CORPS OF ENGINEERS

1

• CORPS OF ENGINEERS
• SECTION 404
• Mitigation
• November 18, 2005

2
Mitigation

• The taking of an action which reduces the adverse
  impacts of a proposal

3
Resources to Mitigate

• Wetlands and other special aquatic sites
• Emergent
• Scrub-Shrub
• Forested
• Streams
• Perennial
• Intermittent
• Ephemeral
• Open Water
• Public interest factors
• aesthetics, noise, historic resources, endangered
  species

4
Mitigation Guidance

• EPA/USACE 1990 MOA on Mitigation
• Regulatory Guidance Letter RGL 02-02
• Mitigation Action Plan
• LD Mitigation Guidelines
• Stream Assessment Protocol

5
RGL 02-02

• Dated December 24, 2002
• Supercedes RGL 01-01
• Utilizes recommendations of 2001 NRC report
• Goal Improve quality of mitigation
• Supports goal of no overall net loss of
  wetlands
• Supports watershed approach to aquatic resource
  protection
• Focus on replacing aquatic resource functions
• Provides recommendations for components of
  mitigation and monitoring plans

6
RGL 02-02 (cont.)

• Encourages functional assessment methods
• Use when available
• Same method for both impact and mitigation sites
• When FA not available, use acreage or linear foot
  surrogate
• Absence of functional assessment
• Minimum of one-to-one with an adequate margin of
  safety
• No overall net loss may not be achieved for every
  permit but on a cumulative basis.

7
Mitigation Action Plan

• Corps and EPA lead multi-agency effort to promote
  achievement of no net loss goal for wetlands
• 17 components
• Support watershed approach for compensatory
  mitigation
• Improve data collection and data availability
• Update guidance on mitigation

8
Louisville District Mitigation

• LD Mitigation Guidelines (Sept. 22, 2004)
• Outlined information requirements for all
  mitigation
• Mitigation key components
• Goals and performance standards
• Buffers
• Within same 8-digit watershed
• Use of functional assessment method
• Protection in perpetuity
• Monitoring and contingency plan

9
Mitigation Concepts

• Project-specific mitigation
• On or off-site
• Use guidelines and functional protocol(s)
• Banking
• In-lieu fee

10
Components of aMitigation Plan

• Baseline Information
• Goals and Objectives
• Implementation Plan
• Restoration, preservation, creation, enhancement
• Success Criteria
• Monitoring
• Contingency Plan
• Checklist (attachment)

11
Mitigation Banks

• Nov. 28, 1995 Federal Guidance
• Indiana Interagency Coordination Agreement
• Draft Interagency Banking Agreement in Kentucky
• Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)
• Several banks in Kentucky and Indiana

12
In-Lieu Fee Program

• November 7, 2000 Federal Guidance
• Mitigation Review Team (MRT)
• Three ILF Recipients in Kentucky
• Louisville/Jefferson Co. MSD
• Northern Kentucky University Foundation
• KDFWR

13
An Approach to Assessing Stream Functions
Eastern Kentucky High Gradient Headwaters
14
Ecosystem(Holistic Approach)
15
Assessing Ecosystem Integrity (Generalized Model)

• Abiotic Integrity Biotic Integrity
  Ecosystem Integrity
• Objectives of Clean Water Act to maintain and
  improve the physical, chemical and biological
  integrity of the nations waters
• Abiotic Component Physical Chemical Integrity
  
• Biotic Component Biological Integrity

16
EcoregionsPotential Applicability to Other States

• E. Ky Protocol Calibration
• Western Allegeheny (70)
• Central Appalachian (69)
• Southwestern Appalachian (68)

17

A Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index for
Headwater Streams of the Eastern Coalfield
Region, Kentucky     By   Gregory J. Pond,
Environmental Biologist III Ecological Support
Section   Stephen E. McMurray, Environmental
Biologist III Nonpoint Source Section     Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection Division
of Water Water Quality Branch 14 Reilly
Rd. Frankfort, KY 40601  
18
Ecosystem(Holistic Approach)
19
Assessment(Model Forms)

• EII MBI Total HabitatConductivity/ 3
• Complete data set
• EII Total Habitat Conductivity / 2
• Absence of aquatic survey data
• EII Riparian Width Canopy Cover
  Embeddedness / 3
• Preapplication visit w/ limited time and data
• Used for general information/consultations only
• One should always use the most robust form of
  the model possible given the available
  information document the form of the model
  generating the output used in decision-making

20
Assessment Model OutputsCurrency

• Ecological Integrity Index (EII)
• Quality per running foot
• e.g. ( 0 1) with 1 equal to least disturbed
  conditions in the region
• Ecological Integrity Units (EIUs)
• Ecological Integrity Index X Length of Project
• e.g. EII 0.8 and Project Length 1000 ft
• (0.8 X 1000 800 Ecological Integrity Units)

21
Ecological IntegrityIndex Units

• Serve as an estimate of the functions values
  represented by the aquatic system
• Provides a currency to document losses (debits)
  gains (credits) based on functions and values
• Assess appropriateness of mitigation (RGL 02-2)
• Mitigation requirements fair flexible
• Commensurate with level of impact
• Document overall net minimal impact (Nationwide
  Permit Program)
• Provides Predictability for applicants
• Provides Defensible Documentation on Programs
  Effectiveness

22
Avoidance Minimization
Scenario 1
Scenario 2

• Stream A
• EII 0.2
• Impact Length 2000 feet
• Ecological Integrity Units at Stake 400 EIUs
• Stream B
• EII 0.9
• Impact Length 1000 feet
• Ecological Integrity Units at Stake 900 EIUs
• Total Loss 1300 EIUs

• Stream A
• EII 0.2
• Impact Length 3000 feet
• Ecological Integrity Units at Stake 600 EIUs
• Stream B
• EII 0.9
• Impact Length 0 feet
• Ecological Integrity Units at Stake 0 EIUs
• Total Loss 600 EIUs

23
Compensatory Mitigation

• Functional Replacement
• Functions Lost w/ Project (EIUs Lost)
• (Pre-Project vs Post-Project)
• vs
• Functions Gained w/ Proposed Mitigation
• (EIUs Gained)
• (Pre-Mitigation vs Post-Mitigation)
• Temporal Loss
• Risk

24
Questions?

• James M. Townsend
• USACE - Louisville District
• P.O. Box 59
• Louisville, KY 40201-0059
• [phone]
• Regulatory Web Page
• http//www.lrl.usace.army.mil/orf/default.asp