A. Aquifer Recharge Areas Hydrogeological Site Assessment.
1. The hydrogeological site assessment shall include:
a. A site map drawn to scale which indicates the location of known or geologically representative wells (abandoned and active), springs, and surface water features within 1,000 feet of the project property boundary;
b. A description of the site-specific hydrogeological characteristics. At a minimum this will include a description of the lithology, depth and static water level of known underlying aquifer(s) and depiction of groundwater flow direction and patterns on the site map;
c. A description of the proposed land use and activities specifically detailing water consumption; an inventory of all chemical use, storage, transportation, production (including process wastewater), and disposal; and any potential pollutant identified by the U.S. EPA as a potential source of drinking water contamination (Appendix A of the Washington State Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Guidance Document) or known to be deleterious to the environment or human health; and
d. A general discussion of surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the area and the identification of the potential adverse quality and quantity impacts to groundwater and surface water features within 1,000 feet of the project.
2. In-Depth Site Assessment Elements. The required elements of the in-depth site assessment for a given development or re-development will be based on the initial site assessment review by the city, the Kitsap public health district, affected tribes, and affected public water purveyors.
One or more of the elements listed in this subsection may be required based upon the proposed project activity, complexity of underlying hydrogeological conditions, and the perceived potential to adversely impact groundwater or surface water quality or quantity. One or more of these elements may also be required if the applicant chooses to demonstrate that mitigation measures are not necessary to protect the quantity or quality of groundwater or surface water or that the project does not pose a risk of detriment to groundwater or surface water. Additional in-depth site assessment elements may include:
a. Lithologic characteristics and stratigraphic relationships of the affected aquifer(s) and overlying geologic units and soil types including thickness, horizontal and vertical extent, permeability, and infiltration rates of surface soils.
b. Delineation of identified structural features such as faults, fractures, and fissures.
c. Aquifer characteristics including determination of recharge and discharge areas, transmissivity, storage coefficient, hydraulic conductivity, porosity, and estimate of groundwater flow direction, velocity and patterns for the affected aquifer(s).
d. Estimate of precipitation and evapotranspiration rates for the project area.
e. Preparation of appropriate hydrogeological cross sections depicting underlying lithology and stratigraphy, aquifer(s), and potential or probable contaminant pathways to both surface and groundwater from a chemical release.
f. Determination of background or existing groundwater quality underlying the project area and water quality of surface water bodies.
g. Contaminant fate and transport including probable migration pathways and travel time of potential contaminant release(s) from the site through the unsaturated zone to the aquifer(s) and through the aquifer(s), and how the contaminant(s) may be attenuated within the unsaturated zone and the aquifer(s) with consideration to advection, dispersion, and diffusion of contaminants in the groundwater.
h. Delineation of areas potentially affected by contaminant migration on the ground surface and/or through potentially affected aquifer(s).
i. Determination of the degree of continuity between groundwater and nearby surface water including potential impacts to baseflow in streams from proposed groundwater withdrawals, and potential impacts to surface water quality from site runoff or contaminated groundwater discharge.
j. Assessment of the potential for pumping-induced seawater intrusion.
k. Nitrate Loading Assessment. For projects that have the potential to adversely impact groundwater quality by nitrate loading, the applicant shall test existing wells and/or required test wells for nitrate as nitrogen and calculate the current and projected future groundwater nitrate concentrations at full project build-out, at appropriate point(s) of compliance, as determined by project characteristics, and in a methodology approved by the city. If the calculated nitrate loading in the intended water supply equals or exceeds five milligrams per liter nitrate as nitrogen, the applicant shall develop a mitigation plan with the point(s) of compliance determined based on project characteristics.
l. Multiple-stage (or phased) development must consider impacts of the total build-out of the project to allow for an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the entire development on critical aquifer recharge areas.
B. Aquifer Recharge Mitigation Plan. For proposals requiring aquifer recharge area impact mitigations, the applicant shall develop for approval by the city a mitigation plan for the proposed development. Affected public water purveyors (Group A and B), affected tribes, and the Kitsap public health district will be notified and invited to comment on all mitigation plans. The city will consider all recommendations submitted by these entities when developing appropriate permit conditions.
The city may, based on performance criteria and monitoring results, require additional amendments to the plan. The city reserves the right to submit mitigation plans for a third-party review at the applicant’s expense and to reject any proposed land use or activity that poses significant risk to groundwater or surface water quality or quantity that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.
