SMP Ordinance Exhibits - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

instances where County staff lack the resources or expertise to review these materials. A project proponent may be required to pay for or reimburse the County for the review costs incurred. 8. Pre-Qualification of consultants: The Administrator shall prepare and maintain a list of qualified technical consultants and firms that meet the qualified professional standards detailed in this Section. Any proposed consultant whose name is not on the list may submit a statement of qualifications including information on experience in the preparation of critical area studies. Upon approval of the submitted qualifications, the Administrator shall add the name to the list of qualified consultants. The Administrator may reject data and findings from non-pre-qualified consultants or require a third-party review, paid for by the applicant. 9. When there is a conflict between the findings of a critical areas study and the findings of the Administrator in review of the study, the applicant or affected party may appeal such decision of the Administrator pursuant to the procedures in KCC Chapter 15A.07. (Ord. 2016-006, 2016) 17B.05.020D Mitigation – requirements for all critical areas. 1. Proponents of new shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, shall employ all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts to critical areas and their buffers. Mitigation shall occur according to the mitigation sequence defined in KCC 17B.05.020(B)(2) of this Program. The Administrator shall first determine whether identified critical area impacts have been avoided and second, whether minimized. Unless otherwise stated in this Program, development proposals that do not fully conform to the dimensional requirements, performance standards, and/or design criteria in this Section and in the Program shall require a variance and compensatory mitigation to ensure no net loss of ecological function at the project scale. The Administrator shall require compensatory mitigation for development proposals that result in measurable damage, loss and/or displacement of a wetland, aquatic habitat conservation area, wildlife habitat conservation area, or flood storage or conveyance area. 2. When critical area compensatory mitigation plans are required pursuant to this Section, all of the following shall apply: a. The quality and quantity of the replaced, enhanced, or substituted critical area, and its buffer, shall be the same or better than the affected critical area and its buffer; b. The mitigation site and associated vegetative planting shall be nurtured and maintained such that healthy native plant communities grow and mature over time; c. The mitigation shall replace the functions as quickly as possible following the impacts; d. The mitigation activity shall be monitored and maintained to ensure that it achieves its intended functions and values; e. The Administrator shall require the applicant/proponent to post a bond or provide other financial surety equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the estimated cost of the mitigation to ensure the mitigation is carried out successfully. The bond/surety shall be refunded to the applicant/proponent upon completion of the mitigation activity and any required monitoring. 3. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be prepared by qualified professionals with education, training, and experience in the applicable field: a. Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is educated/trained in wetland biology or a closely related field, and has demonstrated