EXH2178034586

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

ues, flood storage and water-quality improvements, were supposed to be examined in less than 10% of the permits. The committee concludes that current permitting procedures do .not always result in permit conditions that are clear and enforceable and lead to the development of viable mitigation that compensates for the func- tions and values of the permitted impact. Instead, permits typically con- rain performance standards that measure only one or several easily mea- sured parameters of a mitigation site, and in many cases, these parameters do not reflect the overall viability of the mitigation site. Recommenda- tions relevant to this conclusion are provided in Chapter 8. MITIGATION RATIOS Mitigation ratios are the proportional requirements for replacing wet- lands that are permitted for fill. A point that is frequently raised in assess- ments of mitigation is that the ratios (the number of required mitigation acres to the permitted acres) are too low (Morgan and Roberts 1999; Allen and Feddema 1996). Ratios vary across permits, often because the logic behind the ratios differs. Higher ratios might be required for sites and wetland types that are difficult to restore. Higher ratios might be also used if there is a long time expected between the permitted activity and the achievement of the desired endpoint for the compensation site. Ratios have been used to reflect the functional values of the impact site, that is, the ratio would be higher for a pristine wetland than for a severely de- graded wetland. An example of ratio guidelines used…
V V