1. The mitigation plan shall contain the project’s permit conditions and, as applicable:
a. A description of the mitigation measures to be taken, how they will be implemented, and performance criteria.
b. A groundwater and surface water monitoring program to measure potential impacts of the development to underlying aquifer(s) and surface water. The monitoring plan will describe monitoring, maintenance, and reporting requirements.
c. A contingency plan describing spill response and corrective actions to be taken if a release of a pollutant occurs or monitoring results indicate that mitigation measures are not effectively protecting groundwater and surface water resources and human health. The city shall have the authority to impose additional required corrective actions where such measures are necessary to protect groundwater and surface water resources or human health. Where appropriate contingencies are not feasible and result in an activity posing unacceptable risk to groundwater or surface water resources or human health, the city shall deny the proposal.
d. Multiple-stage (or phased) development must consider mitigation for each phase of development as well as the total build-out of the project to allow for an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the entire development on critical aquifer recharge areas.
e. Conditions that would arise that warrant ceasing the project operation altogether.
f. Wellhead Protection Mitigation. Where a wellhead protection plan addressing the project area exists, the city shall use the recommendations contained in the wellhead protection plan as a basis for formulating required mitigation measures. In the absence of such a mitigation plan, the city shall contact the owner of the public water system (Group A and B) impacted by the proposed project and jointly develop mitigation measures, a summary of which shall be signed by the applicant and recorded with the applicant’s property title.
g. Nitrate Loading Mitigation.
i. General Requirements. If a calculated nitrate loading concentration for a project at the designated point(s) of compliance is equal to or greater than five milligrams per liter nitrate as nitrogen, then the applicant shall be required to place a notification on the documents of title for the property affected. A monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the nitrate level and include a contingency plan to be implemented if the nitrate level exceeds 10 milligrams per liter nitrate as nitrogen.
ii. Land Divisions. If the calculated nitrate loading concentration for a land division at the designated point(s) of compliance is equal to or greater than five milligrams per liter nitrate as nitrogen, then the applicant shall:
A. Develop a mitigation plan to minimize the nitrate loading rate; and
B. Develop a contingency plan to be implemented if the nitrate concentration exceeds 10 milligrams per liter nitrate as nitrogen; and
C. Submit the contingency plan with the final plat application. The contingency plan must be approved by the city, and then recorded with the Kitsap County auditor as part of the final plat. Conditions of the contingency plan shall be listed on the face of the plat.
iii. Mitigation of nitrate in groundwater from on-site septic systems may include decreasing the density of septic system drainfields.
2. Recording of Mitigation Plan Summaries.
a. General Requirements. The city may require that the applicant record a city-approved summary of the mitigation plan on the property title. A copy of the recorded summary shall be provided to the city in hard copy and electronic format. If a property owner can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the city, that mitigation measures are no longer necessary, the city shall approve the addition of language on the title for the property nullifying the mitigation requirements.
b. Land Divisions. The mitigation plan must be approved by the city, and then recorded with the Kitsap County auditor as part of the final plat. Conditions of the mitigation plan shall be listed on the face of the plat.
3. Performance Surety. The director may require that the applicant provide a performance surety to ensure conformance with mitigation requirements of the aquifer recharge mitigation plan pursuant to subsection B of this section.
C. Habitat Management Plan.
1. A habitat management plan (HMP) is a detailed report that outlines and documents the location of fish and wildlife conservation areas, any planned incursions or habitat impacts and a strategy for limiting impacts.
2. HMP Review. All HMPs shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat biologist and to the Suquamish Tribe for review and comment within 14 days of a complete application pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020.J.2. If the HMP recommends mitigation involving federally listed threatened or endangered species, migratory waterfowl or wetlands, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall receive a copy of the draft HMP. Within that same time frame, the city’s environmental technical advisory committee shall be asked to review the HMP and provide comments.
3. Map. The HMP shall contain a map prepared at an easily readable scale, showing:
a. The location of the proposed development site;
b. Property boundaries;
c. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and aquatic features and any connectivity to other wildlife habitat and corridors;
d. Proposed building locations;
e. A legend which includes acreage of the parcel, scale, north arrow, and date of map revision.
4. Report. The HMP shall contain a report that includes:
a. A description of the nature and intensity of the proposed development;
b. Identification of existing habitat functions and values;
c. An analysis of the effect of the proposed development, activity or land use change upon the wildlife species and habitat features and processes identified for protection;
d. Any review comments received from a habitat biologist from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Suquamish Tribe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
e. Demonstration of consistency with current Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations for the applicable habitat or species. If the recommendations are not followed, the HMP report should identify the best available science guidance that is being followed or applied;
f. A description of proposed seasonal activity restrictions in accordance with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations;
g. An analysis of the feasibility to maintain wildlife corridors and connectivity, if applicable;
h. A plan identifying proposed measures to mitigate any adverse impacts to wildlife habitats created by the proposed development. Proposed mitigation measures shall be specific to the affected habitat or species; and
i. A schedule for periodic monitoring, and a contingency plan with corrective actions if conservation or mitigation actions do not lead to the desired outcome.
