TheHighwayMethodologyWorkbook

Integrating Corps Section 404Permit Requirements with

US Army Corpsof Engineers Highway Planning and EngineeringNew England District and the NEPA EIS Process

•

I II II

! , II " II

• I -.

!l II = ~ J i , "

--.1 - ,

• I

I~I ., Ii

- "

- " - " - . - "

- " - " - "

- --.

2

A Department of the Army permit is likely required for a proposed high-way project. Discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the UnitedStates, including wetlands, require permitting under Section 404 of theClean Water Act. Coastal and certain inland projects may also requirepermitting under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Theserequirements are in addition to the need for State and local permits.

The Highway Methodology, originated by the New England District in1987, provides a useful way to integrate highway planning and designwith the requirements of the Corps permit regulations, the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) funding approvals.

This Methodology integrates the timelines of the many agencies involvedand provides useful tools for expediting decisionmaking. It builds uponthe McHarg1 overlay techniques of the 1960s familiar to most highwayplanners. In addition, it is consistent with the “Red Book” published jointlyby the FHWA, Corps, U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U SFish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). A Memorandum of the U S Department of Transportation, EPAand the Department of the Army of May 1, 1992 on the IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires full implementationof the “Red Book”.

Many of the ideas presented here have come from the New HampshireDepartment of Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ’s Nashua highway project with the Corpsas the EIS lead Federal agency, and from the Connecticut Department ofTr a n s p o r t a t i o n ’s Route 6 Bolton to Windham project with FHWA as theEIS lead and the Corps as a cooperating agency. On both projects con-sultant Parsons DeLeuw, Inc. provided support on process facilitation,concept development and field checking.

Background

1 McHarg, Ian, Design with Nature, Natural History Press, 1969

3

Introduction

Participation by the Corps during the earliest planning stages of highwayprojects is a key provision of the Methodology. The Methodology detailsa way to systematically but quickly review and evaluate alternatives withparticipation by the Federal resource agencies (agencies), the applicant,and FHWA (where FHWA funding is involved). Alternatives analyses arebased upon the determination of project “purpose and need” for NEPAand upon “overall/basic project purpose” for the EPA 404 (b) (1)Guidelines used by the Corps.

The Guidelines establish pass/fail environmental tests as a prerequisiteto the overall balancing of project benefits versus detriments. In addition,an EPA/Army Memorandum of Agreement of February 7, 1990 recog-nizes a stepwise process of avoidance, minimization and compensationof adverse impacts toaquatic functions and val-ues of wetlands.

The appl icant and theCorps project managershould develop a compos-ite timeline bar schedulefor the project. It shoulddepict agency milestones,anticipated and completeddates, and sign-off pointsby the Corps. Through itsformation and monthlyupdate, advanced planningis possible and issuesneeding resolution can beresolved. The applicantand participating agencys t a ff will benefit from this roadmap through the regulatory process. Asample schedule is included on the inside flap of this workbook.Adjustments will likely be needed for specific project requirements.

Planning Concept

photo # 1

4

Preapplication

This workbook has been prepared to aid Corps ofEngineers project managers in their evaluation ofpermit applications. It is also intended as a guidefor applicants and their consultants to understandthe Corps regulatory requirements. Whileaddressed specifically to highway projects, it hasapplicability to all construction projects needingindividual permits. It is divided into five sections.Each section corresponds to a major step of theCorps permit process. A checklist of items to becompleted by the Corps project manager is pro-vided along with the related NEPA steps for theEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.The reader is directed to NEPA and FHWA regu-lations for a complete discussion of those pro-cesses.

Depending on the project scope various pieces ofthe process may be combined or eliminated andthe amount of analysis lessened. For example,when impacts will not significantly affect the quali-ty of the human environment an EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) will replace an EIS.

The process described in this workbook has beenused successfully, but not without diligence andacceptance by all parties. New alignment highwayprojects represent some of the most challengingpermit applications in the New England region. Adeliberate plan and a commitment to stick with itis essential and will pay off with shortened deci-sion times and reduced costs.

