Wetland, Habitat, and Archeological Considerations for Permitting and Mitigation

Transcription

1 Wetland, Habitat, and Archeological Considerations for Permitting and Mitigation Lindsay E. James, R.G. Project Manager Blackstone Environmental, Inc West 133 rd Street Overland Park, Kansas Direct:

2 Performing Wetland Stem Count Outline Wetlands Definition Delineation Methods Regulations and Permitting Case Studies Habitat Assessment and Case Study Cultural Resource Surveys Phase I, II, III Case Study

3 Authority Spiderwort - Upland The USACE operates under these regulatory authorities when it comes to wetlands: Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 404 Clean Water Act What is Covered by Section 404? Approval from the USACE before placing dredged or fill material into Waters of the US including wetlands. Waters of the US are waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce. Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands. Intrastate waters (where use, degradation, or destruction could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Impoundments Tributaries (of the above 4 items) Adjacent wetlands (of the above 5 items)

4 Wetland Definition The USACE and EPA jointly define wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Longleaf Groundcherry Why are wetlands important? Improved water quality; sediment and contaminant reduction Flood control and stormwater retention Public recreation, commercial activity, tourism Biodiversity and open space preservation Low-flow augmentation during drought Game production (waterfowl, fish, etc.)

5 Administration USACE administers the day-to-day program, including individual permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations, develops policy and guidance, and enforced 404 provisions Wetland Delineation is in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and applicable regional supplements Stream corridor considerations Lance Leaf Frogfruit Obligate Limestone channel

6 Jurisdictional Determination Written USACE determination Wetland/waterbody subject to Section 404 jurisdiction Waterbody subject to Section 9 or 10 jurisdiction Written reverification of expired JD or change with new information All JDs are in writing preliminary or final If USACE tells you they do not have jurisdiction of your wetlands, always get it in writing! Do not assume you are done, other agencies may still have jurisdiction USACE on-site reconnaissance to verify jurisdiction

7 Types of Jurisdictional Determinations Approved JD: Determines which waters subject to CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction Can be relied upon for future permitting actions. Good for 5-years Preliminary JD General presence and location of waters/wetlands Advisory not appealable Non-binding Can use if you don t want to challenge CWA/RHA jurisdiction everything is assumed to be jurisdictional Can get an approved JD at a later date for all or parts of a project site Accurate enough to support presumptive jurisdiction under CWA/RHA Can be relied upon for future permitting actions.

8 Jurisdictional Issues Wetlands can be isolated or hydrologically connected to water of the US. That determination is made by the USACE. Cropland A different method is used for farmed wetland determination. USACE may take jurisdiction if farmed wetland has changed from agricultural use to another. Farmed wetlands are protected under Swamp Buster Act.

9 404 Permitting Thresholds Impacts 0.10 acre: generally authorized by a Nationwide Permit. Impacts <300 linear feet of stream bed generally authorized by a Nationwide Permit. Impacts >0.10 and <0.50 acre: normally a Nationwide Permit, normally mitigation required. Impacts 0.50 acre: normally require an Individual Permit.

10 Individual Permits Required for impacts 0.50 acre of jurisdictional wetland/waters of the US/or the activity doesn t fit a Nationwide Permit. Usually requires: Wetland Delineation Report Wetland Mitigation Plan Archaeological Report (if applicable) Other reports (i.e. listed species/habitat information), if required Public comment period and agency involvement is required

11 Wetland Delineation Process Wetland delineation should be based on the best available data and sound professional judgement. Positive indicators of all three parameters normally present in wetlands. 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation 2. Hydric Soils 3. Hydrology Sole reliance on one parameter can be misleading. Soils and vegetation are not absolutely accurate, particularly in highly disturbed areas. Good first step is to identify the lowest/wettest and the highest/ driest parts of a site. If the lowest/wettest isn t wetland, then you may be done. Note this doesn t always work in disturbed wetlands.

12 Wetland Indicator Parameters Hydrophytic Vegetation Wetlands are dominated by hydrophytes (i.e. grows in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically oxygen deficient as a result of excessive water content) Determine what plant species are present and their % cover in the tree, sapling/shrub, herb, and vine stratum. Determine the indicator status of the plants Obligate (OBL) Almost always is a hydrophyte, rarely in uplands Facultative-Wet (FACW) Usually a hydrophyte but occasionally found in uplands Facultative (FAC) Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or nonhydrophyte Facultative-Upland Occasionally a hydrophyte but usually occurs in uplands Upland Rarely a hydrophyte, almost always occurs in uplands

13 Wetland Indicator Parameters Hydrophytic Vegetation Rapid Test All dominant species across all strata are obligate, FACW, or a combination of the two. Dominance Test More than 50% of the dominants from all strata are FAC, FACW, and/or OBL. Prevalence Index weighted average method. If the Prevalence Index is 3.0 or less than you have hydrophytic vegetation. Softstem Bulrush - Obligate

14 Hydric Soils Wetland Indicator Parameters Hydric soils form under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding, long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper portions. Matrix predominate soil color Mottle spots of contrasting color Texture, moisture, restrictive layer, etc. USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey provides information on hydric soils, soil series, and drainage classes. Poor and very poorly drained soils are often hydric. Often mottles in the top 12-inches. Excessively and somewhat excessively drained soils are rarely hydric. No mottles.