5. HMP Adequacy. If there is a disagreement between the director and the applicant as to the adequacy of the HMP, the issue of plan adequacy shall be resolved by consulting with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is not available to review the HMP in a timely manner, the applicant may choose to have the city refer the HMP to a third party consultant at the expense of the applicant. After consultation with such state department or third party consultant, the director shall make a final decision on the adequacy of the HMP.
6. Timing. An HMP must be developed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit or underlying land use application and must be implemented before the city grants a certificate of occupancy, as applicable.
7. Performance Surety. The director may require that the applicant provide a performance surety to ensure conformance with mitigation requirements of the habitat management plan pursuant to subsection G of this section.
D. Buffer Enhancement Plan.
1. As part of a buffer modification request, the applicant shall submit a buffer enhancement plan that assesses the functions and values of the buffer and the effects of the proposed modification on those functions and values.
2. The buffer enhancement plan shall clearly demonstrate that equal or greater protection of the functions and values of critical areas and their buffers can be achieved through the buffer modification than could be achieved through providing the required buffer using an appropriate function assessment methodology.
3. The buffer enhancement plan shall identify how the applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts to the critical area or buffer created by the proposed development.
4. The buffer enhancement plan shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of subsection G of this section, Wetland Mitigation Plan.
E. Geological Hazards Assessment.
1. A geological hazards assessment shall contain the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
a. Site and Construction Plans. The report shall include a copy of the site plans for the proposal showing:
i. The type and extent of geologic hazard areas, any other critical areas, and buffers on, adjacent to, or within a zone or distance of potential significant influence as determined by a professional engineer/geologist;
ii. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain, if available;
iii. The topography, as determined by a professional engineer or geologist, of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the report; and
iv. Clearing limits.
b. Assessment of Geological Characteristics. The report shall include an assessment of the geologic characteristics of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially affected adjacent properties, and a review of the site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading. Soils analysis shall be accomplished in accordance with accepted classification systems in use in the region. The assessment shall include, but not be limited to:
i. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, including complexes, hydrology, soils, and vegetation found in the project area and in all hazard areas addressed in the report;
ii. A detailed overview of the field investigations, published data, and references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site; and site specific measurements, test, investigations, or studies that support the identification of geologically hazardous areas; and
iii. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic events.
c. Analysis of Proposal. The report shall contain a hazards analysis including a detailed description of the project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject property, and affected adjacent properties.
d. Minimum Buffer and Building Setback. The report shall make a recommendation for the minimum no-disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical analysis. Where the recommended buffers are less than the standard setbacks set forth in BIMC 16.20.130, the rationale and basis for the reduced buffer shall be clearly articulated and demonstrate that the protection standard set forth in that section has been met.
e. A review of, and recommendations relating to, the low impact development (LID) infeasibility criteria in the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended, demonstrating reasonable consideration of all applicable LID practices.
2. Landslide Hazard and Erosion Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic geologic hazards assessment, an assessment for an erosion hazard or landslide hazard area shall include the following information at a minimum:
a. Erosion Control. An erosion control plan prepared by a civil engineer shall be submitted to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit.
b. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical analysis containing the following information:
i. Site Plan. The critical area report shall include a copy of the site plan for the proposal showing:
A. The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area;
B. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater on or a zone or distance of potential significant influence as determined by a professional engineer/geologist; and
C. The location and description of surface water runoff features.
c. Hazards Analysis. The hazards analysis component of the critical areas report shall specifically include:
i. A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover;
ii. A description of subsurface conditions based on data from site-specific explorations;
iii. Descriptions of surface and groundwater conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural improvements;
iv. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure;
v. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm event;
vi. Consideration of the runout hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide runout on down slope properties;
vii. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed cuts, fills, and other site grading;
viii. Recommendations for building siting limitations;
ix. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion; and
x. A description of the potential modes of failure.
3. Geotechnical Engineering Report. The technical information for a project within a landslide hazard area shall include a geotechnical engineering report prepared by a licensed engineer that presents engineering recommendations for the following:
a. Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate foundations and retaining structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and lateral loads, installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance;
b. Recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements;
c. Earthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement and compaction criteria, temporary and permanent slope inclinations and protection, and temporary excavation support, if necessary; and
d. Mitigation of adverse site conditions including slope stabilization measures for seismically unstable soils, surface water management, location and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and/or replanting plan, and/or other means for maintaining long-term soil stability if appropriate.