Application

Public Notice

Evaluation Monitoring

photo #2

photo #3

photo #5 photo #6

5

Preapplication

As early as possible the Corps will arrange a preapplication meetingwith the applicant, usually the State Department of Transportation forhighway projects. The Corps project manager is the coordinator and isresponsible for taking all appropriate actions through to a completedpermit decision. All meetings with the Federal resource agencies shouldbe arranged and chaired by the Corps to facilitate clear communicationand expedite decisions. At this time the Corps project manager willexplain the roles of the Corps project manager, agencies, applicant andconsultants. The proposed project, permit application process, support-ing documentation and schedule for decision in relation to theMethodology should be discussed. The project will be entered into theCorps regulatory data base to begin tracking as a pending permit appli-cation.

Following the preapplication meeting the Corps will determine the basicproject purpose as required by the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This is a nec-

essary prerequisite to determining thestudy area and the scope of the alterna-tives analysis. The Guidelines, 40 CFR230.10(a), discuss both “overall” and“basic” project purpose. The Corps willdefine this “overall/basic” project pur-pose broadly to insure that a reason-able range of alternatives will be exam-ined. The Corps will then provide a let-ter stating its definition of project pur-pose. At the same time, if an EIS will berequired, the lead Federal agencyshould determine the project purposeand need. This NEPA project purpose,as distinguished from the Guidelines, isdiscussed in the inset.

NEPA Project PurposeThe National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) regulat ions40CFR1500 of November 29,1978 define at Sec1502.13 a “pur-pose and need” statement to be included in an EIS and inresponse to which alternatives arepresented.

This “purpose and need” differs-from the Corps Sec404b1Guidelines statement of“overall/basic project purpose”. Itis generally broader specified ingreater detail and is defined by thelead federal agency.

If an EIS is required, the Corps permitprocess should be merged with theEIS process as indicated in the com-posite bar schedule. Similar mergingshould be considered for projects hav-ing an EA. Joint workshop sessionsshould be held with the Corps, the EISlead agency and the Federal resourceagencies at appropriate times to facili-tate the subsequent steps. If the Corpsfinds that an EIS is required for its per-mit activities it will become a cooperat-ing agency in the EIS preparation. Thiswill allow adoption of the EIS by theCorps. It should also insure that theEIS contains information sufficient forthe Corps to make both its 404(b)(1)Guidelines determinations and its pub-lic interest review determination insupport of the permit decision.

In a workshop session wi th theFederal resource agencies and the State agencies, where possible, theCorps and the EIS lead agency will define the study areas and the scopesof analyses. The EIS requirements will typically be broader than the Corpspermit requirements. The Corps will ask for additional information from theapplicant only after it is assured of the need and understands the time andcosts anticipated. Consultants undercontract with the applicant or theapplicant's staff will typically gatherthis data. Initial data in support of therequired alternatives analysis will bediscussed below as part of Phase I. It is important to note throughout theMethodology that final design is notrequired. In general the schematiclevel of design will be sufficient, withthe exception of compensatory wet-land mitigation, where preliminarydesign is required.

6

NEPA Documentation Every Corps permit decisionis considered a majorFederal action. Therefore,for each the Corps mustmake its own determinationof whether the action maysignificant ly af fect thehuman environment. Formost permit applications af inding of no s ignif icantimpact is reached and theE n v i r o n m e n t a lAssessement concludes theNEPA documentation.Where a finding of signifi-cance is reached, as is thecase for most new align-ment highway projects, anEnvironmental ImpactStatement is required.Typically, where FHWA isthe lead Federal agency fora project, the Corps wi llseek to adopt the FHWAEIS.

Checklistmeet with applicant consider if an EIS is likely initial database entriesreview applicant’s scope of work for Corps Permitdetermine basic projectpurposeidentify study areasend letter (basic projectpurpose, study area,scope of work)

7

In addition to a composite time line bar schedule the Corps project man-ager will prepare a permit schedule. A sample is shown here. The pur-pose of the schedule is to plan ahead and anticipate problems beforethey occur. It allows the project manager to lay out a complete estimateof events identifying critical milestones and team member interaction. Italso allows the supervisor and the Chief, Programs and Policy Section toquickly review the project manager’s plan and make early adjustmentsbefore time and money are spent unnecessarily.

