1995-10-26_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Water Bi1118oard shoreland wetland protection zone in areas beyond the building setback if the wetland was isolated and was determined to have no surficial hydrologic connection to the public water. less than 50 percent of their presettlement wetlands remaining. *removed the requirement for sequencing within the road right-of-way. *The bill would have allowed replacement credit for: 1. the installation of upland buffer areas; 2. water quality treatment ponds adjacent to wetlands; 3. vegetative restoration of farmed wetlands; and 4. maintaining wetlands re- stored under an expiring con- servation agreement. *The bill would have provided for sequencing determination without written alternatives for small projects. PUBLIC ROADS The bill would have: *reduced minimum replacement ratio from 2:1 to 1:1 statewide when replacement was done via restoration of wetlands. The replacement ratio in counties with more than 80 percent of their presettlement wetlands remaining could have been lower than 1:1 if adjusted through a local wetland plan. *allowed greater than 80 percent counties to do subsidized cash banking for road projects at a reduced rate requiring a payment of only twice the land value of the impacted wetland (approximately ten percent of actual cost). *exempted projects on existing roads: (a.) two acres outside of shoreland wetland protection zones in counties and watersheds with greater than 80 percent. of their presettlement wetlands remaining; (b.) one acre outside of shoreland wetland protection zones in counties and watersheds with greater than 50 percent and less than 80 percent of their presettlement wetlands remaining; and (c.) one-half acre outside of shoreland wetland protection zones in counties and watersheds with LOCAL GOVERNMENT FLEXIBILITY The bill would have allowed local govemments to adopt local comprehensive wetland protection and management plans which, after approval by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, provided an alternative to the rules governing the Wetland Conservation Act while retaining no-net- loss of public values. The plans offered the following specific relief from the rules beyond that provided by changes elsewhere as noted above: *Local govemments would have been able to classify wetlands based on wetland function; this assessment could have formed the basis for: -varying the application of sequencing standards; -varying wetland replacement standards; based on the functions! assessment local governments would have been able to replace at less than a 1 acre for 1 acre ratio, provided that there is no net loss of public values; -allowing local govemments to: (i) allow additional replacement credit for any project that in- creased the public value of wetlands including those activi- ties on adjacent uplands; (ii) adjust the application of the type 1 and type 2/6 exemptions to non-ag land; and (iii) adjust the application of the road and deminimus exemp- tions. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION The bill would have: *required the state to pay claims against, and assist in the defense of, a local government if it was properly implementing the law and a court awarded a takings or damages claim against the local government.