Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Bellingham/html/Bellingham22/Bellingham2208.html
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 18:00:59
Document Index: 734826041

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2']

Chapter 22.08 GENERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
22.08.010 Shoreline buffers.
22.08.020 Mitigation sequencing.
22.08.030 Critical areas.
22.08.040 Critical saltwater habitats (fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas).
22.08.050 Critical freshwater habitats (fish and wildlife conservation areas).
22.08.060 Critical area regulations for wetlands within the shoreline jurisdiction.
22.08.070 Flood hazard reduction.
22.08.080 Critical area regulations for geologic hazard areas within the shoreline jurisdiction.
22.08.090 Public access.
22.08.100 Shoreline native vegetation management.
22.08.110 Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution.
22.08.120 Shoreline modifications/stabilization.
22.08.130 Archaeological and historic resources.
22.08.140 Dredging and disposal.
22.08.150 In-water structures.
22.08.160 Clearing and grading.
22.08.170 Landfill.
22.08.180 Lighting.
22.08.190 Parking.
22.08.200 Signage.
22.08.210 Stormwater management facilities.
The policies and regulations within this chapter shall be applied either generally to all shorelines or to shorelines that meet the applicable criteria of the regulation without regard to shoreline designation. These provisions address certain elements as required by RCW 90.58.100(2) and implement the principles as established in WAC 173-26-186. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. Protection of and uses allowed within shorelines and their associated buffers as specified in this title shall be managed in a manner that results in no net loss of shoreline ecological function.
2. The city via the provisions within this title should protect shorelines and their buffers so that they continue to contribute to existing ecosystem-wide processes and shoreline ecological functions.
1. The director shall require the establishment of buffer areas for activities adjacent to critical areas as specified in this program. Buffers shall consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation or areas identified for restoration established to protect the integrity, function and values of the affected habitat. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby.
2. Development shall be buffered and set back from shorelines in accordance with the standards of BMC 22.11.030, Development Regulation Matrices A through F. The buffer widths (riparian habitat area widths) shall be increased beyond the minimum, up to the maximum (except within the waterfront district), as follows:
a. The director determines that the minimum width is insufficient to prevent habitat degradation and to protect the structure and functions of the habitat area;
b. When a frequently flooded area, as specified in BMC 16.55.370(B), exceeds the minimum riparian habitat area width, the riparian habitat area shall extend to the outer edge of the frequently flooded area;
c. When a channel migration zone is present, the buffer width shall be measured from the outer edge of the channel migration zone;
d. When the habitat area is in an area of high blow-down potential, the buffer width shall be expanded an additional 50 feet on the at-risk side; or
e. When the habitat area is within a landslide hazard area, or buffer, the riparian habitat area width shall be the maximum distance of the erosion or landslide hazard area buffer, whichever is greater.
3. The director may allow the buffer width to be averaged between the minimum and maximum buffer widths specified in BMC 22.11.030, Development Regulation Matrices A through F (except within the waterfront district shoreline mixed-use shoreline designation) when all of the following are demonstrated:
a. The width averaging will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions including a net loss to those habitats for anadromous fish and terrestrial species;
b. The recommended buffer width is not reduced below the minimum in any location;
c. The width averaging will not be located within another critical area or associated buffer; and
d. The averaging is part of a restoration or enhancement project that has been reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and overall, achieves a net gain in shoreline ecological function.
4. The following specific activities may only be permitted as part of an authorized use and subject to submittal of a critical area report within a shoreline, or a critical area within shorelines and/or their required buffers when they comply with the applicable policies and regulations of this chapter and Chapters 22.03, 22.04 and 22.09 BMC:
a. Clearing, filling and grading when permitted as part of an authorized activity and shall be subject to the policies and regulations in BMC 22.08.170, Landfill;
b. Shoreline Modification and Stabilization. New, replacement, or substantially improved shoreline modification and/or stabilization features may be permitted as an element of a water-oriented use and in accordance with an approved critical area report that demonstrates compliance with the policies and regulations in BMC 22.08.120, Shoreline modifications/stabilization;
c. Public Roads, Trails, Bridges, and Rights-of-Way. Construction of trails, roadways, and minor road bridging, less than or equal to 30 feet wide, may be permitted in accordance with an approved critical area report and shall comply with the applicable requirements within BMC 22.08.090, Public access, and BMC 22.09.110, Roads, railways, and utilities;
d. Public Utility Facilities. New utility lines and facilities may be permitted to cross watercourses in accordance with an approved critical area report and shall comply with the policies and regulations within BMC 22.09.110, Roads, railways, and utilities;
e. Public Flood Protection Measures. New public flood protection measures and expansion of existing ones may be permitted, subject to the city’s review and approval of a critical area report and the approval of a federal Biological Assessment by the federal agency responsible for reviewing actions related to a federally listed species. Said protection measures shall comply with the applicable policies and regulations in this title, including the requirements in BMC 22.08.070, Flood hazard reduction;
f. In-water structures, as defined, shall be allowed as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project approved by the city and upon acquisition of any required state or federal permits or as an element of a water-dependent or aquatic use. Said structures or features shall be designed to avoid modifying flows and water quality in ways that may adversely affect critical areas and habitat conservation areas and shall comply with the applicable policies and regulations in BMC 22.08.030, Critical areas, BMC 22.08.040, BMC 22.08.150, In-water structures, BMC 22.09.060, Piers, floats, pilings – Lake Whatcom and Lake Padden, and BMC 22.09.070, Piers, floats, pilings within marine shorelines;
g. Public Stormwater Conveyance Facilities. (This does not include stormwater management facilities such as detention ponds, stormwater vaults or wetlands.) Conveyance structures may be permitted within a required buffer in accordance with an approved critical area report when all of the following are demonstrated:
i. No other feasible alternatives with less impact exist;
ii. Mitigation for impacts including water quality is provided;
iii. Stormwater conveyance facilities shall incorporate fish habitat features; and
iv. Vegetation shall be maintained and, if necessary, added adjacent to all open channels and ponds in order to retard erosion, filter out sediments, and shade the water. Additional vegetation shall consist of species capable of achieving a height sufficient to provide substantial shade to the adjacent water body, provided they do not alter channel migration and flood conveyance capacity; and
h. Restoration and enhancement activities subject to the standards in BMC 22.09.100, Restoration and conservation, and as specified in subsection (B)(5) of this section; and
i. Establishment of a native vegetation protection area and/or an engineered stormwater management mechanism(s) if required per Chapter 16.80 BMC or as a voluntary action for development or redevelopment within the shorelines of Lake Whatcom; provided, that:
i. Existing native trees and shrubs are not removed or they may be relocated on site.
ii. Structural engineered stormwater mechanisms shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from an existing bulkhead or from the OHWM or as otherwise required by Chapter 15.42 BMC, whichever is greatest.
iii. All activity is compliant with the performance standards and seasonal restrictions in Chapters 15.42 and 16.80 BMC.
5. Restoration and enhancement projects, when approved by the director and the Bellingham Field Office of the Department of Ecology, may approve buffers and setbacks different from those included in the development regulation matrices in BMC 22.11.030(A) through (F), Development Regulation Matrices, provided such projects meet the purpose and intent of this chapter and are agreed to by affected property owner(s). Said restoration projects shall include sufficient legal and/or fiscal guarantees to assure specific performance of the project.
6. Restoration and enhancement projects that alter the location of the OHWM on affected properties shall be subject to the applicable requirements in BMC 22.09.100, Restoration and conservation. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
A. For all developments, applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to shoreline ecological functions. Applicants shall follow the mitigation sequential descending order of preference below:
3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas and their associated buffers, by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the equivalent or better than the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action or project;
5. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas and their associated buffers by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and
6. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action and appropriate corrective action to fully restore the intended ecological functions of the mitigation action, as proposed.
B. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. In determining mitigation measures, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable.
C. Mitigation when required pursuant to this section shall comply with the submittal requirements as specified in Chapter 22.06 BMC.
D. Application of the mitigation sequencing in subsection (A) of this section shall achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions for each new development and shall not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function.
E. When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation sequencing in subsection (A) of this section, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly or are in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified critical needs for shoreline resource conservation based on the 2004 SCI, watershed or comprehensive resource management plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. Critical areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are to be protected and managed in such a manner that the result of any use activity or development is no net loss of shoreline ecological function, and is in accordance with the standards and requirements within this title.
2. Critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction should be protected and restored by integrating the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including the comprehensive plan, inter-local watershed plans, local development regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs.
3. The city should protect critical areas and their existing shoreline ecological functions so that they continue to contribute to existing ecosystem-wide processes.
4. The city and other special interest groups, organizations or nonprofit entities should restore and enhance degraded critical areas as separate restoration projects to improve existing shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, where feasible and appropriate.
5. The city should promote uses and values that are compatible with the other objectives of this section, such as public access and native vegetation management, provided they do not significantly adversely impact shoreline ecological functions.
1. For development within critical areas or their associated buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction, the following standards shall apply:
a. Development within critical areas shall result in a no net loss of ecological function;
b. Development shall adhere to the applicable requirements within this title;
c. Development proposals shall adhere to the applicable submittal requirements as specified in Chapter 22.06 BMC;
d. Development shall include the requirements for mitigation sequencing as specified in BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing;
e. Where mitigation is required, the applicable mitigation report submittal requirements as specified in Chapter 22.06 BMC shall apply; and
f. Development within two or more critical area types shall be required to adhere to the standards that are the most protective of the ecological function of the subject shoreline or critical area.
2. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species.
a. Whenever activities are proposed within or adjacent to a habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the city.
b. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). The city shall verify the location of eagle management areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity shall not occur prior to approval of the habitat management plan by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
c. Whenever activities are proposed within or adjacent to a designated habitat of local significance or that may likely adversely affect a designated species of local importance (each category designated by city council per ordinance), such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the city.
3. All activities, uses and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat including, but not limited to, adhering to the standards within this program.
4. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be introduced into a habitat conservation area unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval.
5. Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve contiguous wildlife habitat corridors in accordance with a mitigation plan that is part of an approved critical area report to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed.
6. Mitigation of alterations to critical areas and buffers 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. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. Development within critical saltwater habitats including, but not limited to, designated habitats of local significance, all kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt and sand lance, subsistence, commercial and recreational shellfish beds, mudflats, intertidal habitats with vascular plants, and areas with which priority species have a primary association, should result in no net loss of ecological function, comply with the applicable requirements in this title and those specific use policies and regulations in Chapter 22.09 BMC.
2. Protection of critical saltwater habitats should incorporate the participation of resource agencies including tribal nations to assure consistency with other legislatively created mandates and programs in addition to local and regional government entities. (Including but not limited to Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, Port of Bellingham, Puget Sound Action Team, Department of Ecology.)
3. Permitted uses adjacent to or within critical saltwater habitats should not compromise the ability to restore these features in the future.
1. No structures of any kind shall be placed in or constructed over critical saltwater habitats unless they result in no net loss of ecological function, are associated with a water-dependent use, comply with the applicable requirements within this chapter and Chapter 22.09 BMC and meet all of the following conditions:
a. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat;
b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose;
c. The project is consistent with the state’s interest in resource protection and species recovery;
d. The public’s need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020;
e. Shorelands that are adjacent to critical saltwater habitats shall be regulated per the requirements within this program.
2. A qualified professional shall demonstrate compliance with the above criteria in addition to the required elements of a critical area report as specified in Chapter 22.06 BMC. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. The city should manage its critical freshwater habitats within shoreline jurisdiction including, but not limited to, those portions of streams, wetlands, and lakes, their associated channel migration zones, and floodplains and designated habitats of local significance in order to achieve a no net loss of shoreline ecological function and in accordance with this title.
2. Protection and restoration measures should address the entire length of the shoreline riparian corridor from the headwaters to the subject estuary.
3. Use activities and development within stream channels, associated channel migration zones, wetlands, and floodplains, to the extent such areas are in the shoreline jurisdictional area, should be minimized to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions associated with said areas, including the associated hyporheic zone.
4. Restoration planning should include incentives and other means to restore water connections that have been impeded by previous development and provisions to protect hydrologic connections between waterbodies, watercourses, and associated wetlands.
5. Comprehensive watershed management planning, when available, should be implemented to protect critical freshwater habitat areas.
1. No structures of any kind shall be placed in or constructed over critical freshwater habitats unless they are for a preferred use and result in no net loss of ecological function and are compliant with the applicable requirements of this title. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
All land use and development including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, construction of infrastructure, buildings, facilities, accessories and appurtenances that are proposed, developed, occupied and operated within wetlands regulated under BMC 16.55.270 or their buffers shall comply with the following regulations. Wetland ratings shall be established in accordance with BMC 16.55.280.
A. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured horizontally from edge of the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The width of the wetland buffer shall be determined according to Tables 1, 2, and 3 below.
B. Buffer Standards. The buffer standards required by this title presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the director may increase the standard buffer, requiring buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging.
The standard buffer shall be based on the wetland category, the adjacent land use, and the functions provided by the wetland. There are three sets of buffer standards, based on these parameters:
1. For wetlands that have a high level of function for wildlife habitat as indicated by a habitat function score of 29 points or more on the wetland rating form, the buffers shall be as follows:
Definitions for high-, moderate- and low-intensity land use are provided in Chapter 22.10 BMC.
2. For wetlands that have a moderate level of function for wildlife habitat as indicated by a habitat function score of 20 to 28 points on the wetland rating form, the buffer shall be as follows:
3. For wetlands that have a low level of function for wildlife habitat as indicated by a habitat function score of less than 20 points on the wetland rating form, the buffers shall be as follows:
C. Modifications to Buffer Widths. Any modifications to the buffer width are to be based on the specific wetland functions, site and/or watershed characteristics, and location of the wetland within the watershed or sub-basin, and the proposed land use.
1. Increasing Buffer Widths. The director shall have the authority to increase the standard buffer width on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is required by an approved habitat management plan as outlined in BMC 22.06.100, Permit revisions; or such increase is necessary to:
a. Protect the function and value of that wetland, including but not limited to compensating for a poorly vegetated buffer that has a steep slope (greater than 30 percent); or
b. Prevent wind-throw damage; or
c. Maintain viable populations of species such as herons and other priority or fish and wildlife; or
d. Protect wetlands or other critical areas from landslides, erosion or other hazards.
2. Reducing Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall have the authority to reduce the standard buffer widths; provided, that all of the following apply and, provided further, that proposed reductions to less than the minimum buffer stated herein shall require approval of a shoreline variance:
a. The buffer of a Category I wetland shall not be reduced;
b. The buffer reduction shall not adversely affect the functions and values of the adjacent wetlands;
c. The buffer of a Category II or III wetland shall not be reduced to less than 75 percent of the required buffer or 50 feet, whichever is greater;
d. The buffer of a Category IV wetland shall not be reduced to less than 50 percent of the required buffer, or 25 feet, whichever is greater; and
e. The applicant implements all reasonable measures to reduce the adverse effects of adjacent land uses and ensure no new loss of buffer functions and values. The specific measures that shall be implemented include, but are not limited to, the following:
i. Direct lights away from the wetland and buffer;
ii. Locate facilities that generate substantial noise (such as some manufacturing, industrial and recreational facilities) away from the wetland and buffer;
iii. Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides and fertilizers within 150 feet of the wetland;
iv. Implement integrated pest management programs;
v. Infiltrate or treat, detain and disperse runoff into buffer;
vi. Construct a wildlife permeable fence around buffer and post signs at the outer edge of the critical area or buffer to clearly indicate the location of the critical area according to the direction of the city;
vii. Plant buffer with “impenetrable” native vegetation appropriate for the location;
viii. Use low impact development techniques to the greatest extent possible;
ix. Establish and record a permanent conservation easement to protect the wetland and the associated buffer.