Permit schedules can be made using LOTUS FREELANCE, a computersoftware package which allows schedule changes and annotations to bereadily made. At least monthly the Corps project manager should providehis or her supervisor with an updated copy of the permit schedule. •dates to the left of the current date are actual dates•dates to the right are estimates

Thus, revised schedules always show actual events to the left andplanned events to the right.

Permit Schedule

Checklistcompose project schedulestaffing reviewupdate monthly

8

i Q

Q

• <

" " • < •

,~ ... j ~

< Q

1:1 ~ !1 ~

Q

< Q

• < ,!

I ," • • < • • , Q

<

•

, I

9

Feeder ReportIf the project requires costs to be paid from the Regulatory budget,beyond Regulatory staff costs, the project manager should include withthe project schedule a feeder report which tracks requests, approvals andexpenditures of such funds. Such costs may be by Corps staff outsidethe Regulatory Division or by contractors. These feeder reports are to besubmitted through channels to the Regulatory Branch Chief by the 15thof each month. They will be reviewed against the monthly Regulatory fis-cal spreadsheet to determine availability of funds. These feeder reportsbecome a critical part of planning and funding the expeditious processand final decision for the permit application. Early submission by the pro-ject manager of feeder reports requesting funds is essential. A samplefeeder report is shown here. Project managers should coordinate with theRegulatory Branch budget analyst for a full understanding of fiscal pro-cedures.

Checklistsubmit feeder reports, if neededupdate monthly

10

•

•

31

!" ~d _~ - .. ~.

H~d

• < , , , ;, • • , • • • • < , , ,

:::I; f ~? • • • • < , , ,

< , • , • • •

11

Avoidance - Phase IPhase I of the Methodology is the first iteration of viewing potential alter-native alignments against a series of constraint map overlays and a testof practicability. This typical planning process is likely being utilized insome fashion by the applicant, the highway department. It is the Corpsintent to integrate its permit requirements into the applicant’s normalplanning and design approach insofar as possible.

It is particularly important to the mandates of the Clean Water Act thatwaters and wetlands be included as a critical constraint map overlay inalternative alignment analysis. Filling of waters or wetlands needs to beavoided. Through this analysis the Corps may only permit the least envi-ronmentally damaging practicable alternative.

Basic planning information is provided by the permit applicant. This infor-mation should be provided before any commitments are made whichwould preclude the consideration of alternative alignments. Waters andwetlands information for Phase I is generally based on available literatureand office data with limited field reconnaissance. Corps wetland limits areestimated using FWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, soil sur-vey maps, quad sheets, and aerial photos. The Nashua New Hampshireproject had two person weeks of field investigation for a proposed 13 milesuburban highway. The Connecticut Rt 6 project also had two personweeks of field work for a 12 mile rural highway.

Wetlands were easily located in the field, after noting their map coordi-nates, using a hand held Loran-C navigational device. This device, nor-mally used on the water by boaters, has worked well on land. It allowswetlands to be found quickly in the field without requiring costly survey-ing, especially important when comparing several alternatives.

A waters and wetlands constraint map overlay at a scale of 1”=2000’ (orother appropriate scale) is prepared on transparent material, from thissource data,and then digitized into the CADD system typically in used byhighway planners and engineers. Similar overlays are prepared to reflectother constraints of interest to the applicant, agencies and the public.

