My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOCC Exhibits A-E ECY Approved SMP-Code Amendments
>
Meetings
>
2016
>
03. March
>
2016-03-15 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
BOCC Exhibits A-E ECY Approved SMP-Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2018 10:36:59 AM
Creation date
4/7/2018 10:31:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
3/15/2016
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Alpha Order
m
Item
Request to Approve an Ordinance with Amendments to the Kittitas County Code and Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Washington State Department of Ecology Approved Shoreline Master Program for Kittitas County
Order
13
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
28372
Type
Ordinance
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
339
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners Shoreline Master Program Adopting Ordinance <br />Kittitas County Shoreline Master Program Exhibit D | March 2016 | Page 260 of 339 <br /> <br />8. Pre-Qualification of consultants: The Administrator shall prepare and maintain a list of <br />qualified technical consultants and firms that meet the qualified professional standards <br />detailed in this Section. Any proposed consultant whose name is not on the list may submit <br />a statement of qualifications including information on experience in the preparation of critical <br />area studies. Upon approval of the submitted qualifications, the Administrator shall add the <br />name to the list of qualified consultants. The Administrator may reject data and findings <br />from non-pre-qualified consultants or require a third-party review, paid for by the applicant. <br />9. When there is a conflict between the findings of a critical areas study and the findings of the <br />Administrator in review of the study, the applicant or affected party may appeal such <br />decision of the Administrator pursuant to the procedures in KCC Chapter 15A.07. <br /> <br />17B.05.020D Mitigation – requirements for all critical areas. <br />1. Proponents of new shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses that <br />are exempt from permit requirements, shall employ all reasonable measures to mitigate <br />adverse impacts to critical areas and their buffers. Mitigation shall occur according to the <br />mitigation sequence defined in KCC 17B.05.020(B)(2) of this Program. The Administrator <br />shall first determine whether identified critical area impacts have been avoided and second, <br />whether minimized. Unless otherwise stated in this Program, development proposals that do <br />not fully conform to the dimensional requirements, performance standards, and/or design <br />criteria in this Section and in the Program shall require a variance and compensatory <br />mitigation to ensure no net loss of ecological function at the project scale. The Administrator <br />shall require compensatory mitigation for development proposals that result in measurable <br />damage, loss and/or displacement of a wetland, aquatic habitat conservation area, wildlife <br />habitat conservation area, or flood storage or conveyance area. <br />2. When critical area compensatory mitigation plans are required pursuant to this Section, all of <br />the following shall apply: <br />a. The quality and quantity of the replaced, enhanced, or substituted critical area, and its <br />buffer, shall be the same or better than the affected critical area and its buffer; <br />b. The mitigation site and associated vegetative planting shall be nurtured and maintained <br />such that healthy native plant communities grow and mature over time; <br />c. The mitigation shall replace the functions as quickly as possible following the impacts; <br />d. The mitigation activity shall be monitored and maintained to ensure that it achieves its <br />intended functions and values; <br />e. The Administrator shall require the applicant/proponent to post a bond or provide other <br />financial surety equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the estimated cost of the <br />mitigation to ensure the mitigation is carried out successfully. The bond/surety shall be <br />refunded to the applicant/proponent upon completion of the mitigation activity and any <br />required monitoring. <br />3. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be prepared by qualified professionals with education, <br />training, and experience in the applicable field: <br />a. Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is <br />educated/trained in wetland biology or a closely related field, and has demonstrated <br />experience in mitigation plan design, implementation, and monitoring. The overall goal of <br />any such mitigation plan shall be no net loss of wetland functions, acreage, and values. <br />b. Mitigation plans for impacts to aquatic and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including <br />habitat management plans, shall be prepared by a qualified professional with <br />education/training in wildlife biology or a closely related field, and professional <br />experience in habitat mitigation design, implementation, and monitoring. Where this plan <br />is required for the protection of eagle habitat, the eagle habitat management plan shall <br />normally be prepared by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, as <br />required under the Bald Eagle Management Rules. The Washington State Department
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.