Laserfiche WebLink
e. As stated above, if fish habitat mitigation is being included, the mitigation site should <br />benefit the same fish stocks impacted by the project proposing to use the site for <br />future mitigation needs. This may be required by WDFW prior to using a site for <br />mitigation. For all mitigation sites proposed to be used for any fish or fisheries <br />habitat impacts, provide size/acreage details for mitigation proposals that include fish <br />habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement, fish barrier removals, or other <br />mitigation that is required to offset expected fish habitat or stream impacts. Also <br />include information on the limiting factors of the watershed if available, and an <br />explanation of how the mitigation will improve these limiting factors for the species <br />and habitats that may benefit. It may be necessary to track fish habitat mitigation <br />elements separately from wetland credits in order to document appropriate <br />establishment and use of mitigation for fish habitat impacts. <br />The following information is recommended for agency review and approval when proposing an <br />advance mitigation site. Submitting this additional information will facilitate agency approval earlier <br />in the process on key mitigation decisions such as the anticipated credits that may be generated at a <br />site if performance standards are met, and on the acceptable location (service area) that may apply to <br />the proposed mitigation site. Getting agency approval on these elements prior to establishing the site <br />should provide applicants with more assurance of how a site may be used on future actions. If an <br />applicant decides not to provide this additional information prior to site establishment, they may have <br />an increased risk that their anticipated use area and credit generating schedule may not be approved <br />by the agencies at time of proposed use. <br />f. Propose a credit generating schedule or framework demonstrating how the credits <br />will increase over time as the site matures and successfully reaches performance <br />standards. This schedule should show how the advance credit may be generated as <br />the site matures from construction (when concurrent mitigation ratios will apply) <br />through year 10 and should include the performance standards guiding the credits that <br />may be generated. The agencies can agree on the site's proposed or expected future <br />(e.g., post -construction) environmental value, credit, and ecological lift if all <br />performance standards are accomplished, but they cannot determine the <br />appropriateness for the use of any credits until such time as it is proposed to be used <br />as compensatory mitigation for a specific project. <br />g. Propose the boundary of the geographic area that is appropriate to be used for future <br />impact locations. <br />h. Propose appropriate ratios for credit use based on impact type, and quality of and <br />functions provided by the aquatic resources at the impact site. This will likely be <br />general information based on standard ratios for impacts to wetland category and <br />type outlined in the Joint Guidance. Exact impact areas and functions may not be <br />known and adequacy of ratios proposed must be considered on a case by case basis. <br />In order to use the credits generated by an advance mitigation effort for compensatory mitigation, the <br />permittee of the impacting project shall be responsible for the performance, sustainability, <br />maintenance and monitoring (for both the establishment period of the advance mitigation site and the <br />Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance period) of the advance mitigation site. This permittee can <br />act through a third party agent to construct, maintain, and monitor the mitigation but the permittee is <br />ultimately responsible for site performance. <br />C <br />