Overlay Source Material

Wetlands •FWS National Wetlands Inventory maps (corresponds roughly with the wettest portion of Corps wetland limits)

•Soils maps, limits of hydric soils (corresponds more closely than NWI with Corps wetland limits)•Aerial Photography•State or local wetland limits•USGS quadrangle maps•SCS information•Field investigations

Aquifers •USGS aquifer maps•Surficial geology maps

Developed areas • USGS quadrangle maps•Aerial photography

Wildlife Habitat •Aerial photography interpretation of cover type•Deer wintering area maps•Natural Heritage Program data

Archeo/historic •Literature search •Federal register list of propertieson National register

•SHPO data•"windshield survey"

Hazardous waste •EPA superfund sitessites •State and local data

•Public Information

Watershed •Corps river basin mapsAreas •Watershed atlases

•Self constructed plots

Unfragmented •USGS quad maps habitathabitat •Aerial photography

Alternative •DOT preferred and alternativealignments alignments

•Corps and agencies’ suggested alignments•Public suggested alignments

12

Checklist2000’ scaleconstraint map overlays agency meeting todetermine Phase Ialternatives limited field work

Other constraints relevant to Federal requirements include historic properties underthe National Historic Preservation Act and protected species under the EndangeredSpecies Act. A partial listing of overlays and their corresponding source materialmay include the following:

13

All reasonable major alternative alignments are drawn. These includealternatives suggested by the applicant, Corps, the public, andAgencies. Early public input typically comes from the applicant's pub-lic workshops. In Phase II additional public input will be incorporated.Any conflicts or disagreements need to be resolved. Before proceed-ing further there should be immediate elevation of the unresolvedissues.

Digitizing overlays allows printed copies to be distributed to workshopteam members in advance. Workshop sessions include viewing over-lays in various combinations on top of quad maps and specially flownproject aerial color photographs. (Special aerials were flown for theNashua project and printed at 1”=1000’ for approximately $8,000.)Corps and agencies’ alignment suggestions are adjusted by DOThighway engineers to conform to design standards and sound engi-neering practices. A sample overlay is shown here.

Checklistwritten wetland assessment of Phase I alternatives matrix of Phase I alternativesresolve conflicts and/or disagreements Phase I screening meeting to narrow down to Phase II alternatives send sign-off letter

A written assessment and summary matrixof the various alternatives being considered,with respect to resource impacts and otherappropriate considerations should accompa-ny the graphics. The matrix should not dis-play weightings. Team members should bepresented with unweighted data, each bring-ing his or her own concerns to the work-shop. A partial sample matrix is shown here.

With input from workshop members theCorps determines a limited number (usually1-6) of practicable alternatives to carry for-ward to Phase II. (In a single workshop ses-sion the team members on the Nashua pro-ject were able to agree to carry 6 of the 30Phase I alternatives forward to Phase II. In athree hour session on the Ct Rt 6 project 4out of 52 alignments were agreed to be car-ried forward.)

14

The rationale for dismissing alternatives in terms ofthe 404 (b) (1) Guidelines, i.e. not practicable ormore environmentally damaging, should be docu-mented. Alternatives that may cause or contributeto significant degradation should be flagged duringthe Phase I analysis.

Portion of Summary Matrix

NEPA Alternative analysis

The alternatives analysisrequired by NEPA in the EA orEIS may be broader than thatrequired by the 404 (b) (1)Guidlines. NEPA alternatives,for example, are not limited tothose available to the applicant.

15

Application

NEPA Draft EIS The Draft Environmental Impact Statement shall be pre-pared in accordance with the NEPA process.

The lead agency is responsible for the DEIS andobtains comments from the cooperating agencies.

It is important that the Corps fully participates in scopingto ensure that information necessary for its permit deci-sion is included. This will avoid duplication by the appli-cant in providing data to the separate EIS and Corpsprocesses.

While the information necessary for Corps decisionsshould be in the EIS, the actual Sec404b1 Guidelinescompliance determination andpermit decision wi ll be in theCorps record of decision and notin the EIS.

