The following special reports may be required to provide environmental information and to present proposed strategies for maintaining, protecting and/or mitigating critical areas:
(1) 
Wetland report;
(2) 
Mitigation plan;
(3) 
Habitat management plan;
(4) 
Buffer enhancement plan;
(5) 
Geotechnical report/geological report;
(6) 
Hydrogeological report.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
Special reports shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the department for regulated uses when required by the Director, pursuant to this Title, and for the protection of a critical area.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
The applicant shall pay for or reimburse the city for the costs incurred in the preparation of special reports or tests and for the costs incurred by the city to engage technical consultants or staff for review and interpretation of data and findings submitted by or on behalf of the applicant. The applicant shall pay permit fees or technical assistance fees as required by the city. In such circumstances where a conflict in the findings of a special report and the findings of the city in review of the special report exists, the applicant or affected party may appeal such decisions of the city pursuant to the appeal procedures as provided in this title.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
Any special report prepared by a professional as described in this article shall include his or her resume, or other list of qualifications, to aid the department in assessing these qualifications.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
(1) 
Wetland Delineation Report. A wetland report shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
(a) 
Vicinity map;
(b) 
When available, a copy of a National Wetland Inventory Map (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and/or a wetland inventory map, as approved by the city, identifying the wetlands on or within 300 feet of the site;
(c) 
A site map setting forth all of the following:
(i) 
Surveyed wetland boundaries based upon delineation by a wetland specialist;
(ii) 
Site boundary property lines and roads;
(iii) 
Internal property lines, right-of-way, easements, etc.;
(iv) 
Existing physical features of the site including buildings, fences, and other structures, roads, parking lots, utilities, water bodies, etc.;
(v) 
Contours at the smallest readily available intervals, preferably at two-foot intervals;
(vi) 
Hydrologic mapping showing patterns of surface water movement and known subsurface water movement into, through, and out of the site area;
(vii) 
Location of all test holes and vegetation sample sites, numbered to correspond with flagging in the field and field data sheets;
(viii) 
The department may require an air photo with overlays displaying the site boundaries and wetland delineation;
(d) 
A report which includes the following:
(i) 
Location information (legal description, parcel number and address);
(ii) 
Delineation report. The wetland boundaries on the site established by the delineation shall be staked and flagged in the field. If the wetland extends outside the site, the delineation report shall discuss all wetland areas within 300 feet of the site, but need only delineate those wetland boundaries within the site;
(iii) 
General site conditions including topography, acreage, and surface areas of all wetlands identified in the Kitsap County wetland atlas and water bodies within one-quarter mile of the subject wetland(s);
(iv) 
Hydrological analysis, including topography, of existing surface and known significant subsurface flows into and out of the subject wetland(s);
(v) 
Analysis of functional values of existing wetlands, including vegetative, fauna, and hydrologic conditions;
(e) 
A summary of proposed activity and potential impacts to the wetland(s);
(f) 
Recommended wetland category, including rationale for the recommendation;
(g) 
Recommended buffer boundaries, including rationale for boundary locations;
(h) 
Site plan of proposed activity, including location of all parcels, tracts, easements, roads, structures, and other modifications to the existing site. The location of all wetlands and buffers shall be identified on the site plan.
(2) 
Administrative Wetland Boundary and Ranking Evaluation.
(a) 
An informal determination of the regulated wetland boundary and an evaluation of any unranked regulated wetland may be completed by the department for any minor new development project listed in Article II of this chapter, unless the applicant wishes to employ a qualified wetland biologist at the applicant's expense, or if such a report is required by the department. Fees may be collected for this determination and evaluation.
(b) 
Methodology for delineation of the regulated wetland boundary shall be the plant community assessment procedure, which is described in the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements.
(c) 
The wetland boundary shall be field staked and this line shall be depicted on the building site plan application.
(d) 
The regulated wetland boundary and regulated wetland buffer shall be identified on all grading, building site, utility or other development plans submitted on the project.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
(1) 
Whenever the department has determined that losses of regulated critical areas are necessary and unavoidable, or a review of a regulated critical area or its buffer is proposed, or an exception to uses is allowed or a variance to standards is granted, a mitigation plan shall be prepared which is considered in the following order of preference and for consistency with POMC § 20.162.026:
(a) 
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions. This may be accomplished by selecting a reasonable alternative that does not involve critical area or critical area impacts, applying reasonable mitigation measures, such as drainage and erosion control, alternative site planning, and/or using best available technology. In reviewing development proposals required to submit a mitigation plan, the department shall first determine if the impact can be avoided (e.g., impacts cannot be avoided if denial of the development proposal or parts thereof or mitigation measures would result in an extraordinary hardship and denial of reasonable use of property).
