§ 15-419. Evaluation criteria.

Mitigation proposals shall be reviewed pursuant to subsection (1) below. The degree of impact to wetland functions, whether the impact to these functions can be mitigated, and the feasibility of cost-effective design alternatives which could avoid impact are all factors in determining whether a proposed mitigation measure will be acceptable. In addition, an evaluation of the anticipated post-development viability and function performance will be considered utilizing accepted scientific methods which may include, but not be limited to, the habitat evaluation procedure (USFWS). As an alternative, a mitigation proposal is acceptable to the county, if the following minimum criteria will be met for conservation areas. Ratios for mitigation for Class I conservation areas or with unlike habitat will be considered on a case by case basis. Ratios for mitigation for Class III conservation areas will be 1:1. Ratios for Class II conservation areas shall be pursuant to subsection (2).

(1)

The basis for review for mitigation shall be as follows:

a.

Class I conservation areas. The removal, alteration or encroachment within a Class I conservation area shall only be allowed in cases where no other feasible or practical alternatives exist that will permit a reasonable use of the land or where there is an overriding public benefit. The protection, preservation and continuing viability of Class I conservation areas shall be the prime objective of the basis for review of all proposed alterations, modifications or removal of these areas. When encroachment, alteration or removal of a Class I conservation area is permitted, habitat compensation or mitigation as a condition of development approval shall be required.

b.

Class II conservation areas. Mitigation for Class II conservation areas should be presumed to be allowed unless mitigation is contrary to the public interest.

c.

Class III conservation areas. Mitigation shall be allowed for Class III conservation areas in all cases.

(2)

The applicant shall provide reasonable assurance that the proposed wetlands creation will be viable and will replace the habitat and functions performed by the Class II conservation areas destroyed. Reasonable assurance can be provided by type for type mitigation at the following ratios:

a.

Freshwater marshes and wet prairies—1.5:1.

b.

Cypress wetlands—2.0:1.

c.

Hydric hammocks, bayheads, and mixed hardwood swamps—2.5:1.

(3)

The applicant shall provide a monitoring and maintenance program. The length and complexity of monitoring will depend upon the type of mitigation approved, but will not be less than one (1) year and an eighty-five (85) percent coverage rate of all planted areas.

(4)

The applicant shall provide reasonable assurance that the proposed development has the financial and institutional stability to carry out the mitigation, monitoring, and maintenance requirements. Reasonable assurance can be provided in the form of a surety bond posted by the applicant to the county prior to the disturbance of the conservation area in the amount of one hundred ten (110) percent of the cost estimate of the proposed mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Other forms of reasonable assurance may include a performance guarantee as part of a project construction guarantee, cash bond or letter of credit from a financial institution, or performance prior to wetland impacts.

(5)

The applicant shall provide other items that may be required by the board of county commissioners to provide reasonable assurance that the mitigation plan requirements are met.

(Code 1965, § 36B-54; Ord. No. 87-31, § 7.04, 7-27-87; Ord. No. 89-8, § 1(7.04), 7-3-89)