Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit B <br />ORDINANCE Exhibit A - Page 45 of 66 <br />Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands and/or associated buffers shall demonstrate how the <br />proposed enhancement will increase the wetland and/or buffer functions, how this increase in <br />function will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland functions at the <br />mitigation site will be protected. <br />5. Alternative Types of Mitigation/Resource Tradeoffs. The planning director may approve <br />alternative mitigation proposals that are based on best available science, such as priority <br />restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative mitigation <br />proposals shall provide an equivalent or better level of ecological functions and values than <br />would be provided by standard mitigation approaches. Alternative mitigation approaches shall <br />comply with all reporting, monitoring, and performance measures of this Section including <br />adherence to mitigation sequencing. The city may consult with agencies with expertise and <br />jurisdiction over the critical areas during the review to assist with analysis and identification of <br />appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard critical areas. The planning <br />director will consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal: <br />a. Clear identification of how an alternative approach will achieve equal or better <br />ecological benefit. <br />b. The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetland <br />Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach in Western Washington (Ecology <br />Publication #09-06-32), or as revised]. <br />c. All impacts are identified, evaluated, and mitigated. <br />d. Methods to demonstrate ecological success are clear and measurable. <br />E. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation actions shall be <br />conducted using a watershed approach and shall generally occur within the same sub-drainage basin. <br />However, when the applicant can demonstrate that a mitigation site in a different sub-drainage basin is <br />ecologically preferable, it should may be used. Compensatory mitigation areas shall be located to <br />preserve or achieve contiguous wildlife habitat corridors to minimize the isolation and fragmenting <br />effects of development on habitat areas. The following criteria will be evaluated when determining <br />whether on-site or off-site compensatory mitigation is ecologically preferable. When considering the <br />location of mitigation, preference should may be given to using programmatic approaches, such as a <br />mitigation bank or an in-lieu fee program after evaluating the following criteria. <br />1. No reasonable opportunities exist on site or within the sub-drainage basin or opportunities on <br />site or within the sub-drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a <br />determination of the capability of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should <br />include anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and required <br />widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic class(es) of wetlands when <br />restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife <br />impacts (such as connectivity); <br />2. On-site mitigation would require elimination of high-quality upland habitat; <br />3. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions <br />compared to the altered wetland.