Article V Critical Areas Reports

Demonstrate that the submitted proposal is consistent with the purposes and specific standards of this title;

Describe all relevant aspects of the development proposal; all critical areas adversely affected by the proposal including any geologic or flood hazards; all risks to critical areas, the site, and other public and private properties and facilities resulting from the proposal; and assess impacts on the critical area from activities and uses proposed; and

Identify proposed mitigation and protective measures as required by this title.

(4)

The critical areas report shall include information to address the supplemental report requirements for specific critical areas (16D.03.18).

(5)

The administrative official shall review the critical areas report for completeness and accuracy, and shall consider the recommendations and conclusions of the critical areas report to assist in making decisions on development authorizations and to resolve issues concerning critical areas jurisdiction, appropriate mitigation, and protective measures.

(6)

Critical areas reports shall generally be valid for a period of five (5) years, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the administrative official that the previously prepared report is adequate for current analysis. Future land use applications may require preparation of new, amended, or supplemental critical area assessment reports. Reports prepared for nearby lands may be deemed acceptable by the administrative official, in whole or in part, if relevant to the current analysis and meeting the above standards. The administrative official may also require the preparation of a new critical area assessment report or a supplemental report when new information is found demonstrating that the initial assessment is in error. If the administrative official requires more information in the report, he/she shall make the request in writing to the applicant stating what additional information is needed and why.

(7)

The administrative official may reject or request revision of the critical areas report when the administrative official can demonstrate that the assessment is incomplete, or does not fully address the critical areas impacts involved.

(8)

To avoid duplication, the reporting requirements of this chapter shall be coordinated if more than one critical area report is required for a site or development proposal.

(9)

Applicants should provide reports and maps to the County in an electronic format that allows site data to be incorporated into the County critical areas database; provided, that the County may waive this requirement for single-family developments. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate with the administrative official regarding electronic submittal guidelines. This requirement shall not be construed as a requirement to use specific computer software.

(10)

At a minimum, a critical areas report shall include the following information:

A site plan showing the proposed development footprint and clearing limits, and all relevant critical areas and buffers within and abutting the site, including but not limited to effects related to clearing, grading, noise, light/glare, modification of surface or subsurface flow, drilling, damming, draining, creating impervious surface, managing stormwater, releasing hazardous materials, and other alterations. Projects in frequently flooded areas must comply with the requirements of section 16D.05.20 through 16D.05.72. For projects on or adjacent to geologically hazardous areas or areas subject to high floodwater depth or velocity the report shall identify the type of hazard and assess the associated risks posed by the development to critical areas, the site, and other public and private properties and facilities that are the result from the proposal, and assess costs on the critical area from activities and uses proposed;

A written description of the critical areas and buffers on or abutting the site, including their size, type, classification or rating, condition, disturbance history, and functions and values. For projects on or adjacent to geologically hazardous areas or areas subject to high floodwater depth or velocity the description shall identify the type and characteristics of the hazard;

An analysis of potential adverse critical area impacts associated with the proposed activity. For geologically hazard areas, also assess the risks posed by the development to critical areas, the site, and other public and private properties and facilities that are the result from the proposal, and assess impacts on the critical area from activities and uses proposed;

An explanation of how critical area impacts or risks will be avoided and/or minimized, how proposed mitigation measures will prevent or minimize hazards, why the proposed activity requires a location on or access across a critical area, the on-site design alternatives, and why alternatives are not feasible;

When impacts cannot be avoided, the report shall include a plan describing mitigation to replace critical area functions and values altered as a result of the proposal, or to reduce flood or geologic hazards to critical areas, the site, and other public and private properties. For projects on or adjacent to geologically hazardous areas or areas subject to high floodwater depth or velocity the plan shall address mitigation for impacts to critical areas, the site, and other public and private properties and facilities that are the result from the proposal, and assess impacts on the critical area from activities and uses proposed;

(f)

The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of analysis methods including any fieldwork performed on the site; and

(g)

Additional reasonable information requested by the administrative official for the assessment of critical areas impacts or otherwise required by the subsequent articles of this title.