4. Seismic Hazards Areas. In addition to basic geologic hazards assessment, an assessment for a seismic hazard area shall also meet the following requirements:
a. Fault Hazard. The applicant shall provide a geologic/geotechnical analysis containing information specified by the city engineer that documents the presence or absence of any surface deformation on the site in areas mapped by the city. If deformation is located, the applicant shall provide a geotechnical analysis containing information specified by the city engineer, which concludes that the development proposal as mitigated meets the standards of this section.
b. Liquefaction Hazard. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical analysis containing information specified by the city engineer that meets the standards of this section (as mitigated).
c. Seismic Landslide Hazard. The applicant shall provide the same analysis and plan as required for landslide hazard areas.
5. Tsunami Hazards. The city shall provide applicants for development in low lying shoreline areas and other areas where flood elevation is controlled by tide level with information on tsunami hazards.
F. Wetland Critical Areas Report. A wetland critical areas report shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
1. A site plan showing the following:
a. Surveyed wetland boundaries based upon a delineation by a wetland specialist or wetland boundaries recorded using a differential global positioning system, based upon a delineation by a wetland specialist.
b. Location of required buffers pursuant to BIMC 16.20.140.I or as proposed through buffer modification.
c. Site boundary property lines and roads;
d. Internal property lines, rights-of-way and easements;
e. Existing physical conditions of the site, including buildings, fences and other structures, existing hard surfaces, utilities, etc.;
f. Contours at the smallest readily available intervals;
g. Hydrologic mapping showing patterns of surface water movement and known subsurface water movement into, through, and out of the site;
h. Location of all test holes and vegetation sample sites, numbered to correspond with flagging in the field and field data sheets; and
i. An aerial photograph with overlays displaying the site boundaries and wetland delineation.
2. A report including the following:
a. Vicinity map;
b. Location information (parcel number and address);
c. General site conditions including topography, size and surface area of all wetlands identified and water bodies within one quarter mile of the site;
d. Analysis of functional values of existing wetlands;
e. Summary of proposed development, use or activities and potential impacts to wetlands;
f. Copies of rating forms and maps from the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised (2014) or as amended;
g. Required buffers pursuant to BIMC 16.20.140.I;
h. Complete U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland determination data forms;
i. National Wetland Inventory map; and
j. Wetland mitigation plan, if compensatory mitigation is required.
G. Wetland Mitigation Plan.
1. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with wetland mitigation in Washington State – Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans – Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b, March 2006), as revised, and, if applicable, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication No. 09-06-032, December 2009) and meet the following standards:
a. All critical area restoration, creation and/or enhancement projects required pursuant to this chapter either as a permit condition or as a result of an enforcement action shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by an expert approved by the director. The applicant or violator shall receive written approval of the mitigation plan by the director prior to commencement. Compensatory mitigation is not required for allowed activities which utilize best management practices to protect the functions and values of regulated critical areas.
b. Purpose of Mitigation Plan. The mitigation plan shall provide information on land acquisition, construction, maintenance and monitoring of the replaced critical area. The mitigation plan shall recreate as nearly as possible the original critical area in terms of its acreage, function, geographic location and setting.
c. Mitigation Plan Submittal Requirements. A complete mitigation plan shall consist of plot plans, a written report, and performance bonds, as required below. The plot plans and written report shall be prepared by qualified professionals approved by the director.
2. Plot Plan Requirements. The following information shall be submitted on one or more plot plans (as determined by the director):
a. A legal description and a survey (boundary and topography) prepared by a licensed surveyor of the proposed development site, compensation site, and location of existing critical area(s) on each. This shall include wetland delineation and existing wetland acreage.
b. Scaled plot plan(s) indicating:
i. Proposed construction;
ii. Zoning setback and critical area buffer requirements;
iii. Construction phasing and sequence of construction;
iv. Site cross-sections, percent slope, existing and finished grade elevations;
v. Soil and substrate conditions;
vi. Grading and excavation plan, including erosion and sediment control plans needed for construction and long-term survival; substrate stockpiling locations and techniques, and source controls needed for critical area construction and maintenance;
vii. Landscape plans indicating species, types, quantities, locations, size, spacing or density of planting; planting season or timing; planting instructions, watering schedule and nutrient requirements; source of plant materials or seeds; and, where appropriate, measures to protect plants from destruction or predation; and
viii. Water control structures and water-level maintenance practices needed to achieve the necessary hydrocycle/hydroperiod characteristics, etc.