3. Averaging Buffer Widths. The director has the authority to average wetland buffer widths on a case-by-case basis when all the following criteria are met:
a. The buffer averaging does not reduce the functions or values of the wetland;
b. The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer, and all increases in buffer dimension for averaging must be parallel to the wetland boundary;
c. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation;
d. The buffer width is not reduced in any location to less than 50 percent of the standard width or 35 feet, whichever is greater, except for buffers for Category IV wetlands, and low-intensity land uses in which case the narrowest buffer width can be determined on a case-by-case basis;
e. The buffer has not been reduced in accordance with subsection (C)(2) of this section. Buffer averaging is not allowed if the buffer has been reduced; and
f. There were no feasible alternatives to the site design without buffer averaging.
D. Buffer Maintenance. Final buffer conditions shall be maintained and undisturbed from future impacts.
E. Buffer Impacts. Where impacts to buffers cannot be avoided and where buffer reduction and averaging are not sufficient or appropriate to offset buffer impacts, compensatory mitigation shall be provided. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall follow the requirements of BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing.
F. Buffers on Mitigated Sites. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter and based on expected category of the wetland once the mitigation actions are taken.
G. Building Setbacks from Buffers. Unless otherwise provided, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all wetland buffers or from the edges of wetlands, if no buffers are required, to the extent that the critical root zone of trees in the buffer are not disturbed. The following may be allowed in the building setback area:
3. Roof eaves and overhangs;
4. Pervious unroofed stairways and steps;
5. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations.
H. Stormwater management facilities are not allowed in wetland buffers, with the following exceptions:
1. Conveyance systems may be located in wetland buffers on a case-by-case basis if deemed necessary and approved by the public works and planning departments.
2. Full dispersion of flow, as defined in Chapter 15.42 BMC (Stormwater Management), may be allowed in a wetland buffer if approved by the public works and planning departments.
3. The above facilities or methods are allowed only if impacts to the buffer, resulting from their installation, are avoided or mitigated.
I. Wetland hydrology shall not be adversely affected by stormwater management. Post-development wetland hydrology shall match pre-development wetland hydrology to the maximum extent feasible. An annual evaluation of hydrologic conditions, conducted by a qualified wetland professional or hydrologist, may be required to document hydrologic conditions.
J. Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions shall occur in the following order of preference after mitigation sequencing as specified in BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing, has been applied:
1. Restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formally wetlands.
2. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of non-native introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is a consistent source of hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is being designed.
3. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area to meet appropriate ratio requirements.
K. Specific Types of Mitigation. The following types of mitigation are fully defined in Chapter 22.10 BMC. In the interest of consistency, they are the definitions provided by the Army Corps of Engineers in its “Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-02.” They have also been adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology. For the purposes of this chapter, the mitigation categories are:
1. Restoration. This includes re-establishment or rehabilitation.
3. Enhancement. Unlike restoration activities, enhancement results in a change of wetland functions, not a net gain of function or wetland acres.
4. Preservation. Preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation is allowed. Preservation as the sole means of mitigation for wetland impacts may be allowed if the wetland area to be preserved meets all of the following criteria:
a. The preserved wetland and buffer are protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or dedication as a separate tract;
b. The area proposed for preservation is of high quality (scores between 51 and 100 points in the wetland rating system), is located in the same watershed, and is critical to the health of the watershed or sub-basin. Some of the other high quality features include:
i. Rare wetland types such as bogs, mature forested wetlands, estuaries, or vital wildlife habitat;
ii. High regional or watershed importance;
iii. Large size with high species diversity (plants and/or animals) and a high abundance;
c. Preservation is used as a form of compensation only after mitigation sequencing specified in BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing, has been applied;
d. Creation, restoration, and enhancement opportunities have also been considered and preservation is the best mitigation option;
e. Preservation sites include buffer areas adequate to protect the habitat and its functions from encroachment and degradation;
f. The impacts are to a Category II, III, or IV wetland;
g. The preservation site is determined to be under imminent threat, specifically sites with the potential to experience a high rate of undesirable ecological change due to on- and/or off-site activities;
h. Replacement ratios are listed in Table 4. Replacement ratios for preservation used in combination with other forms of mitigation are to be determined by the director.
L. Location. Site selection for compensatory mitigation shall be based on a location that will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest likelihood of success. Where feasible, mitigation shall occur in the same sub-basin as the permitted wetland alteration. However, if it can be demonstrated that a mitigation site in an alternative sub-basin or watershed would provide a greater ecological benefit and offer a more successful replacement of wetland functions and values, compensatory mitigation can take place in an alternative sub-basin or watershed.
M. Mitigation Banking. Mitigation banking is encouraged if it provides a greater ecological benefit and provides a more successful replacement of wetland functions and values. This chapter does not expressly regulate mitigation banking; state guidelines for mitigation banking should be adhered to.
N. Mitigation Ratios. The following ratios appearing in Table 4 and consideration of factors described in this section shall be used to determine the relative amount of created, restored, or enhanced wetlands that will be required to replace impacted wetlands. The first number refers to the amount of wetland area providing mitigation and the second refers to the amount of wetland area impacted or altered.
Wetland Replacement Ratios
Restoration (Rehabilitation)
BMC 16.55.280(A)(4)
Mature forested wetland or BMC 16.55.280(A)(6) scores 70 points or more in wetland rating
BMC 16.55.280(A) all others
Case-by-case basis; may not be possible
1. Provisions for Increasing or Decreasing Ratios. The director may increase or decrease the ratios based on one or more of the following:
i. The proposed mitigation actions are conducted in advance of the impact and are shown to be successful;
iii. Documentation by the applicant provides more certainty that the proposed compensation action will be successful. Documentation could include extensive hydrologic data to support the proposed water regime.
O. Mitigation Report Requirements.
1. Prepared by a Qualified Professional. A wetland mitigation report shall be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in Chapter 22.10 BMC.
2. Report Requirements.
a. Detailed summary of the project, including the wetland and buffer impacts and the proposed mitigation, to appear in the beginning of the report;
b. Complete site characterization to include parcel size, soils, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, and topography;
c. Complete site characterization of the proposed mitigation site to include parcel size, soils, vegetation, hydrology, topography and wildlife;
d. Goals, objectives, and performance standards of the mitigation proposal;
e. Monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plan;
f. Function assessment of wetland to be impacted;
g. Delineation report, with maps, of site to be impacted;
h. Map of development, with scale, overlaid on wetland delineation map; and
i. An estimate for surety for the entire project, including the required number of years of maintenance. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. Flood hazard reduction measures should not result in a net loss of ecological functions associated with the rivers and streams.
2. Flood hazard reduction measures should be consistent with comprehensive strategies that recognize the natural hydrogeological and biological processes of waterbodies and should seek to restore ecological functions within frequently flooded areas.
3. Development in frequently flooded areas should be prevented or removed to manage stormwater within the floodplain and to maintain or restore a stream system’s natural hydrological and geomorphological processes.
4. Bioengineered flood hazard reduction techniques are preferred and should be examined before structural measures are implemented.
5. The city should facilitate removal of artificial restrictions to natural channel migration, restoration of off-channel hydrological connections and recognize that seasonal flooding is an essential natural process.
