Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit B <br />ORDINANCE Exhibit A - Page 47 of 66 <br />Table 37. 5: Standard Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Ratios <br />Category and <br />Type of <br />Wetland <br />Impacts <br />Reestablish <br />ment or <br />Creation <br />Rehabilita <br />tion Only1 <br />Reestablishme <br />nt or Creation <br />(R/C) plus <br />Rehabilitation <br />(RH)1 <br />Reestablishme <br />nt or Creation <br />(R/C) plus <br />Enhancement <br />(E)1 <br />Reestablishme <br />nt or Creation <br />(R/C) plus <br />Preservation <br />(P)1 <br />Enhancement <br />Only1 <br />All category IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C plus <br />1:1 RH <br />1:1 R/C plus <br />2:1 E <br />1:1 R/C plus 2:1 <br />P <br />6:1 <br />All category III 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C plus <br />2:1 RH <br />1:1 R/C plus <br />4:1 E <br />1:1 R/C plus 4:1 <br />P <br />8:1 <br />Category II <br />Estuarine <br />Case-by-case 4:1 <br />Rehabilitat <br />ion of an <br />estuarine <br />wetland <br />Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case <br />All other <br />category II <br />3:1 6:1 1:1 R/C plus <br />4:1 RH <br />1:1 R/C plus 8:1 <br />E <br />1:1 R/C plus 8:1 <br />P <br />12:1 <br />Category I <br />Forested <br />6:1 12:1 1:1 R/C plus <br />10:1 RH <br />1:1 R/C plus <br />20:1 E <br />1:1 R/C plus <br />20:1 P <br />24:1 <br />Category I <br />Based on score <br />for functions <br />4:1 8:1 1:1 R/C plus <br />6:1 RH <br />1:1 R/C plus <br />12:1 E <br />1:1 R/C plus <br />12:1 P <br />16:1 <br />Category I <br />Bog <br />Not <br />considered <br />possible2 <br />6:1 <br />Rehabilitat <br />ion of a <br />bog <br />R/C Not <br />considered <br />possible2 <br />R/C Not <br />considered <br />possible2 <br />R/C Not <br />considered <br />possible2 <br />Case-by-case <br />Category I <br />Estuarine <br />Case-by-case 6:1 <br />Rehabilitat <br />ion of an <br />estuarine <br />wetland <br />Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case <br />1 These ratios are based on the assumption that the rehabilitation or enhancement actions implemented <br />represent the average degree of improvement possible for the site. Proposals to implement more <br />effective rehabilitation or enhancement actions may result in a lower ratio, while less effective actions <br />may result in a higher ratio. The distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement is not clear-cut. <br />Instead, rehabilitation and enhancement actions span a continuum. Proposals that fall within the gray <br />area between rehabilitation and enhancement will result in a ratio that lies between the ratios for <br />rehabilitation and the ratios for enhancement. <br />2 Bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform some special functions that cannot <br />be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such wetlands would therefore result in a net <br />loss of some functions no matter what kind of compensatory mitigation is proposed. <br /> a. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios described above, the planning director may <br />allow mitigation based one of the following ways: