Loading...
FS9901-CS 990726ATTENTION OF Environmental Division Regulatoty Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 17300 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-0300 July 26, 1999 SUBJECT: Project Number 199900491 blr. Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E. Floodplaln/CDC Administrator City of Coppeil P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 Thank you for your letter dated July 1, 1999. Your request has been assigned Project Number 199900491. Mr. Jim Herrington has been assigned as the regulatory project manager for your request and will be evaluating it as expeditiously as possible. However, because of our permit workload it will take a while for us to respond. You may be contacted for additional information about your request. For your information, we are enclosing guidance on submittals and mitigation that may help you prepare future requests or supplement your current request. If you have any questions about the evaluation of your request, please contact Mr. Jim Herrington at the address above or telephone (817)978-2188 and refer to your assigned project number. Please note that it is unlawful to start work without a Department of the Army permit if one is required. Wayne A. Lea Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosures Recommendations for Department oUfSEnA~lnYeeCr~rl:mof the Army Permit Submittals FortWeth Dbtdct April 6, 1998 Th~ following recomnu~latious from th~ U.S. Army Cerps of Eo~n,~rs (USACE), Fort Worth l~s~ct, spccify information that should be submitted with project proposals for review of p~mltting rcquircmcnts under Section 404 of the Clcan Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899: 1. Avicinitymap(e~g~~c~untymap~USGSquadshcct~ctc~)sh~wingthc~~cati~n~fthcpr~jcct~inc~uding any borrow or disposal site(s) or o~r outlying features. 2. A delineation and dcscription of weftands and other waters of the United States in the area that would be affected by the proposed work. Delineations of wetlands must be conducted using the "Corps of Engineers Weftand Delineation Manual", USACE Waterways Experiment Station Weftands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, dated January 1987. The on-line edition of the manual is available on the Internet at http://www.wes.army.millel/wetland~wlpubs.html. 3. The purpose of, and need for, the project. 4. Plan, profile, and cross-section vi~vs of all work, both permanent and temporary, in or adjacent to waters of the United State, including weftands. (If a standard individual permit is required, drawings on 8 ~ by 11 hw~h sheets must be provided. ) 5. The type, source, and volume of material proposed to be discharged into and/or ~xcavated from waters of the United St_~t_~. In cases where the activity may result in a permanent change to pre-constmction contours or drainage l~_"_e~ns, provide the rcasous why the changes arc nccessmy and a description of the anticipated outcon~ of thc changes. 6. TI~ width and depth of th~ water body and th~ wateryard distance of any structures f~om the existing shorelin~ if ioc~ on a navigable water or a USACE lake project. 7. A description of th~ projcct's likly tcmporNy and p~,,,an~t impact on the aquatic cnvironm~at. 8. A &~gription of actions in project design to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environmeat and to comp~usate for unavoidable advers~ impacts to tl~ aquatic environment. 9. Th~ project schedule. 10. A statement disclosing whether or not any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endange~i Species Act might be affected by, or found in the vicinity of, the proposed project. Direct coordination with th~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the potential impact of the entire project on threatened and endangered species is strongly encouraged. 11. Any otlgr r~lcvant information, including available information on cultural resources and hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Worth DbVe:t Mitigation and the Section 404 Regulatory Program March 6, 1998 Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, tl~ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the disehargc of dredged and fdl material into waters of thc United States, including wetlands. Thus, DcparUncnt of thc Army authol~ation is normally requited for diseharg~s associated with such ground disturbing activities as filling, grading, excavation, and mcchanizcd land clearing when they occur in waters of the Unitcd States. When the USACE rcviows a project that would require Departmcnt of the Army au~on, the evaluation proass typically inchdes a d~termination of whether the applicant has taken sufficient measures to mitigate the projeet's likely adverse impacts to the aquatic e~osyst~m. Mitigation is a three-step sequential proeees, with the steps employed in the following order: Avoid: Take all appropriate and practicable measures to avoid those adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem that arc not absolutely necessary. Minimize: Take all appropriate and practicable measures to miDimize those adverse impacts to the aquatic ccosystera tha~ cannot reasonably be avoidul. Compensate: Implement appropriate and practicable measures to compensate for adverse project impaCtS to the aquatic ecosystem that cannot reasonably bc avoided or minimized. Known as compensatory mitigation. While this sequential mitigation process is normally applied only during