6. Flood hazard reduction measures should be integrated with other regulations and programs, including (if applicable):
a. Chapter 15.40 BMC, Drainage;
b. Chapter 15.42 BMC, Stormwater Management;
c. Chapter 17.10 BMC, Building Codes;
d. Chapter 17.76 BMC, Construction in Floodplains;
e. Chapter 16.20 BMC, City of Bellingham Environmental Procedures;
f. Chapter 16.60 BMC, Land Clearing;
g. Chapter 16.70 BMC, Grading;
h. Chapter 16.55 BMC, Critical Areas;
i. BMC Title 18, Subdivisions;
j. BMC Title 20, Land Use Development;
k. The National Flood Insurance Program;
l. 2007 update of the Wastershed Master Plan; and
m. 2006 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan.
1. When permitted, development within flood hazard (frequently flooded) areas shall achieve a no net loss of ecological function and shall comply with the applicable requirements in Chapter 17.76 BMC (Construction in Floodplains), Chapter 22.09 BMC and the following:
a. New development or new uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, shall not be established when it would require flood hazard reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway.
b. The uses and activities specified within BMC 22.08.010(B)(4), Shoreline buffers, may be appropriate and/or necessary within the channel migration zone or floodway provided they are:
i. Actions that protect or restore the ecosystem-wide processes or ecological functions.
ii. Bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures where no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall address impacted functions and processes in the affected section of watershed or drift cell.
iii. Repair and maintenance of an existing legal use; provided, that such actions do not cause significant ecological impacts or increase flood hazards to other uses.
iv. Modifications or additions to an existing nonagricultural legal use; provided, that channel migration is not further limited and that the new development includes appropriate protection of ecological functions.
v. Development in incorporated municipalities and designated urban growth areas where existing structures prevent active channel movement and flooding.
vi. Measures to reduce shoreline erosion when it can be demonstrated that the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition, and that the measure does not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphological processes normally acting in natural conditions, and that the measure includes appropriate mitigation of impacts to ecological functions associated with the river or stream.
c. New structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only when:
i. It can be demonstrated by a critical area report consistent with critical area report requirements as specified in Chapter 22.06 BMC including a scientific and engineering analysis that it is necessary to protect existing development;
ii. It can be demonstrated that nonstructural measures are not feasible;
iii. It can be demonstrated that there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological function including any mitigation required; and
iv. Appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken consistent with this chapter and Chapter 22.09 BMC.
d. Structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan that has been adopted by the city that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system.
e. New structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed landward of the associated wetlands, and designated vegetation conservation areas, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration, or as noted below. Provided, such flood hazard reduction projects may be authorized if it is determined that no other alternative to reduce flood hazard to existing development is feasible. The need for, and analysis of feasible alternatives to, structural improvements shall be documented through a critical area report including a geotechnical analysis.
f. New structural public flood hazard reduction measures, such as dikes and levees, shall be subject to the mitigation sequencing specified in this section and a federal Biological Assessment conducted by a federal agency responsible for reviewing actions related to a federally listed species. New structural public flood hazard reduction measures shall include the ability for the general public to access the shoreline unless said public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, the inability to mitigate impacts, unavoidable conflict with the proposed use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long-term cost of the development.
g. Removal of gravel, sediment and related materials from water bodies is prohibited except for fish and wildlife habitat restoration purposes or for flood management purposes. Removal of gravel for flood management purposes shall only be allowed if all the following conditions can be met:
i. The project is consistent with an adopted flood hazard reduction plan and with this title;
ii. The project does not result in a net loss of ecological functions, including natural sediment transport disruption and resulting impacts to salmon spawning areas, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution; and
iii. A critical area report including a geomorphologic analysis demonstrates that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that:
1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions;
2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas;
3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre-development conditions; and
4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington.
B. Essential public facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practical alternative.
C. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall meet the applicable standards of this chapter and the specific following requirements:
1. Buffer Requirement. A buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the director to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional.
a. Minimum Buffer. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet, whichever is greater, as measured horizontally away from the top and also away from the toe of the slope.
b. Buffer Reduction. The buffer may be reduced (via shoreline variance if within a shoreline buffer) to a minimum of 10 feet when a qualified professional demonstrates to the director’s satisfaction that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments, and uses and the natural shoreline resources and the subject critical area.
c. Increased Buffer. The buffer may be increased where the director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development.
2. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that:
a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions;
b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and
c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas.
3. Design Standards. Development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this chapter. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are:
a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the International Building Code;
b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas;
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography;
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural land forms and vegetation;
e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties;
f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and
g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage.
4. Vegetation Retention. Unless otherwise provided or as part of an approved alteration, removal of vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited.
5. Seasonal Restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1st to September 30th of each year; provided, that the city may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis depending on actual weather conditions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal, may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the city or the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
6. Utility Lines and Pipes. Utility lines and pipes shall be permitted in erosion and landslide hazard areas only when the applicant demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe shall be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed only through a high-density polyethylene pipe with fuse-welded joints, or similar product that is technically equal or superior.
7. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as follows:
a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazards areas downstream from the discharge;
b. Discharged at flow durations matching pre-developed conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater runoff in the pre-developed state; or
c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low-gradient undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and stormwater runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope.
8. Subdivisions. The division of land in landslide hazard areas and associated buffers is subject to the following:
a. Land that is located wholly within a landslide hazard area or its buffer may not be subdivided. Land that is located partially within a landslide hazard area or its buffer may be divided; provided, that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of, and will not affect, the landslide hazard or its buffer.
b. Access roads and utilities may be permitted via shoreline variance within the landslide hazard area and associated buffers if the city determines that no other feasible alternative exists.
9. Prohibited Development. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers.
D. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the standards of performance standards – general requirements (BMC 16.55.490).
E. Mine Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in mine hazard area shall meet the standards of performance standards – general requirements (BMC 16.55.490) and the specific following requirements:
1. Alterations. Alterations of a mine hazard area and/or buffer are allowed, as follows:
a. All alterations are permitted within a mine hazard area with a low potential for subsidence.
b. Within a mine hazard area with a moderate potential for subsidence and at coal mine by-product stockpiles, all alterations are permitted subject to a mitigation plan to minimize risk of structural damage using appropriate criteria to evaluate the proposed use, as recommended in the hazard analysis.
c. Within a mine hazard area with a severe potential for subsidence, no structural activities shall be permitted without an effective settlement mitigation strategy.
2. Subdivisions. The division of land in mine hazard areas and associated buffers is subject to the following:
a. Land that is located within 200 feet of a mine hazard area with a severe potential for subsidence may not be subdivided. Land that is located partially within a mine hazard area may be divided; provided, that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area that is 200 feet away from the mine hazard area with a severe potential for subsidence. Land that is located within a mine hazard area with a low or moderate potential for subsidence may be subdivided.
b. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within 200 feet of a mine hazard area with a moderate or severe potential for subsidence if the city determines that no other feasible alternative exists.
3. Reclamation Activities. For all reclamation activities, including grading, filling, and stockpile removal, as-built drawings shall be submitted to the city in a format specified by the director. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Examples include but are not limited to public parks, trails, piers and boardwalks, view overlooks, street ends, beaches, boating facilities, hand-carry craft launches/pullouts, and water-borne public transportation. The public access provisions below apply to all shorelines of the state unless stated otherwise.
1. Public access, in its variety of forms, should be promoted whenever feasible provided the result is no net loss of the shoreline’s ecological function.
2. Public access should be provided to the shoreline as a primary use or as development occurs while protecting private property rights and public safety.
3. Public access should not compromise the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent and water-related uses.
4. To the greatest extent feasible and consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state, including views of the water, should be protected.
5. Property owners should implement a variety of techniques including acquisition, leases, easements and design and development innovations to achieve public access goals and to provide diverse public access opportunities.