Avoidance-Phase II

Checklistreview applicationfor completenessrequest additionalinformationcomplete application

At the onset of Phase II, the Corps permit application is generally submit-ted. An application will be determined to be complete when suff i c i e n tinformation is received to issue a public notice. Clear and concise planson 8-1/2" x 11" sheets are required.

l1li

Public Notice

17

When Phase II is partially complete, the Corps public notice is releasedtogether with the release of the draft EIS. At this juncture there is suffi-cient data available for meaningful public comment. It is necessary tosolicit comments and evaluate the probable impact, including cumulativeimpacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. The public noticeis the primary way of notifying the public of the proposed activity. In addi-tion a public information meeting or a public hearing may be held if eitheris warranted. These should coincide with the EIS process (ie.consider ajoint public hearing).

18The constraint map overlay process is repeated, this time at a larg-er scale, such as 1”=400’. The alternatives are plotted to includecenterlines, curb lines, and toes of slopes of fills in waters and wet-lands. Minor shifts in alignment are considered.

Checklistissue public notice hold joint processing meeting if needed negative public hearing determination or joint public hearing400' scale constraintmap overlays

A more detailed investigation of the Phase II alternatives is done in orderfor the Corps to select the Least Environmentally Damaging PracticableAlternative (LEDPA). Phase I source material is re-examined and aug-mented with any additional available office data and some additional lim-ited field data. The Nashua and the Rt 6 projects each had 9 personweeks of additional field work. This figure is flexible and will varydepending on the project specifics.

NEPA Public Hearing

Whenever a public hearing is to be held bythe lead Federal agency upon release of thedraft EIS, the Corps should consider holdinga joint hearing for its permit action. Releaseof the public notice by the Corps would bemade when the DEIS is released. Thenotice would request comments on the per-mit application and announce participationby the Corps in a joint hearing.

19

Evaluation

A written analysis of the alternatives, including the additional field dataand graphics, are provided to team members in advance of workshopuse. Wetland impacts (acreages and functions and values) of the alterna-tives are updated and disclosed. With workshop participation by FHWA,the agencies and the applicant, and with input from the public, the Corpsselects the LEDPA. Critical to the selection of the LEDPA is the recogni-tion of the full range of NEPA alternatives and impacts in determining firstwhich alternatives are practicable (in terms of logistics, technical aspectsand cost) and second which are environmentally less damaging.

The wetland limits of the LEDPA must be field delineated and formallyaccepted by the Corps in accordance with the current Corps methodolo-g y. The delineation is typically performed by the applicant’s consultantwith initial guidance and final approval from the Corps.

A field assessment of the functions and values of the affected waters andwetlands of the LEPDA is performed using the New England Divisionassessment methodology and field worksheets. These same worksheetscan be used in the limited field evaluations of Phase I and Phase II, priorto selecting the LEDPA.

It is vital to coordinate with the state permitting agencies prior to selectingthe LEDPA, as this becomes the only alternative the Corps may permit.Ideally the state would have been a participant in the above process,although this is not alwayspossible.

At the culmination of Phase IIthe Corps will provide a sign-off letter to the applicant.

NEPA Final EIS

The Corps should participate in the finalEIS response to appl icable concernsraised to date. The Corps permit decisionmust await close of the public comment

MinimizationThe minimization step in the process addresses itself to on-site project modifi-cation, whereas the avoidance step looked at off-site alternatives. Refinementsto schematic design are considered to further minimize resource impacts,including waters and wetlands. Minor shifts in alignment may be looked at aswell as side slope steepness and median widths. Project elements may beshifted or changed in size and configuration. If all Phase II alternatives wouldcause impacts requiring compensation then development of a compensatorymitigation plan should proceed during this step.

CompensationFinally, the LEDPA for a highway project will usually result in unavoidable loss-es to waters and wetlands and a package of compensatory mitigation will needto be developed. The EPA/Army Memorandum of February 7, 1990 requiresthe Corps to strive for an in-kind replacement of the wetland functions and val-ues affected when an individual permit is involved. Site analysis and a threeparameter preliminary, (30%), design of replacement wetlands will be requiredbefore a permit is issued.