the individual permit process, most nationwide amt regional general permits do require that diseherges of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States be avoided and minimized to the maximum cxtcnt practicable, unless the District Engineer approves a compensation plan that is more beneficial to the environment than minimization or avoidance measures undertaken at the project site. The District Engineer will normally require, on a case-by-case basis, all practicable and appropriate ¢omlgnsation as a condition of Department of the Army authorization. The purpose of compensato~ mitigation is to replace those aquatic ecosystem functions that would be lost or impaired because of an authorized activity. The amount and type of eompensaWry mitigation required for a particular activity should be commensurate with the nature and extent of the activity' s adverse impact on aquatic functions and be practicable in terms of cost, existing technolo~, and logistics, in light of the overall project pa. Aquatic functions, which are most simply defined as "the ~hings that aquatic systems do,' include sediment trapping and nutrient removal; flood storage and ennveyenee; erosion control; providing habitat for fish and wildlife, including endangered species; groundwater recharge; water sopply; production of food, fiber, and timber; and recreation. Thc number and extent of these and other aquatic functions vmy widely among the myriad aquatic sites found across the Fort Worth District. Compensat~y mitigation may include the restoration, enhancement, creation, or, in cxccptiomd cases, preservation of wc~ends and other aquatic resources. Restoration is the recstablisinnent of functions and characteristics that have cithcr ceased to cxist or cxist in a substantially degraded state; enhancement includes activities enmtucted on, or adjacent to, existing wetlands and other aquatic resources that are intended to enhance one or more aquatic functions such as conversion to a less destructive land use or Mitigation and the Section 404 R~gulatoty Program PaSc 2 of 4 improvanc~t of the existing plant commllllity; cre~lloll i8 ~ cstshlishllIGlt Of a we~aad or offlet gl~_a_f_~c resource where o~ did not formerly exist; and preservation is th~ protection of existing ccologically important w~ands and other aquatic resourees in ix:~p,:tuity by implementing catain legal and physical mechanisms. ~ation is normally appropriat~ only in w.~ptional cases, such as when a high-value aquatic resource would be lost to lawful activities were it not protected by preservation. P~storation and enhancement arc prefeaed to creation because they are normally less expa~ive, more succasful, and less likely to adversely affect existing upland and open water habitats. A comp4msatory mitigation project that involves ground disturbing activities in waters of the United States may itself require Dcpaa iaaeat of the ?umy authorization. It is impotUmt to ran~nber that tl~ goal is to r~pla~ the aff~t~d aquatic functions to ~ ~t ~t ~ would be lost or impaired by the proposed activity, that is, comi~nsafion should generally be "in-kind." Compensation should be provided as clos~ to the site of the adverse impacts as practicable to ~ losses to the local aquatic system. However, off-site compemation may be more appropriate when th~ comp4:nsation cannot reasonably be conducted at th~ impact site or would be more beneficial to the aquatic ecosystem if conducted at another location. In some case~, it may be ecc~ptablc to provide partial compensation at multip|e locations. For example, it may be necessary to coml~nsate for flood storage impacts on site while compensating for wildlife habitat impacts at another location. Two genial approaches to implementing compensatory mitigation are project-specific and third-party compensation projects. A projut-specific compensation project is conducted to compcosate for the adverse impacts of a single activity requiring Department of the Army authorization. A project-specific ~ation project is typically designed and impletncated by the pamittec in conjunction with the a~ activity sad is often locat~i on-site or near the anthotiz~d activity. The pamittee is also responsible for monitoring and assuring the success of tl~ mitigation project. TI~ third-party approach consolidates compensation for multiple projects raquihng Department of the Army authorization into one or morn off-site mitigation projects. This approach is distinguished fi'om project- specific compensation in that a third party typically accepts the responsibility of desiring, implementing, and assuring the success of compensatory mitigation for the permittee. This approach involves such activities as mitigation banking combined or joint mitigation projects, and in-lico fee and fee-based trusts. A brief description of each follows: Mitigation banking: Mitigation systans that provide consolidated off-site compensation for numerous authorized activities in advance of adverse project impacts. A mitigation bank is developed and operated under the terms of a mitigation banking insmnncnt among the bank owner, the USACE, and other natural resource agencies. In most cases, DepOt of the Army authorization is also rcxluir~t to develop the bank. For furth~ information on mitigation banking, refer to "Fe~kral Guidance for the Establishn~nt, Us~ and Operation of Mitigation Banks," published in the Federal Register on Novamber 28, 1995 (Vol. 60, No. 228, pp. 58605-58614). Combined or joint-project mitigation: Mitigntion systems that simultaneously provide compensatory mitigation for more than one permitted project that adversely impact the aquatic ecosystem. Unlii~ a mitigation bank, a joint project typically does not provide compensation in advance of project impacts. Each use of a joint mitigation project typically requires USACE approval. Mitigation and the Section 404 Regulato~ Program Pagc 3 of 4 In-lieu fee and fee-based mitigation: Mitigation syste~rm that provide a Department of the Army permittee an opportunity to pay a fee in lieu of conducting project-specific compensation activities. Fees ar~us~dt~fundpr~jectsdesi~nedtorest~re~enhance~oreate~or~insomecases~preserveaquatic ecosyst~n functions. These projects should r~ect both the nature and ~xtent of aquatic functions adversely affected by permitted activities. Typicidly, in-lieu systems pertain to tinspecified future mitigation projects, while fee-based systems involve specific, identified mitigation projects, that are either canplete or ~ development as f~es aro eullected. Deparlm~t of the Army permL-_ees_ are responsible for developing a mitigation plan and submitting it to the USACE. An appropriate real estate arrangement, such as a d_,~yI_ restriction, will normally be required to achieve long-term success of a mitigation plan or to provide sutticieut compensation for adverse project impacts. A mitigation plan should generally inchi&: at a minimum: 1. A complete description ofafforts made to avoid and minimize adverse project impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Include impacts to local hydrolo/D,, upstream and dewnstrcam aquatic resources, and wildlife habitat. 2. A thorough description of the proposed compensatory mitigation area, including a vicinity map, site map, aerial and on-site photographs (if available), land use histoly, soils, local bydrology, and dominant vegetation. 3. A jurisdictional determination, including a wetland delineation (ff appropriate) conducted in accofdanc~ with th~ 1997 Cofps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Thc jurisdictiomd detemtination repoR should include a site description, field data sheets, summary of findings, and a detailed map of the site indicating the location and extent of 811 waters of the United States, including weftands. 4. A detaikxl description of the nature and location of all proposed ground disturbing activities and smactures associated with the compensatory mitigation project. Include information about grading, filling, planting, land clearing, road construction, size and spacing of culverts and bridges, fences, bnilclings, utility lines, intake and outfall structures, and disposal and borrow area locations. Provide plan anil cross-section drawings of all pertinent work and structures and the volung and type of material to be discharged. Include both temporary and permanent activities and structures. 5. For work that would create new aquatic resources or modify existing aquatic resources, provide as appropriate: a. A description of the proposed bydrology showing that it is adequate for the site, sufficient sintable quality water will be available during appropriate seasons, and thc site would be correctly graded to provide appropriate hydrology and not cause adverse impacts to the site such as erosion of streams and channels; b. A soil description, including the source and type of substrate to be used, demonstrating it is able to support the proposed plantings and hydrology; c. A planting plan that includes a list of native locally adapted species to be usod, density of planting, planting method, planting schedule, and planting survival success criteria. Paffc 4 of 4 6. A description of how the mitigation would appropriately compensate fur adverse projoct impacts to aquatic ecosystem functions, 7. A st_~t__,:~gnt disclosing whether any six~ias listed as thre, a~mal ur g~rutnngefed ttntla~ thO Endangered Species Act might be aftoctal by, ur found in the vicinity of, the proposal mitigation project. 8. Any other ralcvant tonnation such as tonnation on cultural resources, the proximity of the project to ~r, ologically sensitive areas, and proj~t impacts on th~ lucal/r~gional hydrology. 9. A proposal fur monitoring the sucocss of tl~ proposed mitigation plan, including the name and telephone number of th~ responsible party, anoccss aitaia, and a compliance repurting program. Gagrally, monitoring should continue at least two years aRa all mitigation project activities have ~ completed and planting survival requirements have ~ achieved. hcludc all appropriate contingency plans and address provisions fur long-term oigrations and maintenance. Mitigation proposals are evaluated by Fort Woah District Regulatory Program staff in consultation wi~h other natural resources agencies including the U.S. Enviromantal Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Railroad Commission of Texas. Fur further ionnation about compensatory mitigation or our rcgulatory program, contact rig Regulatory Branch at: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Regulatory Branch, CESWF-EV-R; P.O. Box 17300; Fort Worth, T~xas 76102-0300. You may visit tlg IRegulatory Branch in Room 3A37 of tag Fakaral Building at 819 Taylur SWeet in Fort WoCdi between 8:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. Telcphon~ inquiries should be dircct~l to (817) 978-2681.