Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />64 <br /> <br />Category <br />and Type <br />of <br />Impacted <br />Wetland <br />Restoration or <br />Creation1,2 Rehabilitation1,2 Enhancement <br />Only1,3 <br />Category <br />IV <br /> <br />1 Natural heritage sites, alkali wetlands, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because <br />they perform special functions that cannot be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impact to <br />such wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of <br />mitigation is provided. <br />2 Provides gains in a whole suite of functions both at the site and sub-basin scale. Rehabilitation <br />actions often focus on restoring environmental processes that have been disturbed or altered by <br />previous and/or ongoing human activity. <br />3 Actions which provide gains in only a few functions. Enhancement action often focuses on <br />structural or superficial improvements to a site and generally does not address larger scale <br />environmental processes. <br />4 Compensatory mitigation for vernal pool impacts must be seasonally ponded wetland area(s). <br />7. Increased Replacement Ratios. The Director may increase the wetland mitigation ratios <br />stated in Table KCC 17A.07.070.6 under the following circumstances: <br />a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; <br />b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland <br />functions; <br />c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or reduced functions <br />relative to the wetland being impacts; or <br />d. The impact was an unauthorized impact. <br />8. Alternative Mitigation Ratios. The Director may approve different mitigation ratios when the <br />applicant proposes a combination of wetland creation, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or <br />enhancement, provided that federal and state resource agencies approve the mitigation plan <br />and the plan achieves no net loss of wetland functions and values. <br />9. Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Buffer Impacts. To mitigate impacts to functions and values <br />of wetland buffers, a minimum buffer ratio of 1:1 (alteration area:mitigation area) is required. <br />This ratio assumes that creation/restoration of a wetland buffer with appropriate native <br />vegetation is sufficient to compensate for the wetland buffer functions and values affected by <br />alteration of an existing wetland buffer. If enhancement of an existing wetland buffer is <br />proposed as mitigation, a higher mitigation ratio may be required. For any proposed wetland <br />buffer alterations or development, the applicant must show that the functions and values of <br />the altered wetland buffer will be fully replaced by the proposed mitigation. The Director may <br />increase the buffer mitigation ratios under the following circumstances: <br />a. The replacement ratio needed to recover the lost functions and values of buffer area <br />is greater than 1:1 based upon the existing type of vegetative cover of either the <br />impact site or the proposed mitigation site. <br />b. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; <br />c. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland <br />functions; <br />d. The impact was an unauthorized impact. <br />10. Mitigation Plans. Compensatory wetland mitigation plan shall be consistent with “Guidance <br />on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans” (Ecology <br />Publication # 06-06-011b), or as revised. Mitigation plans shall include the general mitigation <br />plan requirements in KCC 17A.01.100, as well as the following information: <br />a. Existing and proposed wetland acreage; <br />b. Vegetative and faunal conditions;