utilities, provided that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an endangered or threatened species. 9Possible language for 18.22.070 (8) exempt emergency activities and subsequent restoration (From CTED Handbook 2007): Emergencies. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventative action in a timeframe too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this Title. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 24 of 29 a. Emergency actions that create an impact to a critical area or its buffer shall use reasonable methods to address the emergency; in addition, they must have the least possible impact to the critical area or its buffer. The person or agency undertaking such action shall notify the City within one (1) working day following commencement of the emergency activity. Within thirty (30) days, the [director] shall determine if the action taken was within the scope of the emergency actions allowed in this Subsection. If the [director] determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the scope of an allowed emergency action, then enforcement provisions of Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement [Section 18.22. X] shall apply. After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action shall fully fund and conduct necessary restoration and/or mitigation for any impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the emergency action in accordance with an approved critical area report and mitigation plan. The person or agency undertaking the action shall apply for review, and the alteration, critical area report, and mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the City in accordance with the review procedures contained herein. Restoration and/or mitigation activities must be initiated within one (1) year of the date of the emergency, and completed in a timely manner 10Possible language for a NEW section under 18.22.270, “Mitigation” (From CTED Handbook 2007): E. Mitigation and Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater 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. 11Definition from Ecology guidance (Bunten et al., 2012): “wetland” or “wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. 12Example language for 18.22.350(3) – excerpt of Sample Wetlands Chapter (Bunten et al., 2012) E. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same sub-drainage basin and on the site of the alteration except when all of paragraphs 1-4 below apply. In that case, mitigation may be allowed off-site within the subwatershed of the impact site. When considering off-site mitigation, preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an in-lieu fee program, or advanced mitigation. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 25 of 29 1. There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage basin (e.g., on-site options would require elimination of high-functioning upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); 2. On-site mitigation would require elimination of high-quality upland habitat. 3. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the altered wetland. 4. Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless: a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or b. Credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the certified bank instrument; c. Fees are paid to an approved in-lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts. 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. C. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. At the least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. 13 Possible language for NEW section “Minimum report contents” (From CTED Handbook, 2007): At a minimum, the report shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit requested; 2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including: a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be cleared; and b. A description of the proposed stormwater management plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage alterations. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 26 of 29 3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area; 5. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report, and all assumptions made and relied upon; 6. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to critical areas resulting from development of the site and the proposed development; 7. An analysis of site development alternatives including a no development alternative; 8. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing [Section X.10.240] to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; 9. Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed, to offset any impacts, in accordance with Mitigation Plan Requirements [Section X.10.250], including, but not limited to: a. The impacts of any proposed development within or adjacent to a critical area or buffer on the critical area; and b. The impacts of any proposed alteration of a critical area or buffer on the development proposal, other properties and the environment; 10. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and proposed activity; 11. Financial guarantees to ensure compliance; and 12. Any additional information required for the critical area as specified in the corresponding chapter. 14 Example language for 18.22.450(3) – excerpt of Sample Wetlands Chapter (Bunten et al., 2012): B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum: 1. The written report shall include at a minimum: a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland- related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project. b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon. c. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, etc. d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, rating system forms, or impact analyses including references. e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best available information. f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project site provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.B) of this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 27 of 29 classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on-site portion and entire wetland area including off-site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site. g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives, including a no-development alternative. h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development. i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.XX) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas. j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land-use activity. k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions. l. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the method used and data sheets. 2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the written report and must include, at a minimum: a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and required buffers on site, including buffers for off-site critical areas that extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical areas; grading and clearing limits; areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates). b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s) associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project. 15Example language for JCC18.22.450(4) – excerpt from Wetlands chapter (Bunten et al., 2012): I. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall be required, meeting the following minimum standards: 1. Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports (Section XX.060.B) of this Chapter. 2. 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 #06-06-011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised). Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 28 of 29 a. The written report must contain, at a minimum: i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the compensatory 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; and a vicinity map for the project. ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding lands uses, and functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of this Chapter. iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. . Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession?). v. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands. vi. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities. vii. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands). viii. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant materials, construction materials, installation oversight, maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. ix. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation areas. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum: Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix Page 29 of 29 i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed wetland and/or buffer compensation actions. ii. Existing topography, ground-proofed, at two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed to create the compensation area(s). Also existing cross-sections of on-site wetland areas that are proposed to be altered, and cross-section(s) (estimated one-foot intervals) for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer compensation. iii. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Also, illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the estimates of future hydrologic conditions. iv. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water regimes. v. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. Also, identify any zones where buffers are proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards identified in this Chapter. vi. A plant schedule for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, timing of installation. vii. Performance standards (measurable standards reflective of years post-installation) for upland and wetland communities, monitoring schedule, and maintenance schedule and actions by each biennium.