(b) 
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. This may be accomplished by selecting a reasonable alternative that avoids most critical area impacts, applying reasonable mitigation measures, such as drainage and erosion control, alternative site planning, and/or using best available technology. In reviewing development proposals required to submit a mitigation plan, the department shall determine if the impact can be first avoided and secondly minimized. Impacts cannot be avoided or minimized if denial of the development proposal or parts thereof or mitigation measures would result in an extraordinary hardship and denial of reasonable use of property.
(c) 
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. This may be done by reestablishing critical area and critical area buffer characteristics on a site which have been lost by alterations or activities. Rectifying shall be accomplished in accordance with a mitigation plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements in subsection (4) of this section and has been approved by the department. In reviewing development proposals required to submit a mitigation plan, the department shall determine if the impact should be rectified. Impacts can be rectified if mitigation measures would not result in an extraordinary hardship and denial of reasonable use of the property.
(d) 
Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. Unless required elsewhere by this chapter, compensation shall occur on-site and be in- kind. When it is adequately demonstrated that there is no feasible opportunity for on-site compensation the director may approve an offsite compensatory approach. This may be done by improving existing critical areas and buffers at another location, or otherwise providing a substitute critical area resource at another location as compensation for any unavoidable adverse impacts. Compensating shall be accomplished in accordance with a mitigation plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements in subsection (4) of this section and has been approved by the department. In reviewing development proposals required to submit a mitigation plan, the department shall determine if the impact should be compensated. Impacts can be compensated if compensation and mitigation measures would not result in an extraordinary hardship and denial of reasonable use of property. Compensation of critical area impacts may be waived by the department for development authorized by POMC § 20.162.038, Exceptions.
(2) 
The overall goal of any mitigation plan shall be no net loss of regulated critical area functions and acreage.
(3) 
Those persons proposing compensatory mitigation projects shall show that the compensation project is associated with an activity or development otherwise permitted and that the restored, created, or enhanced critical area will be as persistent as the feature it replaces by accomplishing the following:
(a) 
Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial resources to carry out the project; and
(b) 
Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and for making corrections during this period, if the project fails to meet projected goals; and
(c) 
Protect and manage or provide for the protection and management of the compensation area to avoid further development or degradation.
(4) 
Mitigation plans shall be implemented by the project applicant, and include the following components:
(a) 
Baseline Information. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted critical area shall be produced by the applicant or applicant's consultant and shall include, at a minimum: existing critical area acreage; critical area functions; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic characteristics; habitat conditions; and topographic elevations.
(b) 
If the compensation site is off site from the impacted critical area site, baseline information about it, in addition to the above information about the impacted critical area, shall be provided by the applicant and shall include all those items listed in subsection (4)(a) of this section and as well as: the relationship of the compensation site within the watershed and to existing water bodies; existing and proposed existing compensation site conditions; buffers; and ownership.
(c) 
Environmental Goals and Objectives. The report shall identify goals and objectives and include:
(i) 
The purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection criteria, identification of compensation goals, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions, dates for beginning and completion of compensation measures, and a complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought at the mitigation site. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions of the original critical area or, if out-of- kind, the type of critical area to be emulated; and
(ii) 
A review of the available literature and/or experience to date in restoring or creating the type of habitat proposed shall be provided. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the original critical area shall be provided based on the experiences of comparable projects, if any. An analysis of the likelihood of persistence of the created, restored, or enhanced critical area shall be provided based on such factors as: habitat conditions; dynamics of ecosystem; presence of invasive flora or fauna; potential human or animal disturbance; and previous comparable projects, if any.
(d) 
Performance Standards. Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan are being achieved at various stages in the project and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria.
(e) 
Detailed Construction Plans. Written specifications and descriptions of compensation techniques shall be provided including the proposed construction sequence, grading and excavation details, erosion, sediment and stormwater recharge control features needed for site construction and long-term survival, a planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; the source of plant materials, propagules, or seeds; water and nutrient requirements for planting; where appropriate, measures to protect plants from predation; specification of substrate stockpiling techniques and planting instructions; descriptions of water control structures and water-level maintenance practices needed to achieve the necessary hydrocycle/hydroperiod characteristics; sufficient information to address anticipated sea level rise when applicable; etc. These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. The plan shall provide for elevations which are appropriate for the desired habitat type(s) and which provide sufficient tidal prism and circulation data.
