Compensatory mitigation Clause Samples

Compensatory mitigation. Replacement of aquatic resources and its functions and values for the purposes of compensating for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization of impacts has been achieved. The replacement of the wetland functions and values is generally accomplished through wetland restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), creation (establishment), enhancement, or in exceptional circumstances, wetland preservation.

Compensatory mitigation. ‌ (1) Before impacting any wetland or its buffer, an applicant shall demonstrate compliance with regulation 1.6(2) of this appendix. (2) Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans--Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009). (3) Compensatory mitigation shall address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when either: A. The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or B. Out-of-kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet watershed goals formally identified by the City, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types. (4) Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the types below in the following order of preference: A. Restoration (re-establishment and rehabilitation) of wetlands. B. Creation (establishment) of wetlands on disturbed upland sites. 1. If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the Director of Community Development may authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the applicant’s qualified wetland scientist that: a. The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site are conducive for sustaining the proposed wetland and that creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic problems elsewhere; b. The proposed mitigation site does not contain invasive plants or noxious weeds or that such vegetation will be completely eradicated at the site; c. Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the viability of the proposed wetland and buffer; and d. The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be s...

Compensatory mitigation. Grantor reserves the right to perform any restoration, enhancement, and other wetland mitigation activities required by Section 404 permit’s and/or Mitigation Banking Instruments, including the use of all equipment necessary to successfully complete any mitigation requirements contained therein.

Compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions (e.g., restoration of existing degraded wetlands or creation of man-made wetlands) should be undertaken, when practicable, in areas adjacent or contiguous to the discharge site (onsite compensatory mitigation). If on-site compensatory mitigation is not practicable, off-site compensatory mitigation should be undertaken in the same geographic area if practicable (i.e., in close physical proximity and, to the extent possible, the same watershed). In determining compensatory mitigation, the functional values lost by the resource to be impacted must be considered. Generally, in-kind compensatory mitigation is preferable to out-of-kind. There is continued uncertainty regarding the success of wetland creation or other habitat development. Therefore, in determining the nature and extent of habitat development of this type, careful consideration should be given to its likelihood of success. Because the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced, restoration should be the first option considered. In the situation where the Corps is evaluating a project where a permit issued by another agency requires compensatory mitigation, the Corps may consider that mitigation as part of the overall application for purposes of public notice, but avoidance and minimization shall still be sought. Mitigation banking may be an acceptable form of compensatory mitigation under specific criteria designed to ensure an environmentally successful bank. Where a mitigation bank has been approved by EPA and the Corps for purposes of providing compensatory mitigation for specific identified projects, use of that mitigation bank for those particular projects is considered as meeting the requirements of Section II.C.3 of this MOA, regardless of the practicability of other forms of compensatory mitigation. Additional guidance on mitigation banking will be provided. Simple purchase or "preservation" of existing wetlands resources may in only exceptional circumstances be accepted as compensatory mitigation. EPA and Army will develop specific guidance for preservation in the context of compensatory mitigation at a later date.

Compensatory mitigation. For purposes of Section 10/404, compensatory mitigation is the restoration, creation, enhancement, or in exceptional circumstances, preservation of wetlands and/or other aquatic resources for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.

Compensatory mitigation. The City agrees to be responsible for the compensatory mitigation costs related to the Project’s aquatic resource impacts within the City’s municipal corporation limits as described herein. The Project is currently expected to result in 1,019 linear feet of physical stream impacts, resulting in the purchase of 1,769 feet of stream credits based on the mitigation ratios required for each individual stream. The amount of compensatory mitigation required in each jurisdiction are shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein. In accordance with the stream impact quantities and mitigation ratios shown on Exhibit “A”, the City will be responsible for 65% of the compensatory mitigation costs and the Engineer will be responsible for 35% of the compensatory mitigation costs.

Compensatory mitigation a) Indicate in ACRES and LINEAR FEET (where appropriate) the total quantity of waters of the United States proposed to be Created, Restored and/or Enhanced for purposes of providing Compensatory Mitigation If mitigating for state waters that were not considered federally jurisdictional then attach a description of the proposed mitigation: The project will result in a permanent discharge of 0.06 acre of fill into wetland waters and 0.01 acre of fill into non-wetland waters of the State. The project proposed to purchase seasonal wetland credits at the SMUD Nature Preserve Mitigation Bank at a 2:1 ratio. Water Body Type Created Restored Enhanced b) If contributing to a Mitigation or Conservation Bank, indicate the agency, dollar amount, acreage, and water body type (if applicable): Mitigation Bank or Conservation Agency SMUD Nature Preserve Mitigation Bank $ 28,000 for 0.14 acres of seasonal wetland (water body type) How many acres of this mitigation area qualify as waters of the United States? All

Compensatory mitigation. In accordance with Provision (4)(A) (ii) of the TxDOT - TPWD MOU and at the TxDOT District’s discretion, habitats given consideration for non- regulatory mitigation during project planning will include:

Compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation, or compensating for an effect by replacement or providing substitute resources or environments, will be considered after application of all other forms of avoidance, minimization and mitigation within the APE have been exhausted. Compensatory mitigation can occur at, or immediately adjacent to, the area affected but can also be located anywhere in the same general geographic area or, in the case of linear properties (e.g. NHTs), at other places along that specific resource. Compensatory mitigation may include, but is not limited to: educational materials, completion of NRHP nominations, professional publications, acquisition of conservation easements containing historic properties, development of interpretation plans, physical restoration of NHT segments, removal or modification of modern developments in settings of historic properties to restore integrity, acquisition of land or a historic property, through exchange or another process, where public access is possible, and/or stabilization of an associated property (e.g. a stage station along the trail). Any compensatory mitigation must result from consultation among BLM, SHPO, ACHP (if participating), the applicant, and other consulting parties. Compensatory mitigation generally provides a public benefit and must be appropriate to the scale and scope of the effect being mitigated. Compensatory mitigation may be offered voluntarily by a project applicant for consideration by the consulting parties. If accepted by the Signatories, it will be incorporated into the agreement document and as a condition of the BLM authorization. In other cases, the BLM may find it necessary to advise the applicant that the project proposal cannot be approved without additional compensatory mitigation. Field Offices shall notify the BLM DPO as soon as it is recognized that a proposed undertaking may require consideration of compensatory mitigation. The BLM DPO will monitor the use of compensatory mitigation for consistency of application by the BLM statewide. The following procedures are not appropriate as compensatory mitigation measures: 1. Payment of money by the applicant directly to SHPO; and 2. Data recovery at historic properties other than the historic properties that will be adversely affected by an undertaking (mitigation banking); and 3. Acquisition of land or a historic property, through exchange or another process, where public access is not possible; and 4. Signage or markers where there i...