Wetland Disturbance 2

[martin888888]

We are widening a highway and need to place roadside ditches and check dams in order to meet jurisdiction requirments that the WQ storm must be retained and cant leave the site.

In several areas there are minor wetlands located along the roadside that our roadside ditches will disturb. Anyone have any ideas of how to deal with this distrubance? Can they normally be distrubed and mitigated for? Can the ditches be planted with wetlands plants?

 

[bimr]

You will need to work with a firm that specializes in wetlands work. The firm will delineate the scope of the wetlands and determine the permit requirements for dealing with wetlaneds. The firm will also tell you what can and can not be disturbed.

 

[fattdad]

You must mitigate for the permanent impact to wetlands. Depending on your state, they may have approved some of the "nationwide" permits that have to do with various "typical" construction activities. Some of the nationwide permits have to do with utility construction some have to do with liner construction - there are a lot of differenet nationwide permits.

Again, depending on your state, if the wetland impacts are less than some threashold value, you may not have any mitigation requirements. Typically, that threshold value is less than 0.1 acre.

Sometimes you can create your own wetlands adjacent to the impact area. That provides the federal mandate for no net loss of wetlands. Problem with this approach is you'll have (typically) five or 10 years of compliance monitoring. Buying wetland credits lets you mitigate via credit transfer and leaves the compliance monitoring with the wetland banker.

Civil engineering firms typically have some experience in these matters, but if your firm doen't (and you don't want to go to a competitor), you may find "geotechnical" firms have environmental groups that do this sort of stuff.

I've worked through a few of these in my career and find all this regulatory stuff kind of tedious. That said, it is what must be done to get the project moving forward.

f-d

¡papá gordo ain’t no madre flaca!

 

[martin888888]

But, if the wetlands are non-jurisdictional that loosen the requirements immensley doesnt it?

 

[civilman72]

I deal with the USACE here in Colorado a lot. There is an ongoing battle with the USACE and other Federal Agencies on the definition of "non-jurisdictional" wetlands, and "Waters of the US." I think the definition is constantly changing, and even varies between districts within Colorado.

I have an exact project just like yours, and am moving forward with a Nationwide 14 Permit (for transportation projects). I am doing this without a wetlands consultant, however there was an existing wetland delineation completed a few years earlier.

My client does not want to create new wetlands for his mitigation (plus the project is in DOT ROW, so it complicates the process), so we are proposing to plant some trees and shrubs in the ROW. This concept was preliminarily approved based on my conversations with the local USACE representative. It also helps that we only have 0.08 acres of impacts.

Besides that, I also agree with a lot of fatdad's statements.

 

[gbam]

isn't "non-jurisdictional" "wetlands" an oxymoron

 

[fattdad]

re: Jurisdictional wetlands. Your state may take jurisdiction over wetlands that are not contiguous to "navigable waters," which is what the Corps serves "jurisdiction" over. The Corps, however can (does) confirm delineations of isolated wetlands as often regulated by state agencies. Well, at least that's how I think it works. . .

f-d

¡papá gordo ain’t no madre flaca!

 

[Hoagie]

As you can read, knowing whether or not the wetlands you will be impacting fall within USACE jurisdiction is important. If you are, then apply for a Nationwide Permit listed within the list below...

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/technical services/Regulatory branch/NWP2007/nationwides.asp

USACE Permitting requires diagrammatic-level plans, only….so, don't think you'll have to go overboard with the documents. The permit itself is straight forward and in plain language. USACE offers a pre-application meeting...and I would strongly recommend you sit down with them to determine requirements and timetables. They will answer even-the-most basic questions.

Otherwise, you will most likely fall under a local jurisdiction... and they will have requirements for mitigation. I'm guessing the mitigation plan won't be too intensive, since everyone concerned knows you're widening a road. If they want ‘in-kind’ replacement of wetland areas, ask about wetland banking options—which is like a credit your client will need to pay in lieu of actually constructing the wetlands. If you have to reconstruct the wetlands, contact a wetlands plant nursery for available planting palettes/species…they can help you select appropriate species.

I think adventuring into this permit will be good for you...trust that it's not that difficult. If you choose to hire an expert at $150/hr. (or more) be prepared to face your client's music.

Good luck.

H.

 

[cvg]

First of all, nationwide permits only apply to the smallest of projects, if you meet the requirements then great, otherwise you have to get an individual permit. A delineation on an aerial photo of temporary and permanently disturbed areas and acreage is required and then a quick meeting with the USACE will determine if you could comply with the nationwide permit.

However, I would be surprised that on a "highway widening" project that the DOT project manager is not already fully aware that permits are required and the procedures necessary to get one. This is a common occurrence with these types of projects and they generally expect to pay the price for permitting. If you are the consultant, then your project manager should also be well versed in this or if not should have considered hiring a consultant to assist with the permitting. Sure, it is an straight forward process - but if things go wrong and you do not get USACE approval of your 404 permit, it can kill a project. I have seen it happen before and there were no wetlands involved. The state ended up re-designing the freeway to get it approved, but the City was not able to get the permit for the associated drainage project and that was scuttled (but not before final plans were nearly done). Total cost of that project was $46 million and it still sits on the shelf 10 years later. If more attention had been paid to the permitting, things sure might have gone a lot smoother.

 

[beej67]

^^all good comments.

Short answer, call your wetlands consultant. If you don't have a wetlands consultant, get a wetlands consultant.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com