6. Public access provisions should be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other limitations on private property including the constitutional nexus and proportionality requirements.
1. When public access is provided, it shall not result in a net loss of existing shoreline ecological function.
2. When public access is required to be provided, it shall be provided between the development and the shoreline and may be provided within a required buffer area subject to the requirements and exceptions below, and shall be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.
3. When public access is provided within a required buffer, said access shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation sequencing in BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing.
4. Public access, whether developed as a primary use or as a required element of a permitted use, and where applicable, shall be provided and designed consistent with applicable and adopted public access plans such as the City of Bellingham Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2005), public access plans as specified in BMC 22.02.010, General goals and policies, applicable neighborhood plans and/or the Waterfront District Master Plan, as adopted.
5. When public access is required to be provided per an adopted plan as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section, and is intended to be within a required shoreline buffer area, said access shall be designed and sited to minimize the amount of native vegetation removal, soil disturbance and disruption to existing habitat corridor structures and functions.
6. When public access is required per BMC 22.03.030, Shoreline environmental designations, or is proposed as a stand-alone development project and there is not an adopted plan that specifies access and design for that specific access feature, the emphasis shall be on providing said access to the shoreline as opposed to along the shoreline and shall be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
7. Public access shall be provided as development occurs except when:
a. The city is able to provide more effective public access in another location in close proximity through an approved/adopted public access planning process/document. For example, the City of Bellingham Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2005), an element of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the Waterfront Futures Group Framework and Action Plan, the Whatcom Creek Trail Master Plan or the Waterfront District Master Plan, upon adoption.
b. It is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of incompatible uses, safety, security or impact to the ecological function of the shoreline environment or due to constitutional or other legal limitations that may be applicable and consistency with the governing principles in BMC 22.01.040, Governing principles. (WAC 173-26-186) (In determining the infeasibility, undesirability, or incompatibility of public access in a given situation, the city shall consider alternate methods of providing public access, such as off-site improvements, viewing platforms, separation of uses through site planning and design, and restricting hours of public access.)
c. A subdivision of land into four or fewer parcels for future single-family development, or development of individual single-family residences occurs.
d. The development consists solely of dredging, forest practices, clearing and grading, the construction of a private dock serving four or fewer dwelling units, flood control measures, the construction of in-water structures (except those developed specifically for public access), shoreline stabilization measures, signage, shoreline restoration and enhancement not associated with a substantial development permit, or lighting.
8. When public access is required to be provided it shall be designed per a plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the planning and community development, parks and recreation and environmental resources departments or per an adopted public access plan.
9. Where public access is provided, a public access easement or dedication of said access area in favor of the city shall be required.
10. In instances where public access and restoration has already occurred as part of prior action and public access is still required per the applicable shoreline designation, additional public access may be allowed within a required buffer area provided it does not encroach any further into said buffer than the existing public access feature and does not displace or disrupt any elements of the prior restoration action. The type of public access provided in these circumstances shall be reviewed and approved on a site-by-site basis.
11. In instances where public access is proposed in conjunction with a restoration project that includes work within a critical area or its buffer, the public access element may be provided within a critical area or its buffer provided it is the minimum necessary to provide an access function and shall be consistent with applicable requirements in this chapter and Chapter 22.09 BMC. The design and location of said access feature shall not compromise the ability of the restoration project’s ability to achieve its intended objectives.
12. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict between water-dependent shoreline uses or physical public access and maintenance of views from adjacent properties, the water-dependent uses and physical public access shall have priority, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.
13. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict between public access and shoreline ecological function, shoreline ecological function shall have priority, unless said public access is specifically identified in any of the plans specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section or as otherwise determined by the parks director. In this case, said public access shall demonstrate compliance with BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. The city should protect, conserve and establish native vegetation in order to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed within riparian and near-shore areas which include but are not limited to:
a. Protecting plant and animal species and their habitats;
b. Providing food sources for aquatic and terrestrial species;
c. Protecting and increasing the stability of river banks and bluffs;
d. Reducing the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion;
e. Reducing the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures;
f. Improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline;
g. Protecting and improving water quality;
h. Providing continuous shade to the adjacent water body; and
i. Providing habitat corridors parallel and perpendicular to the water body.
2. Installation and management of any native vegetation should be consistent with the City of Bellingham’s 2004 Shoreline Characterization and Inventory (SCI) (Appendix A).
The SCI identified within each reach, the general vegetation types, their age, their distribution or coverage, and their ability to perform, or not, adequate riparian functions. Within each reach, the SCI identified the presence of noxious or non-native vegetation. Required native vegetation management plans and restoration projects should be consistent with the identified objectives in the functional analysis section of the pertinent reach in which a project is located.
3. New restoration plans and projects should be designed to incorporate native vegetation management plans that are similar to the standards as specified in subsection (B) of this section.
4. Native vegetation management plans for riparian areas should include a diversity of both conifer and deciduous tree species as well as noninvasive woody shrubs and as may be specified within the 2004 SCI for the subject reach on which a project occurs.
1. For development on all shorelines, including within a required buffer area, the following shall apply:
a. Removal of or alteration to any native vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction including within critical areas is strictly prohibited unless such activity is required for a permitted use or is determined to be a hazard tree as specified below.
b. Proposed removal of native vegetation for a permitted use shall be reviewed per the mitigation sequencing specified in BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing.
c. The following standards shall apply for removal and replacement of existing native vegetation to all shoreline designations except as specified in subsection (B)(1)(c)(iv) of this section:
i. Removal of native trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with native species and shall be re-established within any required buffer on the project site.
ii. Required buffer areas for riparian, marine and Lake Padden shorelines shall be installed with additional native vegetation that yields a total density mix of two native trees, 10 shrubs and groundcover where none is present per every 100 square feet (except as specified in subsection (B)(1)(c)(iv) of this section). New native vegetation to be installed within required buffers shall include species types that are capable of achieving the objectives specified in the 2004 SCI Functional Analysis per the subject reach.
iii. For development that includes expansion, during the life of the project, of more than 10 percent of an overall existing development footprint, except single-family residences, the requirements in subsections (B)(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of this section shall apply to every 100 square feet of additional footprint above the aforementioned 10 percent and shall be installed within any required buffer (except within the urban maritime shoreline designation and the waterfront district “water-oriented use” sub-areas).
iv. There are no required buffers for those urban maritime and waterfront district “water-oriented use” sub-areas and hence no required native vegetation management standards apply.
d. For development or redevelopment, as defined in Chapter 16.80 BMC, that occurs within the shoreline residential designation, native vegetation shall be installed in required buffer areas as required in subsection (B)(3) of this section and Chapter 16.80 BMC.
2. Within a critical area report as specified within Chapter 22.06 BMC a native vegetation management plan for the project site including the associated buffer shall include the following information except as provided in subsection (B)(3) of this section.
a. The pre-development quantity, species type, distribution, approximate height of native vegetation, diameter at breast height (dbh) for trees only, successional stage of overall vegetative cover, potential native vegetation types, soil type/characteristics, a reference site and any existing hazard trees on the entire site. Said information shall be indicated and represented on a site plan drawn to scale and shall be reflected on an accompanying species and count matrix.
b. Identification of native vegetation to be removed and protected as a result of the proposed site plan.
c. Identification of any non-native or noxious vegetation.
d. Identification of the following: new trees to be installed and that specify installation size of a minimum height of 12 inches to 18 inches and minimum of one-fourth-inch caliper in size; shrubs shall be of at least four different varieties or those recommended by said professional that will accompany the potential native vegetation types; ground cover and a minimum of four inches of wood chip mulch distributed over the entire planting area.
e. Methodology for removal of any noxious or non-native vegetation, necessary soil amendments, installation and maintenance as described above.
f. Preparation of a financial surety (an assignment of funds or surety bond) that accounts for 150 percent of the cost of a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan that ensures a survival rate of 100 percent for trees and 85 percent for all other vegetation. The five-year maintenance and monitoring period shall commence at the time the required native vegetation has been installed, and inspected and verified by a representative from the planning and community development department.
g. “Volunteer” native vegetation is allowed to be counted towards the survival rate percentage requirement as specified in subsection (B)(2)(f) of this section.
