Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Kittitas County Shoreline Master Program <br />Chapter 5 56 <br />March 7, 2016 <br />Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners Shoreline Master Program Adopting Ordinance <br />Kittitas County Shoreline Master Program Exhibit A | March 2016 | Page 56 of 339 <br />8. Pre-Qualification of consultants: The Administrator shall prepare and maintain a list <br />of qualified technical consultants and firms that meet the qualified professional <br />standards detailed in this Section. Any proposed consultant whose name is not on <br />the list may submit a statement of qualifications including information on experience <br />in the preparation of critical area studies. Upon approval of the submitted <br />qualifications, the Administrator shall add the name to the list of qualified <br />consultants. The Administrator may reject data and findings from non-pre-qualified <br />consultants or require a third-party review, paid for by the applicant. <br /> <br />9. When there is a conflict between the findings of a critical areas study and the <br />findings of the Administrator in review of the study, the applicant or affected party <br />may appeal such decision of the Administrator pursuant to the procedures in KCC <br />Chapter 15A.07. <br /> <br />D. Regulations—general mitigation requirements for all critical areas <br /> <br />1. Proponents of new shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and <br />uses that are exempt from permit requirements, shall employ all reasonable <br />measures to mitigate adverse impacts to critical areas and their buffers. Mitigation <br />shall occur according to the mitigation sequence defined in Section 5.2.B.2 of this <br />Program. The Administrator shall first determine whether identified critical area <br />impacts have been avoided and second, whether minimized. Unless otherwise <br />stated in this Program, development proposals that do not fully conform to the <br />dimensional requirements, performance standards, and/or design criteria in this <br />Section and in the Program shall require a variance and compensatory mitigation to <br />ensure no net loss of ecological function at the project scale. The Administrator shall <br />require compensatory mitigation for development proposals that result in <br />measurable damage, loss and/or displacement of a wetland, aquatic habitat <br />conservation area, wildlife habitat conservation area, or flood storage or conveyance <br />area. <br /> <br />2. When critical area compensatory mitigation plans are required pursuant to this <br />Section, all of the following shall apply: <br />a. The quality and quantity of the replaced, enhanced, or substituted critical area, <br />and its buffer, shall be the same or better than the affected critical area and its <br />buffer; <br />b. The mitigation site and associated vegetative planting shall be nurtured and <br />maintained such that healthy native plant communities grow and mature over <br />time; <br />c. The mitigation shall replace the functions as quickly as possible following the <br />impacts; <br />d. The mitigation activity shall be monitored and maintained to ensure that it <br />achieves its intended functions and values; <br />e. The Administrator shall require the applicant/proponent to post a bond or provide <br />other financial surety equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the estimated