3. Written Report Requirements. A written report shall accompany the plot plan(s) and shall provide the additional information required below. In addition, the report should be used as needed to clarify or explain elements of the plot plan(s).
a. Baseline Information.
i. Wetland delineation and existing wetland acreage;
ii. Vegetative, faunal and hydrologic characteristics;
iii. Soil and substrate conditions;
iv. Relationship within watershed and to existing streams, wetlands, ponds, or saltwater;
v. Existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; and
vi. Existing and proposed ownership.
b. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The report shall contain a description of the environmental goals and objectives to be met by the compensation plan. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original critical area or, if out-of-kind wetland mitigation, the type of wetland to be emulated. This analysis shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
i. Site selection criteria;
ii. Identification of compensation goals;
iii. Identification of functions and values;
iv. Dates for beginning and completion of the project and compensation plan;
v. A complete description of the relationship between and among structures and functions sought;
vi. Review of available literature and/or known like projects to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed;
vii. Likelihood of success of the proposed compensation project at duplicating the original critical area. This shall be based on experiences of comparable projects identified in the literature review or existing projects, if any; and
viii. Likelihood of the ability of the created or restored critical area to provide the functions and values of the original critical area. This shall be based on such factors as surface water and groundwater supply and flow patterns; dynamics of the ecosystem; sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion, periodic flooding and drought, etc.; presence of invasive flora or fauna; potential human or animal disturbance; and previous comparable projects, if any.
c. Performance Standards. Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are met and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance, and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria.
d. Detailed Specifications. Written specifications and descriptions of compensation techniques shall be provided. These shall include, but not be limited to, items in subsection G.3.b of this section.
e. Monitoring Program. A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided. Monitoring may include, but is not limited to:
i. Establishing vegetation plots to track changes in plant species composition and density over time;
ii. Using photo stations to evaluate vegetation community response;
iii. Sampling surface and subsurface waters to determine pollutant loading, and changes from the natural variability of background conditions (pH, nutrients, heavy metals);
iv. Measuring base flow rates and stormwater runoff to model and evaluate water quality predictions, if appropriate;
v. Measuring sedimentation rates, if applicable;
vi. Sampling fish and wildlife populations to determine habitat utilization, species abundance and diversity;
vii. A protocol shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the progress of the compensation project. A monitoring report shall be submitted annually, at a minimum, documenting milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than seven years; and
viii. Contingency Plan. Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met.
A. Performance and Maintenance Surety and Demonstration of Competence. A demonstration of financial resources, administrative, supervisory, and technical competence and scientific expertise to successfully execute the compensation project shall be provided. A compensation project manager shall be named and the qualifications of each team member involved in preparing the mitigation plan and implementing and supervising the project shall be provided, including educational background and areas of expertise, training and experience with comparable projects. In addition, a surety ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measure shall be posted pursuant to this section.
4. City Consultation. The city may consult with and solicit comments from any federal, state, regional, or local agency, including tribes, having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact prior to approving a mitigation proposal which includes critical areas compensation. The compensation project proponents should provide sufficient information on plan design and implementation in order for such agencies to comment on the overall adequacy of the mitigation proposal.
5. Permit Conditions. Any compensation project prepared pursuant to this section and approved by the director shall become part of the application for the permit.
H. Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA) Stewardship Plan.
1. An ARPA stewardship plan may be completed by the property owner. The city may request additional information or technical review from qualified professionals or other agencies at the applicant’s expense to ensure no net loss in critical area functions and values.
2. The basic components of an ARPA stewardship plan are a site plan and narrative report:
a. The site plan shall include:
i. Location and dimensions of proposed development within ARPA;
ii. Limits of construction and existing and proposed grade changes;
iii. Location of trees and critical root zones of all trees within the limits of construction and area of grade changes; and
iv. Location and species of tree(s) proposed for removal and replanting, if required.
b. The narrative report shall include:
i. Project narrative (Step 2 from the SAR guide sheet, revised as needed);
ii. Description of measures taken to avoid, minimize and reduce adverse impacts to the ARPA;
iii. Description of proposed development within ARPA including any decrease in native vegetative area and increase in hard surfaces;
iv. Assessment of any potential damage to tree(s) whose critical root zone is within the limits of construction and area of grade changes (e.g., windthrow, root damage);
v. Description of tree(s) and vegetation proposed for removal and replanting, if required, including size, species and condition;
vi. Description of protection measures for trees and vegetation to be retained;
vii. Description of measures to preserve forest litter and surface topography to most closely mimic natural hydrology;
viii. Planting plan including location, species and size of trees and vegetation to be replanted, if required; and
ix. Description of performance standards and monitoring actions (e.g., plant survival count, percent canopy coverage estimate) sufficient to document success of any required replanting. (Ord. 2018-01 § 2 (Exh. A), 2018)