Loading...
Rolling Oaks MC-CS020130 $1 C( ~ 07- =~'\' I 1,/ /" ~-<-,.".,.........." , ~"'. ~ ,.' ~- . 1.1lI " 'f - - FORT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 17300 FORT WORTH. TeXAS 76102-0300 January 30, 2002 . REPLV TO ATTENTION OF Planning, Environmental, and Regulatory Division Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Project Number 200200031, RUBY ROAD, FREEPORT PKWY TO COPPELL ROAD Ms, Suzan C. Taylor eIP Coordinator City of Coppell 255 Parkway P.O. Box 478 Cappel!, Texas 75019 Dear Ms. Taylor: Thank you for your letter dated January 10,2002. Your request has been assigned Project Number 20020003 j , Mr, David Madden has been assigned as the regulatory project manager for your request and win 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. David Madden at the address above or telephone (817)886-1741 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 ~ ~ US Army Corps of Engineers . Fort Worth District Recommendations for Department of the Army Permit Submittals April 6, 1998 The foHowing recommendations from the U.S. AmlY Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, specify information that should be submitted with project proposals for review of pennitting requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899: 1. A vicinity map (e.g., county map. USGS quad sheet, etc.) showing the location of the project, including any borrow or disposal site(s) or other outlying features. 2. A delineation and description of wetlands 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 Wetland Delineation Manual", USACE Waterways Experiment Station Wetlands 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.mil/eVwetlands/wlpubs.htmL 3. The purpose of, and need for, the project. 4. Plan, profile, and cross-section views of all work, both permanent and temporary, in or adjacent to waters of the United States, including wetlands, (If a standard individual permit is required, drawings on 8 1/2 by ] I inch sheets must be provided.) 5. The type, source, and volume of material proposed to be discharged into and/or excavated from waters of the United States. In cases where the activity may result in a permanent change to pre- construction contours or drainage patterns, provide the reasons why the changes are necessary and a description of the anticipated outcome of the changes. 6. The width and depth of the water body and the waterward distance of any structures from the existing shoreline if located on a navigable water or a US ACE lake project. 7. A description of the project's likely temporary and pennanent impact on the aquatic environment. 8, A description of actions in project design to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment and to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. 9. The project schedule. 10. A statement disclosing whether or not any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act might be affected by, or found in the vicinity of, the proposed project. Direct coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concc01ing tne potential impact of the entire project on threatened and endangered species is strongty encouraged. ] I. Any other relevant infonnation, including available infonnation on cultural resources and hydrology, rmI .~ US Army Corps of Engfneers Fort Worth District Mitigation and the Section 404 Regulatory Program March 6. 1998 Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Thus, Department of the Army authorization is normally required for discharges associated with such ground disturbing activities as fiJling, grading, excavation, and mechanized land clearing when they occur in waters of the United Stares. When the USACE reviews a project that would require Department of the Army authorization, the evaluation process typically includes a determination of whether the applicant has taken sufficient measures to mitigate the project's likely adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Mitigation is a three-step sequential process, with the steps employed in the following order: Avoid: Take aU appropriate and practicable measures to avoid those adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem that are not absolutely necessary. Minimize: Take all appropriate and practicable measures to minimize those adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem that cannot reasonably be avoided. Compei'!!....te: Implern.e!ltapp~<'~ril!te ~"td p1'lk..-ticabl~ measure.'l to comp...~sate fOt' adverse project impacts to the aquatic.ecosystem that cannot reasonably be avoided or rnininlized. Known as compensatory mitigation. While this sequential n:iitigation process is'nonnally applied only during the individual pcnnit process, most nationwide and regional general permits do require that discharges of dredged and flU material into waters of the United States be avoided and m.inimizcd to the maximum extent 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 nonnally require, on a case-by-case basis, all practicable and appropriate compensation as II condition of Department of the Army authorization. The purpose of compensatory mitigation is to replace those aquatic ecosystem functions that would be lost or impaired because of an authorized activity. The amount and type of compensatory mitigation required for a particular lICtivity should be commensurate with the nature and extent of the activity's adverse impact on aquatic functions and be practicable in terms ofeost, existing technology, and logistics, in light of the overall project purpose. Aquatic functions, which are most simply defmed as "the things that aquatic systems do," include sediment trapping and nutrient removal; flood storage and conveyance; erosion control; providing habitat for fish and wildlife, including endangered species; groundwater recharge; water supply; production of food, fiber, and timber; and recreation. The number and extent of these and other aquatic functions vary widely among the myriad aquatic sites fOWld across the Fort Worth District. Compensatory mitigation may include the restoration, enhancement, creation, or, in exceptional cases, preservation of wetlands and other aquatic resources, Restoration is the re-establishment of functions a.nd characteristics that have either ceased to exist or exist in a substantially degraded state; enhancement includes activities conducted on, or adjacent to, existing wetlands and other aquatic resources that arc Intended to enhance onc or more aquatic functions such as conversion to a less destructive land use or MitUlation and the St:ction 404 Regulatory Program Pag.. ;! of'" improvement of the existing plant community; creation is the establishment of a wetland or other aquatic resource where one did not fonnerly exist; and preservation is the protection of existing ecologically important wetlands and other aquatic resources in perpetuity by implementing certain legal clOd physical mechanisms. Preservation is normally appropriate only in exceptional cases, such as when a high-value ,aquatic resource would be lost to lawful activities were it not protected by preservation. Restoration and enhancement are preferred to creation because they are normally less expensive, more successful, and less likely to adversely affect existing upland and open water habitats. A compensatory mitigation project that involves ground dismrbing activities in waters of the United States may itself require Department of the Army authorization. It is important to remember that the goal is to