Although this step sequentially comes late in the permit process it is stronglyrecommended to anticipate needs and begin planning early, particularly whereoff-site properties will be involved. Otherwise, the project schedule may be sig-nificantly delayed. Early commitment to mitigation banking by the state high-way department appears to be the most effective way to address wetland loss-es. Both the Corps and EPA must approve all mitigation banking used forCorps permits.

All parties must recognize the diff i c u l t i e sinherent in attempting to create new wet-lands and even to enhance existing wet-lands. Freshwater wetland systems, in par-t i c u l a r, are complex, variable ecosystemsusually occurring in response to environ-mental conditions over very long periods oftime. A very deliberate approach to siteselection, data monitoring, functions andvalues assessment, design, constructionand compliance monitoring is required toattempt to mitigate for wetlands impactedby the project.

20

Checklistadditional field workwritten wetland assessment of Phase II alternativesmatrix of Phase II alternativesresolve conflicts and/or disagreements Phase II meeting determine LEDPAsend sign-off letter wetland delineation of LEDPA

21

The Corps will determine the functions and values to be obtained and willinclude special conditions to the permit necessary for compliance. TheCorps project manager should review all aspects of intended compen-satory mitigation with the Section supervisor and obtain signoffs from theChief, Programs and Policy Section. The following issues will be particu-larly reviewed before asking the applicant to begin spending time andmoney:

• The general scope/magnitude of functions and values of waters andwetlands likely to be impacted should be assessed early. Often at thebeginning of Phase II the few alignments being studied will show this,regardless of which alternative becomes the LEDPA.

• Potential sites for compensatory mitigation should be assessed, particu-larly viewed from the three parameters of hydrology, soils and vegetation.The Corps strives for in-kind replacement of functions and values impact-ed, where feasible. On-site replacement is preferred to off-site, wherefeasible.

• Existing site conditions need to be analyzed. Hydrology will often be themost difficult factor to determine. A history of the range of saturated soillimits and duration is desirable but not always available. Collecting a sin-gle year’s worth of groundwater data will not provide that history. Suchlimited data, however, combined with rainfall history, topography andother factors may be the best available practical approach. The Corpsshould understand the time, costs and reliability of data gathering beforeapproving.

• A preliminary design of compensatory mitigation will be required beforethe Corps can reach a permit decision and condit ion a permit.Experienced design professionals, applicant's staff or consultants, needto prepare the compensation plan. The design must show existing andproposed grades, soils, hydrology and vegetation. The predicted range ofgroundwater fluctuation and resulting saturated soil conditions need to beclearly drawn and all assumptions clearly stated.

22

• Corps permit conditions will typically incorporate the applicant’s mitiga-tion plan. All steps in the plan will require the Corps to seek appropriateinterdisciplinary input before approval. In addition to its own staffexperts, the Corps will actively involve the Federal resource agencies inthis.

• Monitoring reports will be required from the permittee at appropriatetimes following permit issuance. Corps compliance inspections will benecessary and should be outlined in the permit schedule and tracked forfollowup.

• There must be a plan toinsure long term ownership andprotection of the mitigation site. Checklist

project modification (minimization of LEDPA impacts)compensatory mitigation (site analysis, preliminary design, ownership/management)address substantive issuesWQC and/or CZM issued or waived 404b1 compliancedetermination public interest determinationdraft EA/SOF or ROD

23

Permit DecisionThe Corps permit decision follows its preparation of NEPA documenta-tion, which is either an Environmental Assessment or an EIS. For pro-jects authorized by nationwide, regional, or state program general permitthe NEPA documentation was prepared for the general permit and projectauthorizations include the Memoranda for the Record. For other permitdecisions (letters of permission, individual permits, and denials), wherean Environmental Assessment is prepared the decision is a Statement ofFindings. Where an EIS is prepared the decision is a Record of Decision(ROD). Preparation of a ROD must await the close of the comment peri-od for the final EIS.

For permit decisions subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act theCorps must first make a determination of compliance with then 404 (b)(1) guidelines. The guidelines prohibit discharges:

• where a less environmentally damaging, practicable alternative exists;

• which result in violations of State or Federal Water Quality Standards, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Sanctuaries Act;

• which cause or contribute to significant degradation of water and wetlands; or

• if all appropriate and practical mitigation has not been taken

A permit cannot be issued unless the project complies with each of thesetests. If insufficient information exists to determine compliance, then thepermit must be denied.

The Corps then makes its public interest review weighing and balancing all relevantpublic interest factors. The permit decision may be issuance or denial. Permit issuancemay include reasonably enforceable special conditions. State water quality certification,including conditions thereto, must be part of a Corps permit. A permit cannot be issuedwhere a required State or local permit has been denied or where the State has deniedwater quality certification or given coastal zone management non-concurrence.

24Checklistdraft permit and special conditionsconclude all sec 404q elevationsstaff permit for signature

25

Monitoring

After a contractor has been selected and hired the applicant shouldarrange a preconstruction meeting with the Corps. The plans will bereviewed at this time along with any special conditions and monitoringschedules. It is important to discuss dates and times when the Corps cango to the site for compliance inspections at the different stages of con-struction of the project (grading, placement of hydric soil, planting). Theperformance standards required by the permit conditions should also bediscussed for inclusion in the monitoring reports.

Monitoring may include determination of survival of plantings and naturalcolonization by plants, documentation of wildlife usage, further study ofhydrology and documentation of other components to determine if thepredicted functions andvalues are actually beingprovided. Adverseimpacts to watch forinclude but are not limitedto wildlife eating the plant-ings,pesticide runoff, all-terrain and off-road vehi-cles, and invasion byunwanted species.

The project managershould make it clear thatthe Corps permit with theconditions and monitoringplan should always be available on site while the project is under con-struction.

Compensatory Wetland Mitigation

26

The Corps project manager remains the responsible professional during the monitoringphase of the project even though the permit has already been issued. Before actuallygoing to a site inspection the project manager will coordinate a meeting involving thesupervisor, the branch's compliance inspector and the mitigation specialist to identifythe important aspects of the project that must be checked. It is important for the projectmanager to continue through the monitoring stage and write the compliance inspectionto learn from actual experience and to be able to make suggestions on future projects.

Checklist

final approval of mitigationplanspreconstruction meetingcompliance inspection(s)monitoring reportsremedial action, if needed

26

Mitigation sites generally will need to be monitored for a period of three to five years,depending on the type of project. For more complicated projects, such as the replace-ment of forested wetlands, this period might be longer.

27

PREAPPLICATIONmeet with applicantconsider if an EIS is likely initial database entriesreview applicant’s scope of workdetermine basic project purposeidentify study areasend letter (basic project purpose, study area, scope of work)compose project schedulestaffing reviewupdate monthlysubmit feeder reports, if neededupdate monthlyPhase I 2000’ scale constraint map overlays agency meeting to determine Phase I alternativeslimited field work written wetland assessment of Phase I alternativesmatrix of Phase I alternatives resolve conflicts and/or disagreementsPhase I screening meeting to narrow down to Phase II alternativessend sign-off letter

APPLICATIONreview application for completenessrequest additional informationcomplete application submitted

Checklist

PUBLIC NOTICEissue public notice hold joint processing meeting if needednegative public hearing determination or joint public hearingPhase II (Extends from Preapplication through Evaluation

Phase)400’ scale constraint maps (overlays)additional field work written wetland assessment of Phase II alternativesmatrix of Phase II alternativesresolve conflicts and/or disagreementsPhase II meeting determine LEDPAsend sign-off letterwetland delineation of LEDPA

EVALUATIONproject modification (minimization of LEDPA impacts)compensatory mitigation (site analysis, preliminary design, ownership/management)address substantive issuesWQC and/or CZM issued or waived 404b1 compliance determinationpublic interest determinationdraft EA/SOF or ROD draft permit and special conditionsconclude all Sec 404q elevationsstaff permit for signature

MONITORINGfinal approval of mitigation planspreconstruction meetingcompliance inspection(s)monitoring reports

28

October 1993NEDEP-360-1-30

26