(11)

A critical area report may be supplemented by or composed, in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the administrative official.

(12)

The administrative official may limit the required geographic area of the critical area report as appropriate.

(13)

Compensatory Mitigation Plans. When compensatory mitigation, as described in section 16D.03.10 (Mitigation Requirements), is required or proposed for wetland areas or stream channels, the applicant shall submit for approval by Yakima County a mitigation plan as part of the critical area report, which includes:

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

A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas, mitigating actions proposed, and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria, identification of compensation goals and objectives, identification of desired resource functions, dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities, and an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the impacted critical area;

A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation;

A description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed;

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

Detailed Construction Documents. The mitigation documents shall include written specifications and plans describing the mitigation proposed, such as:

The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;

Grading and excavation details;

Erosion and sediment control features;

A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and

(v)

Measures to protect and maintain plants until established; and

(vi)

Documents should include scale drawings showing necessary information to convey both existing and proposed topographic data, slope, elevations, plants and project limits;

(f)

Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years 1, 3, 5, and 7 after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years;

(g)

Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met;

(h)

Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, if necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with section 16D.03.27(1) (Financial Guarantees).

(14)

Innovative Mitigation.

Yakima County encourages innovative mitigation projects that are based on the best available science. The mitigation plan shall be used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and provide relief and/or deviation as appropriate from the specific standards and requirements thereof. Advance mitigation or mitigation banking are examples of alternative mitigation projects allowed under the provisions of this Section wherein one or more applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist:

Creation or enhancement of a larger system of critical areas and open space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas;

The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively;

The group demonstrates that long-term management of the habitat area will be provided;

There is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified mitigation site;

(v)

There is a clear likelihood for success of the proposed plan based on supporting scientific information and demonstrated experience in implementing similar plans;

(vi)

The proposed project results in equal or greater protection and conservation of critical areas than would be achieved using parcel-by-parcel regulations and/or traditional mitigation approaches;

(vii)

The plan is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this chapter;

(viii)

The plan shall contain relevant management strategies considered effective and within the scope of this chapter and shall document when, where, and how such strategies substitute for compliance with the specific standards herein; and

(ix)

The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the purposes of this chapter, a description of how such standards will be monitored and measured over the life of the plan, and a fully funded contingency plan if any element of the plan does not meet standards for compliance.

Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process does not reduce or eliminate the required wetland replacement ratios.

16D.03.18 Supplemental Report Requirements for Specific Critical Areas.

Projects that propose compensatory wetland mitigation shall also use the standards in sections 16D.07.05 (Compensatory Mitigation Requirements). For those situations where a mitigation bank may provide an opportunity for mitigation, then the requirements in section 16D.07.06 (Wetland Mitigation Banks) shall apply.

(Ord. 14-2007 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2007)

(1)

Stream Corridors. When a critical areas report is required for a stream corridor or hydrologically related critical area, it shall include the following:

A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance the functional properties listed in section 16D.06.05 (Functional Properties);

Where there is evidence that proposed construction lies within an immediate zone of potential channel migration, representing a future hazard to the construction, a hydrologic analysis report may be required. The report shall assume the conditions of the one-hundred-year flood, include on-site investigative findings, and consider historical meander characteristics in addition to other pertinent facts and data.

(2)

Upland Wildlife. When a critical areas report is required for Upland Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, it shall include the following:

Habitat Assessment. A habitat assessment is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the presence or absence of such species, and areas with which such species have a primary association. The presence or absence assessment shall incorporate the time sensitive nature of species use. The landowner may submit an assessment prepared by the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over the species. This assessment is time sensitive and the assessment must be completed no more than 36 months prior to the date the critical areas application is deemed complete.

If the habitat assessment determines that such habitat area is present on site, a management plan is required that follows published federal, or state, management recommendations. The administrative official shall confer with the appropriate agency and consider their comments through the review process.