3. For native vegetation protection areas that are required for development or redevelopment within the shorelines of Lake Whatcom as required by Chapter 16.80 BMC, the critical area report shall contain the information specified in BMC 16.80.080(E)(2).
If the timing of required installation occurs between April 1st and October 1st of any given year, said installation may be postponed until after October 1st, of the same year, provided a written request for postponement is submitted by the proponent, the financial surety has been secured by the city and the director has issued a letter of approval for said postponement of native vegetation installment.
4. Materials required in subsections (B)(2)(a) through (e) of this section shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the planning department prior to issuance of any development permits on the site. (The parks and public works departments including the environmental resources division shall also review and approve said plan where there is an interface or overlap with a feature that is within their jurisdiction; adjacent to a trail or stormwater management facility.) Installation of all required vegetation and submittal of the maintenance and monitoring report shall be completed prior to receiving any certificate of occupancy for the subject use.
5. As-installed reports shall be submitted to the planning department at the end of each year for the five-year maintenance and monitoring period to assure compliance.
6. Management and replacement of hazard trees shall adhere to the standards within BMC 16.55.080(D)(7).
7. Unless otherwise stated, native vegetation management does not include those activities covered under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, except for conversion to other nonforestry uses and those other forest practice activities over which the city has authority.
8. As with all master program provisions, native vegetation management provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and developments that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit.
9. Like other master program provisions, native vegetation management standards do not apply retroactively to existing uses and structures. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. Shoreline master programs shall, as stated in RCW 90.58.020, protect against adverse impacts to the public health, to the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and to the waters of the state and their aquatic life, through implementation of the following principles:
a. Prevent impacts to water quality and stormwater quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities.
b. Ensure mutual consistency between shoreline management provisions and other regulations that address water quality and stormwater quantity, including public health, stormwater, and water discharge standards. The regulations that are most protective of ecological functions shall apply.
c. Existing public stormwater management systems and facilities should be retrofitted and improved to incorporate low impact development techniques whenever feasible and as specified in Chapter 15.42 BMC.
d. Improving water quality is one of the primary goals within the restoration plan (Appendix B). The water quality improvement objectives should be considered and implemented into future watershed planning including prioritization and identification of retrofitting opportunities.
e. Drainage from single-family residences should not be tight-lined directly to or over shoreline bluffs or steep banks. Drainage, to the maximum extent feasible, should be designed or retrofitted to include water-quality measures that filter out pollutants common to single-family residences such as phosphorus-leaching vegetative material in roof gutters, fertilizers and pesticides and should be discharged at a point that does not prematurely erode the shoreline or the face or toe of said bank/bluff.
f. Boating practices on Lake Whatcom, Lake Padden and Bellingham Bay including operation and maintenance should be conducted in such a manner that prevents harmful substances from entering the water such as gasoline, two-stroke engine fuel, paint and wood conditioner and other boat related substances.
1. Stormwater management facilities shall be developed in such a manner that there is no net loss of ecological function.
2. At a minimum, all phases of development shall be consistent with the requirements within Chapter 15.42 BMC, as amended.
3. When permitted to be located within shorelines, critical areas or their required buffers, stormwater management facilities shall also be subject to the applicable requirements in Chapters 15.42 and 16.80 BMC and this chapter.
4. All phases of development shall provide an “enhanced” level of stormwater management per the latest version of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington.
5. Low impact development (LID) techniques shall be considered and implemented to the greatest extent practicable throughout the various stages of development including site assessment, planning and design, vegetation conservation, site preparation, retrofitting and built-out management techniques.
6. Stormwater management facilities that are proposed within a required buffer for shorelines of Lake Whatcom shall not include any surface structures (except for catch basin covers or cleanouts) or require engineered shoreline stabilization. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Shoreline modifications are generally related to construction of a physical element such as a bulkhead, fill or vegetation removal in conjunction with development of a permitted use. Shoreline stabilization measures are those mechanisms used to prevent erosion and deterioration of shoreline areas as a result of wave, wind, tidal or flooding actions. Shoreline stabilization measures can include but are not limited to examples of shoreline modifications above and vegetation conservation, biotechnical measures, anchor trees or LWD placement, gabion and rip-rapped banks, retaining walls and sheet pilings.
1. New development should be managed and designed to eliminate the need for shoreline modification or stabilization.
2. Replacement of structurally engineered stabilization measures with the same new measures should not occur unless it is associated with a water-dependent use or there is a demonstrated need based on potential loss of a legally permitted use or primary structure or there is a threat to the viability of an existing water-dependent use.
3. Whenever feasible, bioengineered and soft-shore shoreline modifications and stabilization should be explored and implemented before reverting to structurally engineered techniques.
4. New structural shoreline modifications should only be allowed as an element of a water-dependent use or when it is demonstrated to be necessary to protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage.
5. Structural shoreline modification should be allowed if it is necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or restoration purposes.
6. Enhancement of impaired ecological functions should be planned for where feasible and appropriate while accommodating permitted uses. As shoreline modifications occur, all feasible measures including mitigation sequencing should be incorporated to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide processes.
7. In order to maintain the integrity of shoreline bluffs and bank stabilization and to eliminate the necessity of shoreline stabilization, native vegetation removal should be minimized.
8. Surface water should be tight-lined to water treatment features that would avoid contamination of the water body from lawns and yard products and would avoid bank erosion and future sloughing.
1. Bioengineered or “soft” shoreline modification or stabilization techniques shall be considered prior to those techniques that are structurally engineered. It shall be demonstrated by a critical area report including a hydrologic analysis that a bioengineered measure cannot achieve the intended purpose before a submittal and analysis of a structurally engineered measure is proposed.
2. A bioengineered shoreline modification or stabilization measure(s) shall be considered concurrent with the mitigation sequencing in BMC 22.08.020, Mitigation sequencing, and submittal of an approved critical area report that demonstrates the following:
a. Natural shoreline processes including channel migration will be maintained. The project will not result in increased beach or stream-bank erosion, alteration to, or loss of, shoreline substrate within one-quarter mile of the project area, sediment supply and transport will be maintained, migration corridors and spawning areas will not be impacted and aquatic vegetation where it exists will not be minimized.
b. Modification or stabilization techniques will not degrade critical areas or their associated buffers, especially fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
c. The modification or stabilization technique does not prohibit or impede the natural processes of the water body including channel migration, floodwater conveyance and storage and beach acquisition/accretion.
d. The cumulative impacts of a singular shoreline modification on that particular water body shall be analyzed prior to granting of said modification technique.
e. The result of the measure would result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function in the riparian and/or near-shore areas.
3. Structural shoreline modification and/or stabilization shall be allowed if it is necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation, restoration or emergency purposes.
4. In all other cases, a structurally engineered shoreline modification or stabilization measure, including a replacement, shall be allowed when all of the following are demonstrated:
a. Said modification or stabilization measure(s) are necessary as an element of a water-dependent use;
b. It can be demonstrated by a geotechnical/hydrologic report that a bioengineered modification or stabilization technique cannot sustain impacts of wave, current and tidal energy and erosion;
c. It is necessary to protect an existing primary structure demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis that concludes that a given structure is in danger of loss or damage from uncharacteristic or a sudden increase in erosional processes or poses a threat to health, safety and welfare of the general public (loss of yard, grass, landscaping and vegetation, pier abutment, accessory buildings or structures does not constitute an allowance for a structurally engineered measure);
d. For shorelines on Lake Whatcom only; the structurally engineered measure shall be installed above the level of the OHWM; and
e. The requirements in subsections (B)(2)(a) through (e) of this section have been met.
