Sec. 32-223. Alternative Site; Avoidance and Minimization Analysis

The intent of the initial planning phase is to require an applicant to evaluate the feasibility of the project and the adverse impact on nontidal wetlands at the earliest stage of the development process, before the applicant has committed substantial resources in the project site. Consideration of alternative sites at the earliest stage enables the applicant to retain the flexibility to avoid adverse impacts to nontidal wetlands.

An applicant shall select the earliest of the following times as the initial planning phase for the proposed project:

For the time selected in subsection (a)(3)(B), an applicant shall provide a written justification of the selection, including copies of any documentation supporting the selection and an explanation of why earlier times would be inappropriate or inapplicable to the proposed project.

While the Director will give serious consideration to the initial planning phase selected by the applicant, the Department reserves the right to require additional information from the applicant concerning the initial planning phase selection or to independently determine the appropriate time.

Whether an applicant has made, and can document, a reasonable effort to analyze alternative sites in the general area during the initial planning phase to first avoid adverse impacts and then to minimize adverse impacts to nontidal wetlands;

Whether an applicant has made, and can document, attempts to obtain land ownership interests or other rights to conduct the proposed project on alternative sites which first avoid adverse impacts and then minimize adverse impacts to nontidal wetlands;

The total number of alternative sites and the physical, economic and demographic characteristics of those sites considered by an applicant;

The physical, economic and demographic requirements of the proposed project relative to the alternative sites analyzed;

The degree to which use of alternative sites is constrained by other governmentally imposed restrictions and requirements, including concern for avoidance of other environmental, social, community, archaeological, historic and park land impacts;

Efforts undertaken to reduce adverse impacts to nontidal wetlands through consideration of reducing density, other site designs or project configurations on each alternative site analyzed; and

The costs of fulfilling mitigation requirements for each alternative site.

The spatial requirements of the proposed project;

The location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or configuration of the proposed project;

The purpose of the proposed project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration or density;

Sensitivity of the site design to nontidal wetlands;

An applicant's efforts to:

The costs of fulfilling potential mitigation requirements based on project configuration or design versus the alternative project configuration or design.

Reduction in acreage of a nontidal wetland affected by a regulated activity;

Harm to a threatened or endangered species in need of conservation, or to the critical habitat of these species;

Movement of aquatic and wildlife species indigenous to the nontidal wetland or water body;

Ability of the nontidal wetland to continue to support and provide habitat for those aquatic and wildlife species using the area;

Hydrologic regime of the areas upstream and downstream of the area of impact;

Functions of the impacted or adjacent nontidal wetlands;

Passage of normal or expected high flows, or the relocation of water;

Subsurface water flow into or out of any nontidal wetland areas;

Presence of, or potential for, supporting fish spawning areas;

Presence of areas having significant plant or wildlife value;

Cumulative impact to nontidal wetlands; and

Impacts to the 100-year floodplain.