(f) 
Monitoring Program. A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided. Monitoring must include sufficient information to adequately assess the progress of a project. Monitoring may include, but is not limited to:
(i) 
Establishing vegetation plots to track changes in plant species composition and density over time;
(ii) 
Using photo stations to evaluate vegetation community response;
(iii) 
Sampling surface and subsurface waters to determine pollutant loading and changes from the natural variability of background conditions (pH, nutrients, heavy metals);
(iv) 
Measuring base flow rates and stormwater runoff to model and evaluate water quantity predictions by a licensed engineer in the state of Washington, where required;
(v) 
Measuring sedimentation rates, if applicable; and
(vi) 
Sampling fish and wildlife populations to determine habitat utilization, species abundance and diversity. A protocol shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the progress of the compensation project. A monitoring report shall be submitted annually and, at a minimum, documenting 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 of less than five years.
(vii) 
The city shall require monitoring reports on an annual basis for a minimum of five years. Certain types of habitat communities require additional time for establishment and may require monitoring for 10 or more years depending on the site-specific circumstances and the scope of the mitigation project.
(g) 
Contingency Plan. Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluating indicates project performance standards are not being met.
(h) 
Permit Conditions. Any compensation project prepared pursuant to this section and approved by the department shall become part of the application for the permit.
(5) 
Performance Bonds and Demonstration of Competence. A demonstration of financial resources, administrative, supervisory, and technical competence and scientific expertise of sufficient standing to successfully execute the compensation project shall be provided. A compensation project manager shall be named, and the qualifications of each team member involved in preparing the mitigation plan and implementing and supervising the project shall be provided, including educational background and areas of expertise, training and experience with comparable projects. In addition, in certain conditions the City may permit bonds ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measure to be posted in the amount of 150 percent of the expected cost of compensation and shall be effective for a period of no less than three years and no greater than 10 years after completion of the mitigation plan, at the discretion of the City.
(6) 
Waiver. The department may waive portions of this report if, in his or her opinion, there is adequate information available on the site to determine its impacts and appropriate measures.
(7) 
List of Qualified Consultants. The department shall establish a list of qualified consultants to prepare mitigation plans.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
A habitat management plan is a report to provide an analysis and discussion on the project's effects on a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and to address how the project impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas will be mitigated. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations, and supplemental documents are advised to serve as guidance for this report. A habitat management plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(1) 
The habitat management plan shall contain a detailed site plan prepared at an easily readable scale, showing:
(a) 
The location of the proposed development site;
(b) 
The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic features, water features, and cultural features;
(c) 
Proposed building locations and arrangements;
(d) 
A legend which includes a complete legal description, acreage of the parcel, scale, north arrows, and date of map revision.
(2) 
The habitat management plan shall also contain a report, which describes:
(a) 
The nature and intensity of the proposed development;
(b) 
An analysis of the effect of the proposed development, activity or land use change upon the wildlife species and habitat identified for protection; and
(3) 
Mitigation Sequencing. When an alteration to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following order of preference and for consistency with POMC § 20.162.026.
(a) 
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) 
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
(c) 
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
(d) 
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
(e) 
Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments.
(f) 
Monitoring the required mitigation and taking remedial action where necessary. Monitoring shall occur for a minimum of five years. Certain types of habitat communities require additional time for establishment and may require monitoring for 10 or more years depending on the site-specific circumstances and the scope of the mitigation project.
(4) 
A plan which identifies how the applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts to wildlife habitats created by the proposed development. (See mitigation plan requirements, Article VIII of this chapter.)
(5) 
Possible mitigation measures to be included in the report, or required by the department, could include, but are not limited to:
(a) 
Establishment of buffer zones;
(b) 
Preservation of critically important plants and trees;
(c) 
Limitation of access to habitat areas;
(d) 
Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and
(e) 
Establishing phased development requirements and/or a timetable for periodic review of the plan.