5. Surface water shall be managed in such a manner that it does not create additional pollutant loading to an adjacent water body and/or cause accelerated bank erosion or bank sloughing. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
1. The destruction of or damage to any site having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by the appropriate authorities, including affected Indian tribes, and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, should be prevented.
1. Archaeological sites located both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to Chapter 27.44 RCW (Indian Graves and Records) and Chapter 27.53 RCW (Archaeological Sites and Records).
2. Development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with Chapter 25-48 WAC as well as the requirements within Chapter 17.90 BMC (Historic Preservation Ordinance) and the requirements within this title, where applicable.
3. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the city, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected Indian tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation.
4. Development that is proposed in areas documented to contain archaeological resources shall have a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes. Said evaluation shall be submitted to the planning department prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit required for said development. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Dredging is the removal of material from a stream, river, lake, bay or other water body. The purposes for dredging might include navigation, remediation of contaminated materials, or material mining. Materials generated from navigational and remedial dredging may be suitable for beneficial reuse (e.g., construction of habitat features or construction of uplands) or may require disposal at appropriate disposal facilities.
1. Dredging that involves remediation of contaminated materials should be consistent with the applicable policies within Chapter 70.105D RCW and the standards within Chapter 173-204 WAC, Sediment Management Standards.
2. Dredging within aquatic areas for the primary purpose of acquisition of fill material should not be allowed.
3. Navigational dredging should be permitted; provided, that it minimizes adverse impacts on critical area habitats, shoreline ecological function and water quality.
4. Dredging and beneficial reuse should be consistent with the guidance of the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot Project Comprehensive Strategy and its associated Habitat Restoration Documentation Report, as amended or updated.
5. Where dredging occurs within marine waters for any purpose, except as specified in subsection (A)(2) of this section, the result should be suitable for establishment of a variety of aquatic organisms including salmonids and forage fish, with guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the city’s environmental resources department.
6. When maintenance dredging is necessary within the city’s freshwater systems in order to alleviate flooding, subsequent property damage and excessive fine sediments that prevent creation of redds, dredged material should be replaced with gravel/cobble that is suitable for anadromous fish spawning and rearing with guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the city’s environmental resources department, provided it does not interrupt or adversely affect the system in terms of capacity and velocity.
7. When dredging occurs within marine waters, sufficient notice should be publicized for those individuals or groups who crab, fish or manage aquaculture activities so that proper adjustments to schedule, timing or practices can be made.
1. Dredging that involves remediation of contaminated materials shall be consistent with the policies within Chapter 70.105D RCW and the applicable standards within Chapter 173-204 WAC, Sediment Management Standards, and all other applicable federal, state and local regulations.
2. Dredging requires a shoreline conditional use except for maintenance dredging, dredging to implement a hazardous substance remedial action under RCW 90.58.355 or, for habitat purposes, pursuant to subsection (B)(7) of this section. Dredging of contaminated materials shall be consistent with the conditional use criteria specified in BMC 22.06.050(C)(1) through (6), Conditional uses, and shall be demonstrated by the applicant/owner to be in compliance with said criteria.
3. Dredging, for any purpose, that occurs within the waters of Bellingham Bay or Lake Whatcom shall comply with the applicable requirements in Chapter 22.03 BMC, Jurisdiction, Maps and Environment Designations; Chapter 22.04 BMC, Shorelines of Statewide Significance; and this chapter, General Policies and Regulations.
4. Dredging within aquatic areas for the primary purpose of acquisition of fill material is prohibited unless for uses as specified in subsection (B)(5) of this section.
5. Beneficial reuse of dredged material shall be consistent with the guidance of the Bellingham Bay Comprehensive Strategy and its associated Habitat Restoration Documentation Report, as amended or updated.
6. Dredging within the city’s freshwater shorelines shall only be allowed if the completion of the action results in improved ecological functions and processes.
7. Dredging for the purposes of habitat enhancement, invasive species control and/or restoration when no contaminated material is disturbed is allowed and shall be subject to the applicable requirements in this title. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
In-water (marine and freshwater) structures include but are not limited to jetties, pilings, fish-ladders, mooring dolphins and buoys, breakwaters, groins, weirs, baffles, bridge abutments, gauges and tide gates.
1. In-water structures should be designed to minimize impacts to ecological functions of the water body including but not limited to water quality, anadromous and forage fish habitat, spawning and rearing areas, migration, and passage.
2. In-water structures should not adversely affect hydrologic function including light penetration within the photic zone, sediment transport and current and water circulation patterns.
3. The location and planning of in-water structures should give due consideration to the full range of public interests and environmental concerns.
4. In-water structures should comply with the requirements of applicable state and federal permitting agencies with jurisdiction and consider the recommendations of other nonregulatory organizations such as tribal nations and the Puget Sound Action Team.
5. Analysis of cumulative impacts of in-water structures should be conducted such that the connectivity between habitats for migrating salmonids is maintained and restored where feasible.
1. In-water structures shall not be placed within critical areas unless allowed per the provisions of this program.
2. New in-water structures shall be designed and constructed such that the result is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. New in-water structures shall not adversely affect hydrologic function, ability for light to penetrate within the photic zone, sediment transport and water-circulation patterns.
3. In-water structures that are associated with a water-dependent use are allowed and shall be subject to the requirements in this title.
4. When in-water structures require new shoreline modification or stabilization, those features shall be designed consistent with the requirements within BMC 22.08.120, Shoreline modifications/stabilization.
5. Creosote, arsenic and pentachlorophenol treated in-water structures shall be prohibited.
6. New in-water structures shall comply with the permitting requirements of the applicable agencies for such features including but not limited to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Ecology, the Department of Natural Resources and the United States Coast Guard.
7. In-water structures that are an element of a larger project that would require removal of existing mature native vegetation shall not be permitted unless there is a substantial public benefit or mitigation provided.
8. In-water structures shall not impair or obstruct existing navigation channels or the public’s use of surface water or shoreline areas.
9. In-water structures shall not impair or conflict with navigability of water-dependent uses.
10. In-water structures shall not impair the public’s ability to have physical or visual access to the shoreline or obstruct scenic vistas.
11. Mooring buoys shall only be located in aquatic areas where there would be no adverse impact to aquatic resources and within areas that are managed by a local entity (city or port of Bellingham) via an agreement with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Clearing and grading are permitted as an element of development for an authorized activity or as otherwise allowed in this title.
1. Disturbance to and removal of native soils should be minimized within shorelines.
2. Uses and site design should incorporate protection or re-establishment of the maximum amount of native vegetation on a particular site.
3. Vegetation that is removed as part of a permitted use should be re-established within a required buffer.
1. Clearing, grading, and shoreline native vegetation protection and removal shall comply with the standards in Chapter 22.08 BMC.
2. Disturbance to soils shall adhere to the following standards:
a. Land clearing and fill and grade activity that is associated with a permitted use that occurs within a required buffer shall only be allowed between May 1st and October 1st unless the city extends or shortens the time window on a case-by-case basis or as determined based on actual weather conditions.
b. Filling or grading including excavation within or modification to a critical area is only permitted as part of an approved activity subject to the applicable requirements within this title.
c. The soil duff layer (the matted, partly decomposed organic surface layer of forest soils) shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where feasible any soil disturbed shall be redistributed to other areas of the project site.
d. The moisture holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil compaction or re-establishing natural soil structure and infiltration capacity on all areas of the project area not covered by impervious surfaces.
e. Erosion control that complies with the requirements in Chapter 15.42 BMC shall be provided. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Landfill is the creation of dry upland area by the placement or deposition of sand, soil, gravel or other sediments into a water body, floodplain, or wetland.