(3)

Wetlands. When a critical areas report is required for wetlands, it shall include the following:

The exact location of a wetland's boundary and wetland rating shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified wetland professional applying the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication No. 96-94, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9694.pdf) as required by RCW 36.70A.175 (Wetlands to be delineated in accordance with manual), and the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-15), as amended;

All delineated wetlands and required buffers within two hundred (200) feet of the project area shall be depicted on the site plan. For areas off-site of the project site, wetland conditions within 200 feet of the project boundaries may be estimated using the best available information. Best available information should include, but not be limited to, aerial photos, land based photos, soils maps, or topographic maps;

A critical area report for wetlands shall contain an analysis of the wetlands including the following site- and proposal-related information:

A statement specifying all assumptions made and relied upon;

Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets for delineations, the wetland rating form, baseline hydrologic data, etc.;

A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, or impact analyses including references;

Wetland category, including vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;

For projects that will affect the wetland or its buffer, provide the following:

A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions and values listed in section 16D.07.04(1) (Wetland Functions and Rating), and section 16D.06.05 (Functional Properties);

Mitigation sequencing pursuant to section 16D.03.10 (Mitigation Requirements) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. Mitigation shall result in no net loss of wetland functions and values. Mitigation ratios may be necessary and should follow the guidance provided in section 16D.07.05 (Compensatory Mitigation Requirements) of the wetland chapter;

For category II and III wetlands with wetland rating habitat scores over 20 points, a wildlife habitat survey report and a habitat protection plan specific to wildlife using the wetland shall be submitted by a qualified professional. If a contiguous 100-foot wide protected habitat corridor exists between the existing wetland buffer complex and another adjacent wetland habitat found in the survey, this provision may be waived;

(f)

Wetland buffers set forth in Table 6-1 shall only be minimized through application of the shoreline variance permit process and its provisions and criteria.

(4)

Geologically Hazardous Areas. When a critical areas report is required for a geologically hazardous area, it shall include the following; provided, that the administrative official may determine that any portion of these requirements is unnecessary given the scope and/or scale of the proposed development:

A description of the site features, including surface and subsurface geology. This may include surface exploration data such as borings, drill holes, test pits, wells, geologic reports, and other relevant reports or site investigations that may be useful in making conclusions or recommendations about the site under investigation;

A description of the geologic processes and hazards affecting the property, including a determination of the actual hazard types for any suspected and risk unknown hazards identified in the affirmative determination of hazard (16D.08.04);

A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic processes and hazards;

A description of any potential hazards that could be created or exacerbated as a result of site development;

For developments in or affecting landslide hazard areas the report shall also include:

Assessments and conclusions regarding slope stability including the potential types of landslide failure mechanisms (e.g., debris flow, rotational slump, translational slip, etc.) that may affect the site. The stability evaluation shall also consider dynamic earthquake loading, and shall use a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of YCC Title 13 (Building Code);

An analysis of slope recession rate shall be presented in those cases where stability is impacted or influenced by stream meandering, or other forces acting on the toe of the slope;

Description of the run-out hazard of landslide debris to the proposed development that starts up-slope (whether part of the subject property or on a neighboring property) and/or the impacts of landslide run-out on down-slope properties and critical areas.

(5)

Flood Hazards.

Prior to authorization of any major construction project within a floodplain which can be anticipated to displace floodwaters or alter the depth or velocity of floodwaters during the base flood, an engineering report shall be prepared that establishes any new flood elevations that would result for the one-hundred-year flood frequency if the project were implemented.

(6)

Geotechnical Analysis for Flood Hazard Reduction and Shore Modification within Shoreline Jurisdiction.

When a geotechnical report or geotechnical analysis is required within shoreline jurisdiction, it shall include:

A description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes;

Conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development; and

Measures to mitigate potential site-specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development, including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-current properties.

A geotechnical analysis for structural stabilization measures must demonstrate the necessity for shore stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure will be damaged within three years as a result of shore erosion without such hard armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as three years, the report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures.

A geotechnical analysis for structural flood hazard reduction measures must also demonstrate, by a scientific and engineering analysis, feasible alternatives to structural improvements that:

Such measures are necessary to protect existing development;

That nonstructural measures are not feasible;

That impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss; and