replace the affected aquatic functions to the extent that they would be lost or impaired by the proposed activity, that is, compensation should generally be "in-kind." Compensation should be provided as close to the site of the adverse impacts as practicable to minimize losses to the local aquatic system. However, off*site compensation may be more appropriate when the compensation cannot reasonably be conducted at the impact site or would be more beneficial to the aquatic ecosystem jf conducted at another location. In some cases, it may be acceptable to provide partial compensation at multiple locations. For'example, it may be necessary to compensate for flood storage impacts on site while compensating for wildlife habitat impacts at another location. Two general approaches to implementing compensatory mitigation are project-specific and third-party compensation projects. A project-specific compensation project is conducted to compensate for the adverse impacts of a single activity requiring Department of the Army authoriz_a~n. /. project-specific compensation project is typically designed and impleII1ented toy the permitteem ctJnjunction with the authorized activity and is often located on-site or near the authorized activity. The permittee is also responsible for monitoring and assuring the success of the mitigation project. The third~party approach consolidates cOIDpcUsation for multiple projects requiring Department of the Army authorization into one or more off-site mitigation projects. This approach is distinguished from project~ specific compensation in that a third party typically accepts the responsibility of designing, implementing, and assuring the success of compensatory mitigation for the permittee. This approach involves such activities as mitigation banking, combined or joint mitigation proja:ts, and in-lieu fee md fee-based trusts. A brief description of each fonows: Mitigation banking: Mitigation systems that provide consolidated off-site compensation for numerous authorized activities in advance of adverse' project nnpacts. A mitigation bank is developed and operated lUldcr the terms of a mitigation banking instrument among the bank owner, the USACE, and other natural resource agencies. In most cases, Department of the Army authorization is also required to develop the bank For further information on mitigation banking, refer to "Federal Guidance tor the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitiglltion Ban.ks," published in the Federal Register on November 28,1995 (Vol. 60, No. 228, pp. 58605-58614). Combined or joint-project mitigation: Mitigation systems that simultaneously provide compensatory mitigation for more than one permitted project that adversely impact the aquatic eCO:>)'Stem. Unlike a mitigation bank, a joi...'1t project typically does not provide compensation in advance of project impacts. Each use of a JOLt'lt mitigation project typically requires USACE approval. Mitigation and the SectiOn 404 Regulatorv Program Pal!.C J of4 ~ In-lieu fee and fee-based mitigation: Mitigation systems that provide a Department of the Army pennittee an 'opportunity to pay a fee in lieu of conducting project-specific compensation activities. Fees are used to fund projects designed to restore, enhance, create, or, in some cases, preserve aquatic ecosystem functions. These projects should reflect both the nature and extent of aquatic functions adversely affected by pennitted activities. Typically, in-lieu systems pertain to unspecified future mitigation projects, while fee-based systems involve specific, identified mitigation projects, that are either complete or WIder development as fees are collected, Department of the Army permittees are responsible for developing a mitigation plan and submitting it to the USACE. An appropriate real estate arrangement, such as a deed restriction, will normally be required to achieve long-term success of a mitigation plan or to provide sufficient compensation for adverse project impacts. A mitigation plan should generally include at a minimwn: 1. A complete description of efforts made to avoid and minimize adverse project impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Include impacts to local hydrology, upstream and downstream 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 history, soils, local hydrology, and dominant vegetation. 3.. A juriSdictional.detennination, including a wetland delineationtu appropriate) conduci.ed in .';accocdance withthe 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manua:. The juiisdlctionat Jetermination report should include a site description, field data sheets. summary of findings, and a detailed map of the site indicating the location and extent of aU waters of the United States, including wetlands. 4. A detailed description of the nature and location of all proposed ground disturbing activities and structures associated with the compensatory mitigation project. Include information about grading. filling, planting, land clearing, road construction. size and spacing of culverts and bridges, fences, buildings. utility lines, intake and outfall structures, and disposal and borrow area locations. Provide plan and cross-section drawings of all pertinent work and structures and the volume and type of material to be discharged. Include froth 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 hydrology showing that it is adequate for the sire, sufficient suitable quality water will be available during appropriate seasons, and the 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 !:hat includes a list of native locally adapted species to be llsed, density of planting, planting method, planting schedule, and planting survived success criteria. Ivliligation and (hI: Section 404 Regulatorv Program . Pa.ll' 4 of 4 ~ . .. . 6. A description of how the mitigation would appropriately compensate for adverse project impacts to aquatic ecosystem functions. 7. A statement disclosing whether any species listed as threatened or endangered WIder the Endangered Species Act might be affected by, or found in the vicinity of, the proposed mitigation project. 8 Any other relevant information such as information on cultural resources, the proximity of the project to ecologicaHy sensitive areas, and project impacts on the local/regional hydrology, 9, A proposal for monitoring the success of the proposed mitigation plan, including the name and telephone number of the resp<lnsible party, success criteria, and a compliance reporting program, Generally, monitoring should continue at least two years after all mitigation project activities have been complded and planting survival requirements have been achieved. Incfude all appropriate contingency plans and address provisions for long-term operations and maintenance. Mitigation proposals are evaluated by Fort Worth District Regulatory Program staff in consultation with other natural resources agencies including the U.S. Environmental'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. For further i.'lformatioD.about compensatory mitigation or our regulatory program, contact the Regulatory Si'MCr. at: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Regulatory Branch, CESWF.EV.R; P.O. Box 17300; For.: Woril:1, Texas 7(i102.0306. You may visit the'Regulatory Branch in Room 3A37 of the Federal Building at' 819 TayiOJ: Sweet in Fort Worth between 8:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M" Monday through Friday. Telephone ~ inquiries should be directed to (817) 978.2681.