1. Landfills should not be permitted within critical areas.
1. Landfills within shorelines shall only be permitted as an element of a water-dependent use and must be demonstrated to be consistent with the substantive requirements in BMC 22.06.050(C)(1) through (6), Conditional uses, and Chapter 22.04 BMC and this chapter where applicable.
2. Landfills, where permitted, shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological function within the shoreline/aquatic area consistent with the restoration objectives within the restoration plan (Appendix B – Table 2) and the specific projects (where applicable) specified in Appendix B – Table 3; and shall provide public access where feasible per BMC 22.08.090, Public access.
3. Landfills shall be constructed in accordance with applicable state and federal laws.
4. Landfills that are part of a hazardous substance remedial action shall be subject to the requirements within BMC 22.05.020(B)(1)(q), Exemptions.
5. Placement of material for the sole purpose of habitat remediation shall be consistent with the restoration and conservation policies of this program and the objectives in the restoration plan – Appendix B. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Lighting within shorelines and lands adjacent to shorelines if not properly managed can have an adverse impact on the ecological function, most notably the migration patterns of salmonids and terrestrial species.
1. Lighting should be minimized within shorelines, especially within close proximity to the water.
1. Development proposals within shorelines shall include a master lighting plan (MLP) that complies with the following standards:
a. Location of all outdoor lighting and building security lighting and associated wattages;
b. Pole heights that shall not exceed 20 feet in height;
c. Fixture designs for all outdoor lighting shall shield the source or bulb of the light; and
d. Photometric plan shall not exceed a strength of one foot-candle at the property lines.
2. Where lighting is required for new streets, driveways or public access features, the lowest level lighting possible shall be used and shall be compliant with safety and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards.
3. Said lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the planning and community development department as a component of the shoreline permit application. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Parking includes private on-site, public lots/structures and on-street, loading and unloading areas. Parking within shorelines is a low priority. Converting land within shorelines for the sole use of vehicles is not an efficient land use.
1. Parking as a primary use (stand-alone use) within the shoreline jurisdiction should be prohibited.
2. Parking should not be allowed between development and the adjacent water body.
3. Parking for permitted uses should be underground or under-building.
4. Visual impacts of surface parking facilities should be effectively mitigated. Parking for permitted uses within the shoreline jurisdiction (but not including parking that is underground or under-building) should be minimized and screened from adjacent public access and buffer areas.
5. Where surface parking is developed within the shoreline jurisdiction, low impact development techniques should be implemented.
6. Lighting for parking areas should be minimized.
7. Loading and unloading zones, especially those inherent to a permitted use, parking for ADA and public parking on improved public rights-of-way, should be allowed when within shoreline jurisdiction.
1. Parking as a primary or stand-alone use shall not be permitted within shorelines.
2. Parking, including parking for ADA and loading/unloading zones, shall not be located within a required shoreline or critical area buffer.
3. Required parking (per Chapter 20.12 BMC) for a permitted use on shorelines shall not be permitted between the development and the adjacent shoreline with the exception of parking that is required for water-dependent uses.
4. Parking for boating facilities including areas for loading and unloading and required ADA parking may be provided within existing buildings or provided within shoreline jurisdiction but not within a required buffer and shall be subject to the requirements in subsection (B)(9) of this section.
5. Loading and unloading zones that are an inherent element of a water-dependent or a water-related use are allowed between the shoreline and the use area when it is adjacent to the shoreline but, when feasible, should not be adjacent to a required buffer.
6. Parking for a permitted use when provided underground or partially under-building shall not be allowed in a required buffer.
7. Where parking areas are located adjacent to a required buffer the parking area shall be set back from the required buffer an additional 15 feet for installation of landscape screening.
8. Required landscaping, as specified in subsection (B)(7) of this section, shall include a mix of native trees and shrubs that effectively screen headlights from vehicles to the abutting buffer area. Gaps in screening are permitted to allow access to viewing areas or public areas where applicable.
9. When surface parking areas for permitted uses are designed and constructed, they shall achieve the following objectives:
a. A safe and signed pedestrian entry point to an established or proposed shoreline trail/walkway or viewing area for physical and visual access to the shoreline;
b. Landscape screening around the perimeter and within the parking area to soften edges and break up large parking areas;
c. Implementation of low impact development techniques for stormwater management; and
d. Located as far from a required shoreline or critical area buffer as possible.
10. Public parking on public street ends that are within shorelines but outside of required buffers is allowed. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Signage within the shoreline zone can present adverse impacts in terms of lighting and view obstruction. Signage for or associated with private development should be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction.
1. If no feasible alternative exists for signage location, then signage should be minimized in terms of size, height and lighting.
2. Directional/wayfinding signage (e.g., public access, boat launch and public fishing) and interpretive signage (historical and cultural) should be permitted in coordination with public access and recreation amenities.
1. Signage shall not interfere or block any existing public view or public view corridor within shoreline areas.
2. Signage shall not be permitted over water with the exception of attached, facade-flush signage on buildings that are presently located or permitted over water.
3. Billboards are prohibited within shorelines.
4. Freestanding signage, other than real estate signage as specified above, within shoreline jurisdiction is limited to 32 square feet. Height of said freestanding signage is limited to 12 feet from existing grade.
5. Roof signage is strictly prohibited within shorelines.
6. Signage within the shoreline jurisdiction shall only be indirectly lit.
7. Signage mounted flush on building facades within shoreline jurisdiction shall not exceed 32 square feet. One sign per building wall is permitted.
8. All other signage shall comply with applicable regulations in BMC 20.12.040.
9. Directional/wayfinding signage (e.g., public access, boat launch and public fishing) and interpretive signage (historical and cultural) should be permitted in coordination with public access and recreation amenities. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].
Stormwater management (detention and treatment) facilities are necessary elements of development. If designed correctly and managed properly they can produce multiple benefits within the shoreline jurisdiction.
1. Stormwater facilities should not be located in areas where there would be an adverse impact to existing shoreline ecological functions.
2. Stormwater management facilities should be designed to incorporate low impact development techniques whenever possible.
1. Stormwater management facilities shall be located outside of critical areas and their required buffers except as specified in BMC 22.08.010(B)(4), Shoreline buffers, and shall be subject to the requirements in BMC 22.08.120, Shoreline modifications/stabilization.
2. Stormwater management facilities shall be subject to the policies and regulations in BMC 22.08.110, Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution.
3. Stormwater management facilities shall provide a minimum of enhanced treatment as defined by the latest version of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, and as further specified in Chapter 15.42 BMC, as amended, and per BMC 22.08.110, Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution.
4. When stormwater management facilities are proposed within shorelines and adjacent to required buffer areas, they shall be designed to provide additional riparian vegetative cover and increase or improve existing habitat corridors including habitat for anadromous fish.
5. New stormwater conveyance facilities (outfalls) shall not be constructed within required shoreline or critical area buffers unless no other feasible alternative exists.
6. Individual shoreline permits shall include a requirement that an applicant prepare a stormwater management facility maintenance program for a five-year period that includes the following elements:
a. Frequency and detail of maintenance of the facilities (this includes but is not limited to catch basin insert and vault cartridge replacement, removal of noxious vegetation, pipe and overflow clean-out and outfall and diffuser maintenance);
b. Copy of signed and implemented contract verifying the entity that will perform the maintenance action and the frequency of the maintenance; and
c. A maintenance report shall be submitted to the planning department each year for five years from the date of issue of the original shoreline permit. [Ord. 2013-02-005 § 2 (Exh. 1)].