(6) 
This plan shall be prepared by a person who has been educated in this field and has professional experience as a fish or wildlife biologist. Where this plan is required for the protection of an eagle habitat, the eagle habitat management plan shall normally be prepared by the Department of Wildlife, as required under the bald eagle management rules.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
(1) 
A buffer enhancement plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, storm water detention, ground water recharge, shoreline protection, and erosion protection functions of the buffer and assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions. The buffer enhancement plan shall be prepared by a qualified specialist or biologist and provide the following:
(a) 
A map locating the specific area of enhancement;
(b) 
A planting plan that uses native plant species indigenous to this region including groundcover, shrubs, and trees;
(c) 
A set of performance standards shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the plan are being achieved at various stages during the monitoring program. Such criteria may include survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria;
(d) 
Provisions for monitoring and maintenance over the monitoring period. Monitoring shall occur for a minimum of five years. Certain types of enhancement may require additional time for establishment and may require monitoring for 10 or more years depending on the site-specific circumstances and the scope of the mitigation project.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
(1) 
A geotechnical report shall include a description of the site geology, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, opinions and recommendations of the adequacy of the site to be developed, the effects of groundwater interception and infiltration, seepage, potential slip planes, and changes in soil bearing strength, and the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures. A geotechnical report may contain information obtained with subsurface investigative measures such as test pit digging, soil boring, water well installation or Dutch Cone Penetrometer investigations. Reports containing engineering design recommendations; i.e., recommendations for foundations (loading, sizing, depth, or settlement estimates), pile or pier design, retaining structures, or recommendations for construction on slopes steeper than 30 percent, must be prepared by or in conjunction with a licensed geotechnical engineer as defined in subsection (2) of this section.
A geological report shall include the above, with the exception of engineering design recommendations, and need not make use of subsurface investigative measures. As the report will not include engineering recommendations, a geological report may be prepared by a geologist or engineering geologist as defined in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) 
Geotechnical reports shall be prepared by a geotechnical engineer (a civil engineer licensed by the state of Washington who is knowledgeable of regional geologic conditions and who has at least four years' professional experience in landslide and/or seismic hazard evaluation). Geological reports may be prepared by a geologist, engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer knowledgeable in regional geologic conditions and having at least four years' professional experience in site evaluation and development studies, and landslide and/or seismic hazard evaluation.
(3) 
Report recommendations for siting structures in high risk areas shall be based on existing site conditions rather than measures that have not yet been successfully approved, designed or constructed (e.g., slope recontouring, slope retaining walls, vegetation improvements, bulkheads, etc.). Shoreline bulkheads and retaining walls may only be utilized as an engineering solution where it can be demonstrated that an existing residential structure cannot be safely maintained without such measures, and that the resulting retaining wall is the minimum necessary to provide a stable building area for the structure.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)
A hydrogeological report shall be required for certain proposed operations based on a consultation with the appropriate local and state agencies. The report shall address the impact the proposed land use will have on both the quality and quantity of the water transmitted to the aquifer. The report shall also address the types of pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers that can safely be used for the care of landscaping proposed by the applicant.
(1) 
The report shall be submitted to the reviewing authority and address, at a minimum, the following criteria:
(a) 
Surficial soil type and geologic setting;
(b) 
Location and identification of wells within 1,000 feet of the site;
(c) 
Location and identification of surface water bodies and springs within 1,000 feet of the site with recharge potential;
(d) 
Description of underlying aquifers and aquitards, including water level, gradients and flow direction;
(e) 
Available surface water and groundwater quality data;
(f) 
Effects of the proposed development on water quality;
(g) 
Sampling schedules required to assure water quality;
(h) 
Discussion of the effects of the proposed development on the groundwater resource;
(i) 
Recommendations on appropriate BMPs (best management practices) or mitigation to assure no significant degradation of groundwater quality; and
(j) 
Other information as required by the Bremerton-Kitsap County health district.
(2) 
The hydrogeologic report shall be prepared by a professional geologist/hydrologist or by a soil scientist with a strong background in geology as demonstrated by course work from an accredited college or university and/or has a minimum of five years' experience.
(3) 
Applications for development or operations with underground storage of petroleum products will be processed using the appropriate procedure as specified in existing state regulations and city ordinances.
(4) 
Analysis for a specific parcel(s), using the criteria outlined below, will be employed to determine if the soils present require a recharge area designation. Data collection will include, at a minimum: six soil logs to a depth of 10 feet (or to a depth four feet below the lowest proposed excavation point whichever is greater) for each acre in the parcel(s) being evaluated. At least one well which is 300 feet or greater in depth with an adequate drilling report must be available within one mile. The associated data shall be analyzed and included in the hydrogeologic report to determine the presence of highly permeable soils with the recharge area designation.
For development proposals within aquifer recharge areas of concern, the hydrogeological report may be based on quarter-quarter section basis locations where the number of wells within a half-mile radius is 36 or more, and are designated aquifer recharge areas. To facilitate computer analysis, the evaluation may be done on a quarter-quarter section basis using the quarter-quarter section in which a parcel of interest is located and all the surrounding quarter-quarter sections, in place of the half-mile circle.
(Ord. 018-25, 11/18/2025)