15 Wetland Indicator Parameters Hydric Soils Describe the matrix and mottle color using Munsell, percent of mottling, soil texture, moisture and other characteristics (i.e. restriction) Looking for evidence of Redoximorphic Features, i.e. oxidation and reduction. Redox Concentrations High chroma areas where Fe and Mnare concentrated Redox Depletions low-chroma, high-value areas where Fe and Mn have moved out Depleted Matrix low-chroma, high-value or lowvalue with 2% or more redox concentrations Reduced Matrix Soil matrix that changes colors when exposed to air Gleyed Colors Rare unless soil is wet all the time

16 Wetland Indicator Parameters Wetland Hydrology All hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to or near the surface during a portion of the growing season. Sources of water Direct Precipitation Headwater or Backwater Flooding Tides Groundwater Combination of above Surface Water Inundation Hydrology Impacted By Precipitation Stratigraphy Topography Soil Texture Plant Cover

17 Wetland Hydrology Wetland Indicator Parameters Example Primary Indicators (Need 1) Surface Water High Water Table (w/in 10-inches) Saturation Water Marks Sediment/Drift Deposits Iron Deposits Sedimentation and Drift Deposits Example Secondary Indicators (Need 2) Surface Soil Cracks Drainage Patterns Dry-Season Water Table Crayfish Burrows Saturation on Aerials Stressed plants Geomorphic Position

18 Wetland Case Study Desktop Review and Determination: Proposed lagoon closure and capping redevelopment project in Garden City, KS Determination No navigable waters of the US within Rivers and Harbors jurisdiction No waters of the US within Clean Water Act jurisdiction Non-regulated waters/wetlands because the waste water treatment lagoon system was originally designed to meet CWA requirements, the lagoons are not considered WOTUS Permit authorization is not required as the proposed activity will not involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US

19 Wetland Case Study Row Crops and Aerial Photographs: 50-acre site in Iowa including row crop fields, drainages, and tributaries Transition from drainage to farmed upland Linear wetland to farmed wetland transition Evidence of crop stress and standing water

20 Wetland Case Study Wetlands in Atypical Geomorphic Positions/Disturbed Wetlands: 15-acre proposed industrial site in Iowa Divergent slope with benched wetland area with evidence of former filling and grading activities throughout the property Disturbed area surrounded by development Evidence of filling & grading Divergent slope with drainage & possible spring Wetland identified in upland portion of site Wetland Area Vegetation Plant Assemblage Softstem bulrush OBL Curly Dock FAC Bird s Foot Trefoil FACU Black Willow OBL Black Eyed Susan FACU Timothy Grass - FACU

21 Wetland Case Study Wetlands under the threshold no permit required: Streambank stabilization project for 10-acre site with a petroleum pipeline exposure in Minnesota. Project work included rehabilitation and correction of an exposed 8-inch pipeline crossing an unnamed tributary of the Minnesota River. Stream stabilization included permanent fill to approximately acres of wetland. Project included impact to approximately acres of channel. Wetlands and waters of the US were present within the delineation. Pipeline exposure The extent of wetlands were below mitigation thresholds for the purpose of 404 Permitting. Impacts also related to maintenance of the pipeline and eligible for a maintenance exemption. Pipeline exposure and wetland plants

22 Habitat Assessment Can help identify Endangered Species Act compliance issues. Endangered Indiana Bat Threatened Northern Long Eared Bat Foraging habitat Roosting habitat USFWS reviews habitat assessments Mist netting Can sometimes be avoided if trees are removed from end of October to beginning of March Potential Bat Habitat Tree

23 Habitat Assessment Case Study Topeka Shiner Little Cedar Creek Streambank Stabilization Project for a pipeline exposure 4 permits The USACE authorized a NWP with the specific condition that construction could not occur in the channel between May 15 and July 31 to avoid Topeka Shiner spawning season. The KDWPT action permit specified the same as the USACE permit. The DWR permit specified flood plain conditions and the allowance of fish passage in the structure design. General KDHE storm water permit. The overall project resulted in improved habitat for the Shiner with the created riffle pool, which was designed to allow fish passage under normal pool conditions. Before Reconstruction After Reconstruction

24 Cultural Resource Investigations Barn structure with rock constructed controlled release structure & earthen dam Presumed K.C. Hopewell projectile point and dark gray chert knife blade Wetland permits also require compliance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. Cultural Resource Investigations are conducted in Phases, commonly referred to as Phase I, II, & III. Phase I consists of background research and fieldwork. Fieldwork includes pedestrian survey of entire property, excavation shovel tests, and may also include remote sensing. Phase II is conducted to evaluate an archeological site s eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP). Includes systematic controlled surface collection (i.e. test unit excavation), Investigation results lead to a Determination of Eligibility (DOE). Phase III is conducted if a site is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. If impacts to the site cannot be avoided, a Phase III investigation, also known as data recovery, is conducted.

25 Cultural Resource Investigation Case Study 375-acre site in western Missouri. Phase I revealed evidence of significant prehistoric occupation of the property and recording of 10 new sites including a prehistoric mound. A Phase II Archeological Investigation of the mound was recommended. Extensive shovel testing and excavation of three trenches was conducted. No artifacts were identified. No additional investigation was required. Presumed Cultural Mound Lidar of Presumed Cultural Mound

26 QUESTIONS Lindsay E. James, R.G. Project Manager Blackstone Environmental, Inc West 133 rd Street Overland Park, Kansas Direct: