vvEPA
U.S. 1
nSH& WILDLIFE
SERVICE
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Wetlands Section
May 1994
United States
Department of Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
3704 Griffin Lane S.E., Ste 102
Olympia WA 98501
Washington
Interagency Follow-Through
Investigation of
Compensatory Wetland
Mitigation Sites
Joint Agency Staff Report
-------
INTERAGENCY FOLLOW-THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF
COMPENSATORY WETLAND MITIGATION SITES
JOINT AGENCY STAFF REPORT
Prepared by
Linda Storm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10 - Water Division
Wetlands Section (WD-128)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-2578
Joanne Stellini
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
3704 Griffin Lane S.E.,
Suite 102
Olympia, WA 98501-2192
(206) 753-9440
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Lists of Tables and Figures iii
Acknowledgements iv
Executive Summary v
Introduction 1
Methods 6
Project Selection 6
Office Work 6
Field Investigation 7
Post Field Investigation 7
Results 7
Problems Encountered During Project Selection 7
Problems Encountered During Field Review 12
Discussion. . . 16
Human and Economic Factors Strongly Affect Mitigation.... 16
City of South Bend Case Study 17
Follow-through as a Mitigation Improvement Mechanism 30
Recommendations 30
Follow-Through Observations 30
Mitigation Plan Elements Which Facilitate Functioning
and Follow-Through 33
Institutionalizing Follow-Through 38
Moving Beyond Individual Site Mitigation 40
Conclusions 41
Literature Cited 42
Appendix A - Examples of Forms
Appendix B - Follow-through Correspondence
Grays Harbor County Public Works
Washington State Dept. of Transportation (SR 409)
Washington State Dept. of Transportation (SR 507)
Carlson Beach Properties
A. Andersen
Columbia Shores, Incorporated
City of Des Moines
Pickering Park Associates
City of Redmond
-------
3
9
13
14
36
2
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
LIST OF TABLES
List of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Investigated,
by Permittee, Project, Permit Number, and County
Mitigation Plan and Project Features
Qualitative Evaluation of Project Sites Investigated....
Regulatory and Compliance Problems Identified at Vetland
Compensatory Mitigation Sites
Implementation Schedule Example Format
LIST OF FIGURES & EXHIBITS
Study Area Showing Approximate Locations of Mitigation
Sites Investigated with Overlay of Ecoregions in Western
Washington State
Case Study Mitigation Site Pre-excavation
Case Study Site August 1992
Culvert Allowing Water to Enter Case Study Site
Livestock Use of Case Study Site
Vegetation on Berm of Mitigation Case Study Site
Case Study Site Field Work
Fencing Along Portion of Case Study Site
Drawing of Case Study Site
Transect Elevations for Case Study Site
Wildlife Extension Agreement
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We greatly appreciate the many individuals who have lent their support or
assistance to us during our endeavor to prepare, investigate, and write up
this study. Janice Martin's time, botanical expertise and overall hard work
were critical in project file review, and in preparation and implementation of
the entire field investigation. Nancy Gloman, Carlos Mendoza, and Bill Riley
permitted us to divert our attentions to this effort and away from more
routine matters. Jeff Rose provided engineering services and held the bovines
at bay. Andy Waggener provided endless patience and support in production and
publication of the final document. Many consultants, public servants, and
private citizens have given freely of their time, experience, recollections,
and opinions - these have benefitted us tremendously. To all these
individuals, we are most thankful.
The recommendations contained herein represent and are consistent with the
policies of both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) staff investigated 17 wetland compensatory mitigation sites in
western Washington State. Office file reviews and field site inspections were
performed for five projects in the Coast Range ecoregion, three projects in
the Willamette Valley ecoregion, and nine projects in the Puget Lowland
ecoregion to evaluate permit compliance and ecological functioning.
Vegetative, hydrologic, faunal, and ecological aspects of each site were
assessed. Of field inspected projects it was not possible to determine
whether compliance had been obtained in over half (53%), whereas 29% of
projects were determined to be clearly out of compliance, and 65% were judged
not to be functioning well ecologically. Of projects investigated only 18%
were judged to be in compliance with regulatory requirements. Monitoring had
been required in nine of 17 projects (53%), and had been conducted for only
three (18%) of all investigated sites. Post-field work was undertaken for
this study to inform the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and permittees
of mitigation site conditions and to facilitate actions to improve mitigation
site functioning.
The results of this study point to the need for specific changes. Changes
need to be made in the regulatory process, in the scientific information
provided, and in the ways that resource and regulatory agencies allocate and
prioritize staff and funding resources. We recommend the following changes be
required through the §404 permit process.
MITIGATION PLAN ELEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED
(1) Require and Standardize Photodocumentation to Clearly Show Change in
Mitigation Site Over Time
(2) Require Quantitative Monitoring which Clearly Ties into Performance
Standards Established to Show Attainment of Project Ecological Goals and
Objectives
(3) Require A "Lessons Learned" Section in Monitoring Reports Such That
Consultants Can Provide Insights on Projects and Recommended Mid-Course
or Future Changes
(4) Require A Single and Complete Final Mitigation Plan To Eliminate
Potential Confusion Caused by Mitigation Plan Supplements and Revisions
(5) Require A Standardized Implementation Schedule Format Which Specifies
Each Mitigation Implementation Task, Its Associated Initiation and
Completion Dates, and Its Estimated Cost
(6) Require Monetary Assurances In The Forms of Performance and Contingency
Bonds Tied to the Implementation Schedule and Estimated Implementation
Costs
v
-------
MITIGATION PROJECT AND SITE DESIGN
(1) Require Baseline and Reference Data For Ecological Characterization at
Both Impact and Mitigation Sites Prior to Impact
(2) Require That Mitigation Site Selection and Design Minimize Human
Disturbance and Maximize Ecological Functioning, By Applying
Conservation Biology and Landscape Ecology Principles
(3) Require Installation of Identifying and Interpretive Signs at
Compensatory Mitigation Sites
(A) Require Installation of Boundary Markers to Facilitate Easy
Identification of Mitigation Site Location
(5) Require Permanent Protection of Mitigation Sites Through Legal
Mechanisms
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF FOLLOW-THROUGH WORK
(1) Establish Post-Permit Meetings Among All Parties Involved in Project
Review and Permitting To Be Conducted On-Site After Project Construction
(2) Establish Agency Priorities and Funding For Mitigation Follow-Through
Work as Integral Component of §404 Program Work
(3) Fund Position(s) To Conduct Field Investigations and Follow-Through Work
to Facilitate Policy Process Changes and Develop Information Feedback
Mechanisms
(4) Establish A Fee Mechanism to Charge Permittees for Preliminary Field
Investigation Work Associated With Compensatory Mitigation Site
Monitoring and Follow-Through
(5) Establish and Fund An Interagency Database Accessible To All Involved
Regulatory and Resource Agencies, But Managed By One
This study found follow-through work to be a highly valuable mechanism to
complete information feedback loops, strengthen relationships, and Improve
consistency among regulatory and resource agencies, as well as to increase the
effectiveness of resource agency recommendations. Unforeseen positive results
of this study were that follow-through work fosters improved public perception
of regulatory operations, and cooperation with permittees can lead to
increased ecological functioning of compensatory wetland mitigation sites
beyond that explicitly required in mitigation plans.
However, follow-through work has not been an agency priority through
allocation of staff or resources at the level necessary to assure that the
above benefits are institutionalized. Thus, the current compensatory
mitigation process continues to Impede attainment of the Nation's no-net-loss
goal of wetland and aquatic resources.
vi
-------
INTRODUCTION
To the best of our knowledge the term follov-through has not been previously
defined. Accordingly, we offer this definition for others to use, which could
be applied to other federally authorized projects, and as the general
description of work undertaken to produce this paper.
Follow-through: activities undertaken to investigate Section 404-
permitted work to assess and increase compliance and ecological
functioning of compensatory mitigation projects.
These activities are inclusive of, but not limited to: project file review,
field inspections, quantitative and/or qualitative assessment of compliance
and ecological functioning, interagency coordination, cooperation with
permittees, and pursuit of actions to improve compensatory mitigation project
ecological functioning.
The goal of follow-through is to bring about longterm improvement in the
ecological outcome of compensatory mitigation projects. Follow-through
objectives include: assessing adequacy of project-related documents;
determining project compliance with permit conditions; evaluating onsite,
field conditions to identify impaired ecological functioning; interviewing
consultants and permittees about the compensatory mitigation project; and
documenting and disseminating the outcome of each follow-through objective to
a diverse audience to close informational feedback loops.
Follow-through on wetland compensatory mitigation projects is Imperative to
determine attainment of project goals, objectives, and ecological functioning.
Follow-through is also imperative to gather information from implemented
projects to guide future project site selection, design, and ecological goals
and objectives.
In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) conducted field investigations of 17 wetland
creation and restoration sites required as mitigation for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) permitted activities under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Sites were selected based on a previous file review of 73 compensatory
mitigation projects within Washington state (Rylko and Storm 1991). Of those
73 projects reviewed, 43 had freshwater stream or wetland compensatory
mitigation elements. Of these 43 projects, 17 were investigated (Figure 1).
Five project sites lie within the Coast Range ecoregion, three within the
Willamette Valley ecoregion, and nine within the Puget Lowland ecoregion, as
described by Omernik (1987). A list of the projects investigated in this
study appears on page 3 (Table 1).
The objective of this study was to determine the success of compensatory
mitigation, in terms of permit compliance and attainment of ecological
functioning. The two main phases of investigation were preliminary office
project selection and subsequent field investigation. Additionally, after
field investigations, post field work in the office resumed to summarize,
document, and circulate investigative findings, and to effect improvements at
investigated mitigation sites.
1
-------
2
-------
Table 1. List of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Investigated, by-
Permittee, Project, Permit Number, and County.
Permittee/Prolect/Permit number
County
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
Grays Harbor County Public Works
Wishkah River road fill in slough/wetland 071-
OYB-4-010507-R
Washington State Department of Transportation
SR 409/Puget Island bridge approach fill
071-OYB-4-009803
City of South Bend
treatment plant upgrade fill
071-OYB-2-009314
King County Parks and Recreation Division
fill wetlands adjacent to Soos Creek for trail
071-0YB-4-010027
Washington State Department of Transportation
SR 510 widening fill in McKenna
OYB-4-009885
Carlson Beach Properties
fill for residential building site near Longview
071-OYB-2-010355-R
A. Andersen
fill for private and commercial boat moorage
071-OYB-2-011123-R
Columbia Shores, Inc.
bulkhead, backfill, riprap Columbia River bank,
dredge, install pile for commercial development
071-OYB-2-011719
Lake Washington Ridge
fill for residential housing development
OYB-4-011814
City of Des Moines
fill and relocate creek for road realignment
OYB-2-12153
Town of Ilwaco
creek/wetland fills for Indian Creek dam
071-OYB-4-010674
Grays Harbor
Wahkiakum
Pacific
King
Pierce
Cowlitz
Wahkiakum
Clark
King
King
Pacific
3
-------
Table 1. (Continued) List of Compensatory Mitigation Projects
Investigated, by Permittee, Project, Permit Number,
and County.
Permittee/Proiect/Permit number County
12) Pickering Park Associates King
fill for hospital and business park
071-OYB-4-012513
13) City of Redmond King
fill adjacent to Sammamish River to upgrade SR 901
OYB-4-013630
14) Koll Cordata Business Park Vhatcom
fill in isolated wetlands for commercial center
071-OYB-4-014232
15) City of Everett Snohomish
fill for sewage treatment facilities
071-OYB-4-009858
16) Port of Camas-Washougal Clark
retain fill in wetlands adjacent to Gibbons Creek
EPA compliance order for illegal fill removal
Order #1090-02-12-309
(also: Seattle District Corps #071-OYB-4-011165;
and Portland District Corps #071-QYA-4-008060)**
17) Boeing Commercial Airplanes King
EPA compliance order for illegal fill removal
Order #1089-09-17-309
(also: Boeing Company, 071-OYB-4-012539)
** 071-OYB-4-011165 refers to the number assigned by the Seattle
District Corps when the violation was first discovered. The
project was turned over to U.S. EPA and the Portland District
Corps for resolution of unauthorized fill, at which time the
subsequent Order #1090-02-12-309 and permit #071-OYA-4-008060 were
assigned.
4
-------
AUTHORITIES
Between the years 1986 and 1989, EPA Region 10 identified two key areas which
needed further emphasis within the Vetland and Aquatic Resource Protection
§404 Regulatory Program. These were:
(1) further quantitative assessment and accounting of the cumulative
impacts occurring to aquatic resources due to the Corps' Nationwide
Permit Process; and
(2) field investigations to ground truth the trends identified on paper
regarding the status of compensatory mitigation as a tool to offset
impacts to aquatic resources within the §404 permit program (Kunz,
Rylko, and Somers 1988, Rylko and Storm 1991).
This study was undertaken by EPA Region 10 consistent with this second need,
as well as its goal of obtaining a minimum no net loss of wetlands as
articulated in the joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and
the EPA (1990) and the White House Policy Paper on Protection of America's
Wetlands (1993). In order to demonstrate attainment of the Federal Clean
Water Act's overall goal to at a minimum maintain and to ultimately restore
the nation's waters, compensatory mitigation monitoring and follow-through is
an important tool. By specifically evaluating compensatory mitigation
projects for permit compliance and ecological functioning, resource agencies
responsible for assuring long term functioning and protection of the nation's
waters can better identify what works and what does not.
Furthermore, this follow-through investigation was consistent with the
Service's 1981 Mitigation Policy which states:
The Service encourages, supports, and will initiate, whenever
practicable, post-project evaluations to determine the effectiveness of
recommendations in achieving the mitigation planning goal. The Service
will initiate additional follow-up studies when funds are provided by
the federal action agency.
In those instances where Service personnel determine that federal
agencies or private developers have not carried out those agreed upon
mitigation means and measures, then the Service will request the
responsible federal action agency to initiate corrective action.
While no additional funding was provided to either EPA or the Service
specifically for the purpose of this follow-through study, some time was
granted to staff of each agency to allow the investigation to occur. As a
result of this investigation, a series of letters requesting Corps
intervention have been generated (see Appendix B).
5
-------
METHODS
PROJECT SELECTION
To identify compensatory mitigation projects suitable for follow-through
investigation, we looked at data obtained from files during previous
evaluations of compensatory mitigation sites in Washington state (Rylko and
Storm 1991; Kunz et al. 1988). In addition, current monitoring information
for some projects was acquired from the Corps Seattle District's files, as
well as from their permit and enforcement action database (regulatory analysis
and management system = RAMS).
Projects for follow-through investigation were selected on the basis of
location and method of mitigation. Predominantly freshwater wetland and
riparian creation or restoration projects were selected within western
Washington. Projects selected occur within the Puget Lowland, Coast Range,
and Willamette Valley ecoregions (Figure 1). Other suitable projects were
identified in eastern Washington; however, due to time and travel constraints,
and the fact that these projects were predominantly enhancement (mainly
riparian plantings) rather than restoration or creation, these projects were
not given priority for investigation.
OFFICE WORK
Office work included: review of EPA administrative files; collection of
supplemental project information including aerial photographs, state water
quality certifications, state hydraulic project approvals, Corps permits, and
monitoring reports; and coordination with permittees or their agents regarding
project status and field meetings.
Ten forms were developed for use in project selection, file review, and field
investigation. Form format was based on work done by Gwin and Kentula (1990),
Kentula et al. (1992), Oregon Division of State Lands (1991), and Horner and
Raedeke (1989), and modified for this project based on anticipated project
needs and discussion with the aforementioned authors or their representatives.
An example of each form is provided in Appendix A and presented in the
following
order
(1)
File
Review and Selection Form
(2)
Form
A
Sketch Map (with accompanying standard symbol
(3)
Form
B
Observations Onsite
(4)
Form
C
Photographic Record from Vantage Points
(5)
Form
D
Photographic Record of Wetland Features
(6)
Form
E
General Site Information
(7)
Form
F
Hydrology and Soil Information
(8)
Form
G
Water Quality Sampling Field Form
(9)
Form
H
Post Project Investigation Evaluation Form
(10)
Form
I
Vegetation Sampling Forms
6
-------
Project files were evaluated to determine presence or absence (but not
adequacy) of the following mitigation plan elements:
(1) baseline data on impact site;
(2) ecological or mitigation goals and objectives for the project;
(3) monitoring plans;
(4) success criteria or performance standards;
(5) contingency plans;
(6) monetary assurances (such as construction/performance/contingency
bonds); and
(7) implementation schedules.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Field work Included: determining consistency of onsite features with permitted
work (both construction and mitigation plans); mapping onsite features;
establishing permanent photographic points and photographic documentation;
assessing vegetation communities; evaluating hydrologic conditions; observing
fish and wildlife sign; quantifying adjacent land uses; and evaluating the
site within a landscape context. Engineer surveying of site features was also
conducted at four sites. Additionally, field work most often involved meeting
with permittees, their representatives, or consultants onsite to investigate
and discuss the built project and associated mitigation.
POST FIELD INVESTIGATION
Post field work included: collecting additional project information;
coordinating further with permittees, their representatives, and consultants;
providing a written account of our findings for each project to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; and pursuing various avenues to implement mitigation site
improvements.
RESULTS
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT SELECTION
Many difficulties were encountered during the project selection phase, when
files were reviewed, prior to conducting field work. This reality resulted in
diminishing the total number of projects that could be investigated for the
study. Problems identified in files were common to most files, though not all
identified problems existed in all.
Problems encountered in the files which impeded the follow-through process
could be broadly characterized as insufficient information. Information aids
such as maps, plans, cross - sections, overlays, tables, reference numbers, and
dates, were often absent, unclear, detail deficient, or lacking scale. Impact
site, mitigation site, and mitigation plan drawings were often poorly
presented on maps; not represented by township, range, and section; not north-
7
-------
oriented to the top of the page; of poor quality; or lacked scale. Quantities
and types of project features were not made clear, not easily referenced,
often inconsistent within a document, and included in text but not shown in
graphics or evaluated through the monitoring plan. Such features included:
impact and mitigation acreage by wetland type, uplands, and habitat
enhancement structures.
Correspondence within files was often either missing, unclear, incomplete, or
ambiguous. Such correspondence included original or revised: notices,
drawings, federal §404 permits, mitigation plans, agency comment letters,
state §401 water quality certifications, state hydraulic project approvals,
as-built conditions reports, and subsequent monitoring reports. Lack of this
type of information made field follow-through investigation difficult since a
particular condition at a site could not be expected or evaluated.
Problems encountered in the files which were associated with mitigation plans
were numerous. Generally, we found low consistency among mitigation plans
with respect to format, organization, plan components, and level of detail.
In some cases it was even difficult to determine if a final mitigation plan
had been developed. When a final mitigation plan was present, it was often
inadequate or incomplete, particularly with regard to essential plan elements.
We consider the following to be essential mitigation plan elements: (1)
baseline data (inclusive of hydrologic data) at both the impact site and the
mitigation site; (2) environmental goals and objectives; (3) monitoring; (4)
performance standards (which are measurable); (5) contingencies; (6) monetary
assurances; (7) implementation schedule; and (8) reporting (inclusive of an
as-built conditions report and subsequent monitoring reports). Absence of one
or more of these elements made follow-through inspections of the mitigation
site difficult, unreveallng, or meaningless.
Specifically, of the 17 files examined, 5 totally lacked baseline data about
either the impact or mitigation site (Table 2). Twelve files did contain
baseline information, though not necessarily adequate. In 13 project files,
environmental goals and objectives for the mitigation project were
discernible, while in 4 files such information was missing. This
quantification did not evaluate the adequacy or correct identification of
goals and objectives, just their presence or absence.
Monitoring was required in 53% of the projects. Of these 9 projects,
monitoring was conducted at only 3 sites. Thus, only 33% of the required
monitoring was performed. However, monitoring data was deemed to be useful in
evaluating all implemented compensatory mitigation projects for which
monitoring had been performed.
In project files and mitigation plans, success criteria or performance
standards of any type were found in 9 cases (53%). Contingency plans or
corrective measures of some type were present in 7 projects or less than half
of the time (41%). Monetary assurances such as construction or performance
bonds were associated with mitigation plans in only 3 cases (18%).
Implementation schedules such as a time line, planting schedule, or
8
-------
Table 2. Mitigation Plan and Project Features
Grays
Harbor
County
WSDOT
SR-409
City of
South Bend
King County
Soos Creek
WSDOT
SR-510
Carlson
Beach
Buf£er Established?
N
N
N
N
N
N
Baseline?
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Goals and Objectives?
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Success Criteria?
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Contingency Plan?
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Monetary Assurance?
N
N
N
N
N
N
Implementation Schedule?
N
N
N
N
N
N
Monitoring Required?
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Monitoring Performed?
N
N
N
N
N
N
Monitoring Data Useful?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Public Entity?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Legend: Y = Yes N = No U = Undetermined NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 2. (Continued) Mitigation Plan and Project Features
Pickering
Park
City of
Redmond
Roll
Cordata
City of
Everett
Port of
Camas -
Vashougal
Boeing
Company
Buffer Established?
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Baseline?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Goals and Objectives?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Success Criteria?
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Contingency Plan?
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Monetary Assurance?
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Implementation Schedule?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Monitoring Required?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Monitoring Performed?
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Monitoring Data Useful?
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
Public Entity?
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Legend: Y = Yes N = No U = Undetermined NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 2. (Continued) Mitigation Plan and Project Features
Andersen
Columbia
Shores
Lake
Washington
Ridge
City of
Des Moines
Town of
llwaco
Buffer Established?
N
N
Y
N
N
Baseline?
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Goals and Objectives?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Success Criteria?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Contingency Plan?
N
N
N
Y
Y
Monetary Assurance?
N
N
Y
N
N
Implementation Schedule?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Monitoring Required?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Monitoring Performed?
N
N
N
N
N
Monitoring Data Useful?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Public Entity?
N
N
N
Y
Y
Legend: Y = Yes N = No U = Undetermined NA = Not Applicable
-------
construction timeframe, were present in only 7 cases; of these, the
information was generally incomplete and not easily referenced.
In order to evaluate compensatory mitigation projects' compliance with
conditions of §404 permits, water quality certifications, or hydraulic project
approvals, we considered any individual project in its entirety, inclusive of
physical (such as mitigation site construction, plant vigor, etc.)> and
procedural (such as monitoring, sampling, and reporting), aspects. We found
that only 3 (18%) projects could be determined to be fully in compliance,
whereas 5 (29%) were clearly out of compliance, and for 9 projects (53%),
compliance was undeterminable based on file and field review (Table 3).
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING FIELD REVIEW
The two categories of problems documented during field investigation of
mitigation sites were those that were either: regulatory -- i.e., not in
compliance with authorized construction or mitigation work; or ecological --
i.e., manifestations of impaired ecological functioning and/or non-attainment
of compensatory mitigation (Table 4).
Regulatory problems arose when the discharge authorized by a §404 permit was
different than the work observed during our field investigation. Overfilling,
filling of different dimensions, and filling for a different purpose was
apparent in at least 4 cases (Columbia Shores, Inc.; Pickering Park
Associates; Lake Washington Ridge; A. Andersen). In 2 of these cases the work
purpose had not been fully realized, though the placement of fill had been
accomplished, thereby resulting in a speculative fill situation (Columbia
Shores, Inc.: Pickering Park Associates).
Non-compliance was also documented when onsite mitigation work was different
than that described in the proposed mitigation associated with the issued
permit. Documented problems included undersized wetland area, undocumented
substitutions or changes, unfinished work, unplanted areas, overly steep
slopes, missing or incorrectly installed habitat features, and unclear or
unmarked mitigation site boundaries.
Ecological problems onsite were numerous and diverse. Most were attributable
to poor project planning, site location, incomplete implementation, and human
disturbance. Generally, problems included: insufficient hydrology; Low plant
growth; wetland communities different than those targeted; presence or
invasion of non-native, invasive, or exotic plants; and poor soil conditions
or soil development. Specifically, many human disturbance problems existed,
such as: unplanned foot and bicycle trails; herbicide application to wetland
and buffer plants; cutting, mowing, or removal of wetland vegetation; use of
site for stormwater treatment; hand feeding of ducks with non-nutritious
foodstuffs; hazing of waterfowl in or around the site; livestock grazing;
domestic pet presence; deliberate or incidental litter deposition; noise from
adjacent industrial operations or traffic; fugitive dust from nearby
construction or roads; and water pollution from a variety of onsite and
offsite problems.
12
-------
Table 3. Qualitative Evaluation of Projects Sites Investigated
Grays
Harbor
County
WSDOT
SR-409
City of
South Bend
King
County
Soos Creek
WSDOT
SR-510
Carlson
Beach
Appropriate Position?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Functions Well Ecologically?
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Adequately Buffered?
N
N
N
Y
N
N
In Compliance?
U
U
U
Y
U
U
Undertake Measures?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Andersen
Columbia
Shores
Lake
Washington
Ridge
City of Des
Moines
Town of
Ilwaco
Appropriate Position?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Functions Well Ecologically?
NA
NA
N
N
N
Adequately Buffered?
NA
NA
N
N
Y
In Compliance?
N
N
N
U
U
Undertake Measures?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Pickering
Park
City of
Redmond
Koll
Cordata
City of
Everett
Port of
Camas-
Washougal
Boeing
Company
Appropriate Position?
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Functions Well Ecologically?
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Adequately Buffered?
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
In Compliance?
Y
Y
U
N
N
U
Undertake Measures?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Legend: Y = Yes N = No U = Undetermined NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 4.
Compliance and Ecological Problems Identified at Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Sites.
PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED WITH PERMIT COMPLIANCE
Non-Compliance with Authorized Work/Construction
o Over-filling In Waters of the U.S.
o Project Purpose Not Realized
o Contingencies and Corrective Measures Not Implemented
Non-Compliance with Mitigation Work
o Undersized Wetland Area
o Undocumented Substitutions or Project Changes
o Work Not Done
o Plantings Not Done
o Slopes Differed From Permit Specifications
o Habitat Feature Not Installed or Incorrectly Installed
o Wetland Mitigation Site Boundaries Unclear or Unmarked
Ecological Problems
o Insufficient Hydrology
o Wetland Community Different from That Targeted
o Invasive and Exotic Plants Dominant in Wetlands and Buffers
o Non-Native Animal Habitation
o Low Plant Growth
o Poor Soil Conditions and Development
o Inaccurate and Inappropriate Interpretive Signs
o Unplanned Foot Trails and Bike Trails
o Duck Feeding by the Public
o Waterfowl Hazing
o Herbicide Application to Wetland and Buffer Plants
o Vegetation Cutting or Mowing or Removal
o Livestock Grazing and Trampling
o Domestic Pet Presence
o Litter Accumulation
o Fugitive Dust from Adjacent or Nearby Activities
o Noise
o Water Pollutants from Point and Non-Point Sources
o Use of Mitigation Site for Stormwater Retention and Detention
14
-------
For all 17 projects we determined that onslte manipulations, within reason,
could be undertaken to improve the overall ecological functioning of the
mitigation site. Broadly, the set of manipulations we identified are
planting, regrading, soil amending, fill removal, litter removal, sign
installation, fence installation, instream alterations, and invasive plant
removal.
We also determined that certain actions, within reason, could be undertaken
which were not onsite manipulations, but would help to maintain or protect the
mitigation site. These actions are ensuring legal protection for the site,
undertaking an enforcement action through the Corps or EPA, and educating or
coordinating with individuals who could make a difference in the mitigation
site's maintenance and protection.
Similarly, we further determined that monitoring could be undertaken at most
mitigation sites. Monitoring could be used to document mitigation site
condition and status, particularly for those currently lacking as-built
conditions reports or any subsequent monitoring. Monitoring could also be
used at those sites where onsite manipulations should be undertaken to
document conditions before, and results from, those manipulations.
Presence or absence of an upland, woody vegetation buffer was documented.
Adequacy in buffering disturbances such as human access, litter deposition,
visual disruptions, and erosive/polluting runoff were estimated. Six projects
(35%) investigated had buffers established around them as part of mitigation
requirements, while 11 projects (65%) did not have buffer requirements.
However, when estimating the adequacy of buffers around mitigation projects,
we found that the 2 projects determined to have adequate buffers were those
where a buffer had not been required through regulatory mechanisms but where
the surrounding land was not developed. In these two cases the site location
itself provided a favorable buffer, though no longterm protection was
designated or guaranteed. Twelve cases were found to have inadequate buffers,
while in 3 cases the determination of buffer adequacy was not applicable.
Use of quantitative or formal assessment methodologies was not employed to
evaluate whether a mitigation project's position in the landscape was
appropriate from an ecological perspective. Rather, consideration was given
to resource impacts incurred by placement of fill and associated development,
mitigation plan goals and objectives, surrounding land uses, topography, pre-
disturbance conditions, need for onsite mitigation, and connectivity to
existing habitat features (refer to Data Form G: General Site Information, in
Appendix A). In our best professional judgement only 2 mitigation projects
were placed in inappropriate locations within the landscape. These 2 cases
earned a poor rating due to their adjoining borders with heavily developed or
developing adjacent land uses.
Interestingly, when we similarly used best professional judgement to determine
if mitigation projects were functioning well ecologically, 11 projects (65%)
were judged to function poorly. Only 4 projects were judged to function well,
and 2 were indeterminable (mitigation was not performed). Criteria considered
in assessing ecological functioning were: species diversity, relative
15
-------
dominance and presence of native plant species over exotic or invasive
species, structural diversity in terms of interspersion of habitat edge and
complexity of vegetation strata, vegetation density and percent cover relative
to open water, evidence of physical or chemical disturbance to water quality
and habitat, observed use or evidence of wildlife use, proximity to
development, and assbciated landuse and human disturbance effects.
DISCUSSION
HUMAN AND ECONOMIC FACTORS STRONGLY AFFECT MITIGATION
Seventeen projects were investigated in the field. Characterized by
permittee, 10 of these projects involved public entities. These 10 entailed 8
projects by local government (2 counties, 4 cities, 1 town, 1 port), and 2
projects by the state transportation agency. Seven projects involved private
entities: these were 5 projects by developers, 1 by industry, and 1 by a small
business owner.
Two major factors which determine the compensatory mitigation success of
projects are neither ecologically nor scientifically based. In our view, it
appears that human and economic factors strongly affect the implementation and
outcome of compensatory mitigation projects once permitting has occurred.
Human factors affecting mitigation are related to commitment to plan,
implement, monitor, adjust, and maintain mitigation. Interest on the part of
the permittee, consultants, and regulatory and resource agency representatives
is essential. The interest, ethic, technical experience, and consistency of
response that any and each of these parties take in a mitigation project will
largely determine the attention and action given to a project, and thus its
overall compensatory mitigation outcome and success.
Economic factors affecting mitigation are related to ability to implement,
monitor, and adjust mitigation. The permittee's economic resources directly
affect the permittee's ability to: hire qualified consultants to develop a
compensatory mitigation plan; purchase an ecologically appropriate site for
mitigation implementation; retain consultants to construct and monitor the
mitigation site; and implement corrective actions and/or contingency measures.
The regulatory and resource agencies' economic resources directly affect their
staffing level and workload prioritization. Lower staff levels result in
focusing on reactive responses to new projects rather than maintaining
involvement with on-going projects or checking past actions and associated
outcomes. Compliance inspections as well are subject to being cut, as they
are time intensive and generally not viewed as being politically favorable nor
positive for public relations.
Follow-through is not only critical for assuring compliance, but provides the
opportunity to achieve additional beneficial outcomes. The following case
study is provided to demonstrate some of the specific beneficial outcomes of
conducting follow-through investigations.
16
-------
CASE STUDY: THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
It is instructive to more fully describe the outcome of conducting a follow-
through investigation of one mitigation site in particular, since it is
exemplary in shoving what the potential benefits of follow-through could, in
part, entail. In this particular case the mitigation site had been undertaken
and was generally found to be consistent with the mitigation proposal.
However, ecological functioning of the site was not maximized and was actually
inhibited by surrounding land use. To maximize the site's ecological
functioning, follow-through actions were undertaken. These actions went
beyond regulatory requirements, resulting in additional ecological benefit.
In our view, one of the most important benefits of follow-through is the
ability to achieve greater ecological benefit from mitigation sites through
the one-on-one interaction with permittees. This was shown to be a
significant beneficial outcome of this study.
This case study involved the City of South Bend as the permittee for Corps
permit 071-OYB-2-009314, which authorized filling 2.5 wetland acres at the
mouth of the Willapa River to allow construction of facilities related to
upgrading an existing wastewater treatment plant. The original wetlands were
likely to have been high estuarine salt marsh wetlands which had been diked,
drained, and grazed such that they predominantly supported palustrine emergent
marsh vegetation dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus) (Figure 2).
Compensatory mitigation to be implemented to offset project impacts entailed
stripping and excavating a 2.5-acre rectangular area southeast of the fill
site, and reconnecting this excavated area to the river. The mitigation
proposal was designed to create a tidally-influenced, low salt marsh.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the mitigation
site on August 24, 1992. Also in attendance were the City's supervisor and
mayor. The proposed fill and construction work had been performed; two
aerator cells had been constructed. Compensatory mitigation work appeared to
have been conducted approximately according to specification (Figures 3 and
4). Our measurements indicate the wetland portion of the mitigation site
covers approximately 1.53 acres and is dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis
spicatal with Salicornla vireinica. pickleweed, dominating the channel
connecting to the Willapa River (Exhibit A). However, we believe the
discrepancy between the target mitigation site size (2.5 acres) and the actual
wetland area (1.53 acres) is attributable in part to the sidecasting of
excavated materials. It appeared during our onsite visits that a berm of
sidecasted materials had been created during the mitigation site construction;
City representatives verified this. The mitigation site had only partly
achieved the functional replacement it was designed to provide. The site's
functions had not been fully realized primarily due to on-going cattle grazing
(Figure 5) and partly due to unsuitable elevations. We found that grazing was
adversely impacting the site as cattle trampled and ate native vegetation,
compacted soils and destabilized slopes by movement, and degraded water
quality by manure inputs. This resulted in encouraging noxious, non-native
plant growth; in discouraging and displacing native wildlife and waterfowl
17
-------
use; and in preventing the mitigation site from achieving its full ecological
potential. Fish use of the site is unknown.
Ve determined that establishing a buffer around the excavated area and
providing fencing around the entire site would dramatically improve the
overall health and ecological functioning of the mitigation site. This would
exclude grazing cattle and problems associated with them. Benefits would
include soil stabilization, water quality improvement, and increased bird and
wildlife habitat value (and potentially improved fish habitat).
In addition to buffer and fence establishment, we determined that removal of
invasive gorse (Ulex europaeus) would help native plants recolonize more
readily (Figure 6). Loosening compacted soils through tilling or scarification
could also facilitate native plant coverage, though opportunistic plants could
initially colonize the site.
Based on discussion with City of South Bend representatives, no obvious,
easily-recognizable, legally binding protection for the mitigation site
property existed at the local level. While U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
authorization affects site protection, particularly at the federal level, we
determined that local recognition and protection of the mitigation site would
be imperative since all land use actions involve local government decision
makers. Therefore, we determined that identification of the mitigation site
and buffer should be placed on county maps; accompanied by a legal description
of the site (taken along the fenceline); and accompanied by an explanation
that the site should not be disturbed, managed, or used for any other use.
This measure would help ensure longterm site protection.
The permittee indicated that in addition to fence installation, bird nest
boxes could be installed. We recommended that two to four nest boxes be built
to specifications for purple martins and/or violet-green swallows and be
placed on posts just inside the fenceline at the mitigation site. Boxes could
also be placed on fenceposts, though these boxes would be more subject to
cattle and human disturbance. Nest box installation would benefit migratory
birds which in turn could help control saltmarsh mosquito populations (which
City representatives noted are problematic).
Also as a result of our meeting with City representatives onsite, we
identified an additional area of land surrounding and contiguous with the
mitigation site, which could serve as a buffer to the excavated wetland
(Figure 7). The City indicated that it would consider adding the buffer to
the mitigation site area if fencing could be provided by another party. The
City offered to provide labor for fence installation if the necessary
materials were provided. We estimated that total fencing would run
approximately 0.24 mile around the mitigation site, tying in at two points to
the existing barbed wire fence (Figure 8), encircling the aerator ponds.
Working through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Washington State
Ecosystem Conservation Program (a cost-share program designed to encourage
private landowners to enhance and restore ecosystem elements, particularly
wetland and riparian areas), funding was secured to supply fencing materials.
Through signing of a 15-year Wildlife Extension Agreement (Exhibit B) dated
18
-------
April 8, 1993 between the City and the Service, the City agreed to: install
fencing inclusive of additional lands around the mitigation site; maintain the
fence in a condition adequate to exclude livestock; control invasive plant
species within the fenced area; and not manipulate native vegetation within
the fenced area. Fence installation was completed in April 1994.
This project provides an excellent example of how follow-through activities
can result in more than just ascertaining compliance with permit conditions.
Incremental ecological benefits, fish and wildlife habitat improvements, and
strengthening of relationships between agencies and permittees may all be
realized through creative follow-through actions.
19
-------
•"e
I
Figure 2.
Juncus effusus dominated the
diked, grazed wetlands in
the project vicinity and at
the mitigation site before
it was excavated.
City of South Bend
071-OYB-2-009314
Figure 3.
View of
mitigation
site on
August 24,
1992. Note
excavated
site and
central
channel.
2R.
20
-------
Figure 4. Culvert which allows tidally-influenced waters of the
Willapa River to enter the City of South Bend
mitigation site.
City of South Bend
21 071-0YB-2-009314
Figure 5.
Livestock
of the
mitigation
site.
-------
Figure 6.
Ulex europaeus (gorse) on the low berm along the
mitigation site.
Figure 7
Permittee and resource agency representatives discuss
buffering and fencing of the mitigation site.
22
City of South Bend
071-OYB-2-009314
-------
Figure 8.
Barbed wire fence along
southwest portion of
mitigation site.
23
City of South Bend
071-0YB-2 —009 314
-------
o
x
O X
TJ
C
Q) T
OQ rH
r>
x: en
-P o
3 O
O 1
W <
•H
O
A
1
•H
4J rH
•H r-
X
O O
w
o
o,
CNl
o
o
o
o
-J
CM
-------
0s
o
H
CD
-\
O
-\
o
V-
§
V-
§
V-
¦fc.
v-
§
K>
rs*
n>
I
o»
§
b>
§
&¦
§
r
^ INS -fc 6> 0» £ <
*
H
-i
J
V
T\
-\
0
>
-N
<£>
I
0 |
H ^
CD v
-\ -&•
V ^
O
r*
^\
-\
0
V-
V-
K>
Ni
ji.
N>
n>
§
M
r
Q (^ 4^ © 0) ^ ^
i\
H
•v
if
i \
; \
_ i
T\
-\
O
City of South Bend
07l-OYB-2-009314
Exhibit B
25
-------
Order ff: 14-^8-0001-93-7/0
Cost Strueture: 13410-1261
XiD #: I34I0-3—0708
$: 1271.79
0-93-026
WILDLIFE EXTENSION AGREEMENT
This agreement dated April 8, 1993 between the City of South Bend, P.O. Drawer
9, South Bend, Washington 98586, (Cooperator), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is entered into pursuant to authority contained in Section 1
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 and Section 7 of the
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742f(a) (4).
The City of South Bend hereby agrees to participate with the Service in
conducting certain wildlife management practices on lands leased by them in
Pacific County, State of Washington, described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
The Cooperator in signing this agreement joins as participants in a wildlife
management program and grant to the Service the authority Co complete wildlife
habitat development, or to personally carry out wildlife management activities
with financial or material support, as described in the attached Special
Provisions (Exhibit A). Any donation of supplies or equipment, or direct
payment from the Service to the Cooperators for carrying out the wildlife
habitat developments, are also included in the attached Special Provisions
(Exhibit A).
The terms of this agreement will be for 15 years beginning , April 8, 1993,
and ending April 8, 2008. Payment as appropriate will be made as described
and agreed to in Exhibit A.
This agreement may be modified at any time by mutual written consent. It may
also be terminated in writing by either party thirty (30) days in advance. If
terminated by the Cooperator, Cooperator will reimburse the Service for the
cost of the wildlife habitat developments. If this agreement is terminated in
writing by the Service, then the Service may at its option remove any wildlife
developments placed on the land.
At the end of the term, the wildlife habitat development will become the
property of the wildlife cooperator.
The Service does not assume jurisdiction over the premises by this agreement.
The Cooperator retains all rights to control trespass and retains all
responsibility for taxes, assessments, and damage claims.
The Service, its agents, or assignees reserve the right to enter the land at
reasonable times for wildlife habitat development and management purposes and
to inspect completed work.
City of South Bend
071-QYB-2-009314
Exhibit C
26
-------
The Service assumes no liability for damage or injury other than that caused
by its own negligence on the above acreage.
Specific work completed will be documented in Exhibit A.
A change in the lease shall not change the terms of this agreement. The
agreement and terms shall be in effect on the described land for the period of
the agreement. The Cooperator will notify the Service of planned or^ pending
changes in the lease.
At the end of this agreement, the Cooperator assumes full and complete
responsibility for all wildlife habitat developments made during this
agreement on the project tract. There shall be no obligation to the Service
after the term of the agreement has expired.
The Service is prohibited by law from making obligations that exceed available
funds and, therefore, the Service can do only that work which is funded. In
the event funds are not available to do the wildlife habitat development work
within the period of time or in the manner prescribed in the Special
Provisions, the Service will advise the Cooperator of that fact.
The Cooperator guarantees terms of the LEASE for the above described land and
warrants that there are no outstanding rights which interfere with the
wildlife management agreement. _ (
o?/o // <4 - ^+
Cooperator~T/>7' Social Security Number*
Service Repgesjmt^Jtivie
^/£ontracp-£ng
Officer
*Privacv Act Notice: The Service is required to obtain this information to
process any payment(s) to the wildlife Cooperator as a result of this
agreement. This information will be furnished to the Internal Revenue Service
as required by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and may be shared with the
Department of Justice for criminal or civil litigation. Furnishing a social
security number is voluntary, but failure to do so may result in
disqualification from this program.
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
The wildlife habitat developments described below are agreed to by the City of
South Bend and the Service in a Wildlife Extension Agreement dated April 8,
1993.
City of South Bend
071-0YB-2-009314
Exhibit C Continued
27
-------
Planned Work
The Cooperator will:
1. Provide labor to install 1,446 feet of 3 strand barbed wire fence
in the location described in the Wildlife Extension Agreement and
as indicated approximately in Figures A (overview) and. B (site
blow-up). Fence installation will be between those points
identified, staked, and sprayed with blue paint on April 8, 1993 by
the Cooperator and the Service (Ref. PN-071-0YB-2-009314).
2. Install and maintain the fence in good condition to exclude
cattle/livestock from the existing compensatory mitigation site in
order to improve water quality and maximize plant growth of
saltmarsh vegetation. The fence shall establish and protect a
vegetated buffer (inclusive of non-compensatory wetlands) around
the mitigation site's north, east, and south sides. Fence
installation should be complete by January 1, 1994.
3. Control invasive plants wichin the fenced area by spot spraying or
hand removal in order Co allow native species to re-establish.
These invasive plants are primarily gorse (Ulex europaeus) and
Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius).
4. Allow native vegetation to re-establish within the fenced area
naturally and not remove, cut, or otherwise manage it. Any
proposed manipulation of native vegetation shall be first subjeoi-
to Service review and approval.
5. The Cooperator, at its discretion, may erect swallow nest boxes in
at least 4 locations within the fenced enclosure. Nest boxes
should conform to specifications provided by the Service and be
placed atop poles/posts protected with predator guard rings.
The Service will:
1. Provide reimbursable funds of $1,271.79 for the purchase of fence
materials necessary to construct 1,446 linear feet of 3 strand
barbed wire fence (Ref. PN-071-0YB-2-009314).
2. Provide assistance, if needed, in fence alignment.
3. Provide technical assistance, if needed, in designing,
constructing, and installing swallow nest boxes.
4. Inspect completed work as described above.
City of South Bend
07l-QYB-2-009314
Exhibit C Continued
28
-------
Schedule of payments:
The Service will reimburse the City of South Bend up to $1,271.79 for
the purchase of fence material necessary to construct a 3 strand barbed
wire fence of approximately 1,446 feet in length. The City of South
Bend must provide receipts for all claimed expenses and will be
reimbursed after those receipts have been received and processed by the
Service.
City of South Bend
07l-OYB-2-009 314
Exhibit C Continued
29
-------
FOLLOW-THROUGH AS A MITIGATION IMPROVEMENT MECHANISM
Follow-through work is a mechanism to Induce a longterm shift toward improved
compensatory mitigation outcomes. Such work is extremely time intensive but
desperately needed to:
(1) ensure project compliance with permit conditions and orders;
(2) provide site specific evaluation and technical assistance
to permittees by resource and regulatory agency staff;
(3) demonstrate resource and regulatory agencies' continued
interest in the outcome of mitigation projects;
(4) encourage more consistent monitoring, protection, and
maintenance of mitigation sites;
(5) complete the information feedback loop to resource, regulatory,
consulting, and scientific communities in order to improve
mitigation plan proposals, reviews, and recommendations; and
(6) foster better working relationships with permittees to change
negative public perception and increase public awareness, consistent
with general agency reprioritization toward proactive cooperation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations pertaining to improving the outcome of mitigation projects
have been proffered by numerous investigators, regulators, and practitioners
over the last 15 years (Kentula et al. 1992, Kruczynski 1989, Horak and Olson
1980). These recommendations range from improving pre-application
coordination to specifying specific elements needed in mitigation plans. It
is our intention to reiterate some of those recommendations herein, thereby
further verifying that certain problems continue to adversely affect
mitigation outcomes, and to describe others which may have not been previously
pointed to as mitigation outcome determinants.
FOLLOW-THROUGH OBSERVATIONS
Minimize Human Disturbance Through Site Design
Mitigation sites should be designed to maximize their ecological functioning
and should not be compromised by design elements which encourage human use or
access. In all projects we investigated except one, site design allowed human
activity at or near the mitigation site, thereby reducing its potential for
undisturbed wildlife use. In fact, in most cases site design and location
actually encouraged human activity at the mitigation site which was
detrimental to the site's integrity.
30
-------
For example, mitigation site design often resulted in creating areas for duck
feeding, paths for dog walking, and locations for trash/debris dumping. Human
use near or around mitigation sites may be appropriate for certain projects.
In such projects, human use should be limited by controlled access and
designated observation points.
Signage
Signage associated with compensatory mitigation projects can be interpretive,
informational, or prohibitive. We found that such signs were present at only
two of the sites we investigated, yet we determined that installation of signs
at all sites would have been beneficial. Signs help identify mitigation sites
as such and protect these areas from harmful practices. Additionally, these
signs can provide contact parties and telephone numbers in emergency events in
addition to providing an important educational function. We recommend their
installation at all the sites we investigated.
Boundary Markers
In conjunction with the above-described signs, permanent boundary markers
should be placed at mitigation sites. In most cases we investigated it was
virtually impossible to demarcate the exact boundaries of the mitigation site.
Because an engineering survey at each investigated site was not feasible, and
accurate mitigation plans and drawing specifications for each site generally
did not exist, many assumptions about the extent of the actual mitigation
site's dimensions and extent had to be made.
We recommend that permanent boundary markers be installed at each compensatory
mitigation site to facilitate field investigation, compliance inspections, and
follow-through work. Markers could entail installation of: inconspicuous,
marked rebar or metal fenceposts; interpretive, informational, or prohibitive
signs; any type of fencing; or a specific line of vegetation. It should be
noted that planned vegetated buffers were marginally effective in demarcating
the exact edge of a mitigation site since planting density and surrounding
vegetation or land uses often blurred the exact mitigation site boundary.
It is important to have all parties involved with the mitigation site
cognizant of its boundaries to allow specific recommendations to be made based
on knowledge of site boundaries. Field boundary markers would aid discerning
site boundaries, help minimize confusion or misunderstanding between
monitoring events, and facilitate consistency of recommendations.
Comparable Photodocumentation
Qualitative, consistent, and clear photodocumentation of compensatory
mitigation projects, taken from established, permanent photopoints is an
extremely valuable follow-through tool. Pre-project photodocumentation was
part of the record for only one project we investigated, and this was
presented in the monitoring report. While this photographic information was
informative, it did not serve as a complete record for reference or future
comparison with all aspects of the mitigation project. In at least 4 projects
we learned that additional photodocumentation existed but was not part of
formal monitoring and documentation associated with the project (usually held
by the permittee or their consultant).
31
-------
We recommend that minimum standards for photodocumentation be established by
resource and regulatory agencies. Photodocumentation should: (1) provide
baseline information at both impact and mitigation sites; (2) record as-built
conditions and be incorporated in the as-built conditions report; and (3) be
taken on a minimum annual (if not seasonal) basis for each monitoring and
reporting period. Photodocumentation should cover the entire mitigation site
and be taken from established photographic points, preferably those which
coincide with monitoring transects. Also, site overview photographs,
panoramic photographs, and aerial photographs are tremendously useful and for
certain types of compensation should be required.
Lessons Learned
Due to the paucity of monitoring reports for the projects investigated, we
make the following recommendation drawn on our collective experiences with
numerous other projects.
We recommend that, in addition to the provision of specific quantitative
monitoring based on specific performance standards, a qualitative "lessons
learned" section be included in monitoring reports. It is important for
experiential learning to be shared among practitioners, reviewers, and
regulators. A "lessons learned" section allows on-the-ground experiences and
observations to be noted and discussed. The information provided in the
lessons learned section will not necessarily have bearing on the projects
compliance with regulatory requirements. However, it would provide a means
for obtaining important insights and recommendations for mid course
corrections or future changes that could be taken in design of compensatory
mitigation to better obtain project ecological goals and objectives.
Project consultants overseeing or implementing compensatory mitigation
projects are a vital link to understanding and improving the ecological
functioning and outcome of wetland mitigation projects. Qualitative
information in the form of observations, ideas, speculations, and
recommendations should thus be provided for in each monitoring report, as well
as in the as-built conditions report. This should be provided for in
interagency mitigation plan guidance, in an applicant's mitigation plan, and
in a standard special condition on the Corps permit.
In response to follow-through work conducted during this study, the consultant
for the City of Everett sewage treatment lagoon compensatory mitigation
project provided a monitoring report which included a recommendations section.
This monitoring report provides an excellent example where including the
"lessons learned" by the project consultant can provide critical information
on what could be done to facilitate attainment of the project's ecological
goals and objectives. Without follow-through interaction among project
proponents, project consultants, and resource and regulatory agency staff,
opportunities for project modification which can better achieve ecological
benefits are lost.
Loneterm Protection
Longterm protection of compensatory mitigation sites is an issue of particular
concern to us. Considerable private and public money is invested in the
planning, implementation, and maintenance of mitigation projects, thereby
32
-------
warranting their longterm protection and viability. However, we found that
this element of project planning and implementation is largely ignored,
downplayed, misunderstood, and often not explicitly provided for nor ensured.
We found that mitigation projects undertaken by small private entities were
likely to be changed, not implemented, or forgotten after just a few years'
time, or when property ownership transferred. We found that mitigation
projects undertaken by public entities were likely to be implemented, but not
necessarily monitored or maintained.
We recommend, therefore, that several measures be requested and required
through existing regulatory processes to help ensure compensatory mitigation
site longterm protection and viability. First, compensatory mitigation plans
should clearly state that the applicant acknowledges and will provide for the
site (wetland and buffer) to be reserved in perpetuity for the exclusive
purpose of compensatory mitigation.
Second, the compensatory mitigation site should be recorded by the permittee
as such on the property deed. This may also be done by identifying a
conservation easement on the deed. Proof or documentation of such
recording(s) should be provided with the as-built conditions report. This
allows ample time for the recording to be undertaken, and provides a document
into which proof of documentation of the recording can be placed, and
facilitates interagency verification of this protective measure.
Third, Corps §404 permits which have compensatory mitigation projects
associated with them should contain a standard special condition which
requires the preservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity.
MITIGATION PLAN ELEMENTS WHICH FACILITATE FUNCTIONING AND FOLLOW-THROUGH
As others (Horak and Olson 1980) have noted repeatedly, standardization and
consistency of compensatory mitigation planning and monitoring is imperative
to allow comparison of results and ensure minimal standards of baseline
information. While such efforts have been pursued in Washington state at
federal, state, and local levels, no single interagency checklist has been
developed for prospective permittees to use in mitigation plan development.
However, a recent interagency publication has been issued by the Washington
State Department of Ecology entitled, Guidelines for Developing Freshwater
Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals (1994). These guidelines provide the
basis for a checklist which should be used to standardize the information
provided in compensatory mitigation plans. We recommend that §404 permit
applicants utilize this guidance to guide the development of mitigation plans.
Furthermore, we encourage interagency efforts to develop ecologically based
performance standards for different wetland types.
Baseline and Reference Data
Baseline or reference studies need to be conducted at both the impact site and
the mitigation site. Documentation of existing environmental conditions,
particularly hydrologic conditions, is imperative not only to evaluate natural
resource impacts, but also to guide mitigation plan development. Better
33
-------
technical information should help reduce the frequency and risk of mitigation
project inability to achieve stated ecological goals and objectives.
Goals. Objectives, and Performance Standards
The incorporation of specific and lucid goals, objectives, and performance
standards into a mitigation plan is imperative for wetland compensation
implementation, evaluation, and follow-through. While these three elements
are likely to differ greatly on a case-by-case basis, their purposes and
specificity should be the same for any project.
Goals should be general statements that identify the overall purpose and
intent of the compensatory wetland mitigation project. Objectives should
identify the usually numerous components of the mitigation project which need
to be accomplished to fulfill the larger goal. Performance standards should
consist of specific measurable criteria which must be obtained at a minimum.
Such minimum standards include, but are not limited to, the targeted % cover
of shrub species, species diversity, wetland acreage of particular vegetative
community types, numerical water quality standards which can not be exceeded,
targeted periodicity of hydrologic regime, etc.
Our investigation revealed a dramatic lack of these three vital elements in
most mitigation projects. As a result, it was often difficult to determine
whether regulatory compliance had been attained or if the ecological goals of
mitigation had been achieved.
While we cannot provide a formula for specific goals, objectives, or
performance standards, we do recommend that general minimum standards for the
following be reflected in the language of any project's goals, objectives, and
performance standards. For a goal, all compensatory mitigation projects
should ensure no net loss of wetland area or function, and where possible seek
a net gain of the same. For objectives, specifics to meet the goal should be
refined. For performance standards, delineation of the mitigation project's
wetland area, at the end of the monitoring period, should have to be conducted
and found to equal areas specified by project objectives; and determination of
the mitigation project's wetland type and category should also have to be
conducted at the end of the monitoring period, using the same methodology as
that used to determine impacts, and found to be those specified by project
objectives.
Until an interagency taskforce can convene to establish minimum performance
standards for compensatory mitigation projects, case-by-case determinations
will be made. Our agencies encourage and would support the development of
interagency guidance on performance standards. This would increase
standardization and the ability to compare project results, decrease resource
and regulatory agency staff time expended per project in the planning process,
and decrease time and money spent by permittees on planning and processing.
Single and Complete Final Mitigation Plan
Follow-through investigation is hampered by the numerous versions, amendments,
and revisions to compensatory mitigation plans. We found it is often unclear
which of several versions of drawings or projects has or has not been finally
selected and permitted for implementation. We have found, and believe the
34
-------
Corps agrees, that mitigation plans are often not written such that they are
easily enforceable.
Ue thus recommend that one final, complete, detailed compensatory mitigation
plan be required through the Corps permitting process. This final document
should be dated and replace all previous drafts; be inclusive of all plan
elements; follow a standard format developed by regulatory and resource
agencies; be indexed; provide a cross-reference to implementation schedule;
contain specific enforceable conditions; and clearly state that all plan
elements "will" be undertaken as a condition of permit acceptance (similarly,
the Corps should specify in their permit special condition(s) that
compensatory mitigation plan implementation is a permit requirement).
Alternately, where clearly enforceable conditions are not contained within the
final mitigation plan itself, the Corps should specify permit special
conditions which reference each of the 8 essential mitigation plan elements
described in this paper (refer to page 5).
Implementation Schedule
An Implementation schedule should be a required component of a mitigation
plan. The schedule should include each task described in the mitigation plan,
the date each task is to be started, the date by which each task is to be
completed, the likely cost of implementing each task, and a page number in the
mitigation plan which can be referenced for additional information about that
particular task. In essence, the implementation schedule should serve as a
calendar of events for the mitigation project (Table 5).
Tasks listed in the implementation schedule should at least include:
mitigation site grading and planting; sampling for each monitoring event
inclusive of breakouts for vegetation, wildlife, invertebrate, water quality,
fish, reference sites, and wetland delineation; submission of an as-built
conditions report; gathering of involved regulatory and -resource agencies
onsite to review as-built conditions; monitoring report submission for each
monitoring event; routine inspections to assess the need for maintenance and
corrective actions; performance bond releases; contingency implementation; and
filling of the impact site.
Individual tasks for each implementation schedule will vary with the
complexity and specifics of each mitigation plan; however, tasks itemized in
the schedule should feature all those tasks which are key components of the
plan and which would serve as a checklist for mitigation plan implementation.
Other tasks appropriate for implementation schedule inclusion might also be:
hydrologic manipulation; stormwater treatment facility construction;
interpretive sign installation; fence construction; placement of large organic
debris; and installation of habitat features (brush piles, nesting structures,
rock mounds, etc.) .
Initiation and completion dates should accompany the listing of each task on
the implementation schedule. Provision of these dates should facilitate:
project proponent mitigation planning and implementation; regulatory and
resource agency compliance investigation and follow-through activities; and
work by new or different consultants to the mitigation project at any point in
time.
35
-------
Table 5. Implementation Schedule Example Format
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR ABC WETLAND COMPENSATION PROJECT:
RESTORATION OF XYZ WETLAND
Mitigation
Task
Initiation
Date
Completion
Date
Estimated
Cost
Text Page
Reference
Photodocument
Mitsite
Clear
Mitsite
Grade
Install
Brush Piles
6/95
1st vk
6/95
2nd-3rd vk.
6/95
3rd wk.
same
same
7/95
3rd wk.
$1000
$2000
$11,500
12
13
14-15
Plant
Irrigate
Erect
Boundary Markers
and Interpretive
Signs
Document As-Built
Conditions
Submit As-built
Conditions Report
Hold Onsite
Interagency
Meeting/Inspection
Conduct Amphibian
Survey
Monitor Plants
(Yr.l)
Conduct Bird Census
Submit Yr.l
36
-------
The estimated dollar cost of each mitigation task should also be provided in
the implementation schedule to allow project proponent planning. It may be
appropriate to list tasks individually but group tasks under a single dollar
figure. We believe this cost estimate also provides a reality check for
project proponents who may be unfamiliar with the usually high costs of
wetland compensation projects. Such cost accounting may have bearing on the
alternatives analysis developed for non-water dependent projects, pursuant to
the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, insofar as these costs could weigh heavily into the
feasibility of a particular alternative incurring both wetland impacts and
high compensation costs. Furthermore, these cost estimates can be used to
determine appropriate amounts of monetary assurances such as construction and
performance bonds.
Finally, the implementation schedule should reference the mitigation plan page
number for each listed task. This would facilitate the ability of any project
proponent, consultant, and regulatory or resource person to grasp the status
and technical concepts of any piece of a compensatory mitigation project at
any given point in time. We believe this implementation schedule format
provides more specific, usable information than timelines, and should be
considered an essential element of a mitigation plan. Table 5 provides an
implementation schedule format and example.
Monetary Assurance
Tied to the concept of an implementation schedule is the establishment of
monetary assurance to help ensure implementation and functioning of
compensatory mitigation projects. Typically, monetary assurance is provided
in the form of a performance or construction bond. Such bonds have been held
by the Corps of Engineers, by federal and state resource agencies, and by
local governments. Unfortunately, bond posting has often not been
meaningfully or clearly linked to performance standards for the mitigation
site. We recommend that monetary assurances be established for all mitigation
projects to guarantee that both public and private entities which accept
mitigation implementation requirements will monitor and maintain compensatory
mitigation sites. In our experience, the few monetary assurances associated
with compensatory mitigation projects have been relatively poorly executed,
and bond types have generally been consolidated into one lump sum.
We recommend that resource and regulatory agencies be more diligent in both
requesting and requiring meaningful monetary assurances to facilitate and
compel mitigation implementation. Construction bonds should cover the full
cost of mitigation site construction. Construction activities should include
site acquisition, clearing, grading, planting, amending soils, and installing
site features. Performance bonds should cover the anticipated cost of all
monitoring events (the first being the as-built conditions report and all
subsequent monitoring years), corrective actions, and maintenance activities
through the end of the monitoring evaluation period. Contingency bonds should
be posted in an amount equal to the original construction cost plus 15% (to
allow for inflation and increasing costs).
Another potential benefit of monetary assurance requirements could be realized
by helping to ensure continued interagency follow-through. That is, bond
releases could be made contingent on specific regulatory and resource agency
37
-------
involvement at designated times. For example, construction bond release could
be tied to interagency onsite visits and their approval of as-built
conditions; performance bond release(s) could be tied to interagency review
and monitoring report(s) approval; and contingency bond release could be tied
to interagency approval that the compensatory mitigation project has met its
performance standards, objectives, and goals at the end of the monitoring
period.
INSTITUTIONALIZING FOLLOW-THROUGH
We recommend that follow-through work be incorporated by both regulatory and
resource agencies involved in §404 permitting as a regular, routine, and
integrated activity. It is just as important to conduct follow-through as it
is to review and make recommendations on §404 project proposals. This means
that agency resources and staffing must be allocated in order to effectively
elevate follow-through work to an equally recognized priority. Again, the
major benefits to be realized by meaningful follow-through work include:
information feedback loop closure; better public perception; increased
likelihood of compliance; decreased mitigation costs; and improved site
selection and longterm ecological functioning of compensatory mitigation
projects.
Post-Permit Meetings
As a first step to initiate and integrate follow-through into established
processes and bureaucracies, we recommend the establishment of post-
construction, onsite meetings by all parties involved in the original
permitting of the project. Just as there are pre-application meetings, so too
should there be post-permit meetings. These interagency field inspections
should be conducted several weeks after distribution of the as-built
conditions report and should provide the opportunity for regulatory and
resource agencies to accept, reject, or accept with modifications, the
established mitigation site. This meeting would help to ensure that
mitigation sites are constructed in a timely fashion. It also provides an
opportunity to discuss any potential alterations that may be needed early on
to assure project goals and objectives are met if site specifications
(grading, planting, hydrology) turn out to be problematic in some way.
Ideally, this entire process of mitigation implementation should occur prior
to incurring wetland impacts.
Integration as Project Work
We do not recommend that a designated group of individuals, either in one
agency or composed of individuals from several agencies, be established to
routinely perform follow-through work. While this is presently how Corps
enforcement operates and how resource agencies have envisioned compliance and
follow-through procedures, this approach has a distinct disadvantage
associated with it. That is, the lessons learned by follow-through and
compliance staff, are not integrated into the knowledge base and experiential
learning of project managers, biologists, and permit reviewers. Thus,
improvements and progress are not as easily, readily, or rapidly made.
38
-------
Again, to close the information feedback loop, increase staff's personal
growth and sense of closure, it is important for those individuals involved in
permit processing and review to be involved in follow-through actions for
their projects. In addition to follow-through work on projects with which
they are familiar, §404 review staff should also follow-through on projects
with which they are not familiar. This situation fosters appreciation of the
benefits of standardization, written documentation, detailed information,
drawing specification, mitigation plan clarity, and functional file
organization. This recommendation applies to all federal agency staff
involved in §404 permit review.
An optional approach to the above suggestion which would reduce some of the
workload burden on each project review staff person, but still retain the
benefit of agency staff seeing projects through to completion, would be to
hire a third party to conduct preliminary field investigation and monitoring
work. Such third party contractor would prepare a report including
information on all mitigation sites within a particular geographic location.
Standard protocols for preliminary site investigation and data collection
would need to be developed. Preliminary site investigation reports would be
submitted to each federal and state agency involved in permit review. This
preliminary site investigation information could then be used by Corps, EPA,
and Service staff to coordinate and prioritize their own follow-through work.
The benefits of this approach would be standardized data collection,
elimination of potential bias in monitoring reports, and provision of the same
data in an annual report to all agencies.
Funding Mechanisms for Follow-Through Work
An additional permit fee should be specified to assist in covering the costs
associated with agency follow-through work. This fee could be allocated to
both EPA and the Service to cover costs associated with follow-through work
and/or to fund a third party contractor. We recommend that the Corps look into
including an additional fee to the routine permit processing fees.
Database Tracking
We also recommend that administrative file organization and database
capability within both regulatory and resource agencies be diligently
inspected and modified to facilitate follow-through work. Database systems
should be made consistent and compatible among at least federal agencies and
preferably among all state agencies as well. Database systems should be
utilized to greater capacity to allow data manipulation for the purpose of
analyzing regulatory trends, habitat losses, and cumulative impacts. For
example, tickle systems to mark dates that monitoring reports are due should
be set up. Computer-generated notices should be immediately sent to
permittees if required monitoring reports are overdue. Ideally, an
interagency database should be established, funded, and accessed by all
involved regulatory and resource agencies. However, such a database should be
managed by one agency which would be responsive to other agencies' needs.
Likely the Corps, with its regulatory responsibilities and existing database
capabilities, would be the best suited database manager.
39
-------
MOVING BEYOND INDIVIDUAL SITE MITIGATION
Mitigation Banking
Finally, we recommend that federal regulatory and resource agencies consider
the feasibility and pursuit of federally owned, managed, and maintained
mitigation banks for those wetland losses which are not appropriately
mitigated individually. Federal mitigation banks have the potential to allow
small wetland losses, particularly those incurred by private, non-commercial
entities to be compensated in a manner that may be more ecologically
appropriate than onsite actions. Compensatory mitigation undertaken by
private entities in general does not appear to be well implemented, monitored,
or ecologically beneficial. However, given current laws, policies, and
practices, the number of small compensatory mitigation sites to be implemented
by private entities is on the increase. This is particularly true in
Washington state where there are a number of Increased compensatory mitigation
requirements associated with nationwide permits. Mitigation banking may also
provide an opportunity to obtain compensatory mitigation for numerous small
project impacts for which mitigation has not been required in the past.
The February 15, 1994, Washington State Department of Transportation Wetland
Compensation Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement, currently in circulation
for signature establishes detailed guidance for an interagency process if
mitigation banking is pursued. While the document is tailored to Washington
state's transportation agency based on their needs and their past compensatory
mitigation history, it represents the minimum amount of effort needed for any
mitigation bank sponsor and should be looked to for such guidance. Also,
guidance for mitigation banking can be found in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' October 1993 draft report entitled Guidelines for the
Establishment. Maintenance and Operation of Wetland Mitigation Banks.
Mitigation banking has long been criticized, often vehemently opposed, and
sometimes warily accepted by federal and state resource agencies. However,
banking may have increased application and the opportunity to play an
important role as resource management moves into the more integrated
approaches associated with watershed restoration and ecosystem management
(Short 1988). Nonetheless, we caution that: mitigation banking is not an easy
or simple solution for resolving wetland-development issues; that avoidance of
wetland impacts is still required by law and is the most certain way to attain
a no net loss goal; and that mitigation banking is acceptable only when done
as part of comprehensive watershed or river basin planning.
40
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The attainment of no net loss of wetlands, whether measuring area or function
is difficult to show in either the overall §404 program or on a case-by-case
basis. It appears that compensatory mitigation projects will continue to be
looked to as a means of striving for a no net loss goal rather than developing
stricter prohibitions or regulations against aquatic resource loss and
degradation.
Despite quantitative and qualitative studies by federal, state, and local
entities which repeatedly show that compensatory mitigation projects are
either not implemented, fraught with problems, or do not meet all project
specifications or intents, compensatory mitigation projects will likely
continue to be recommended, required, and undertaken. Thus, without
established procedures, job description and performance plan revisions, and
workload prioritization shifts and additional personnel which provide follow-
through for §404 wetland compensation projects, authorized compensatory
mitigation will continue to contribute to the net loss of wetland resources.
41
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula. 1990. Evaluating Design and Verifying Compliance
of Wetlands Created Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Oregon.
EPA/600/3-90/061. 122pp.
Horak, G. C. and J. E. Olson. 1980. The Need for Standards and Criteria to
Determine Effectiveness and Recommendations for Reporting Requirements.
Fisheries Journal. 5(3):2-6.
Horner, R. R. and K. J. Raedeke. 1989. Guide For Wetland Mitigation Project
Monitoring: Operational Draft. Washington State Department of
Transportation. WA-RD 195.1
Kentula, M. E., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A. D. Sherman, J. C.
Sifneos. 1992. Improving Decision-Making In Wetland Restoration and
Creation. EPA/600/R-92/150. 151pp.
Kruczynski, William L. 1989. Options To Be Considered in Preparation and
Evaluation of Mitigation Plans. In Kusler, J. A. and M. E. Kentula.
Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science - Vol.
II:Perspectives.
Kunz, K, M. Rylko, and E. Somers. 1988. An Assessment of Wetland Mitigation
Practices in Washington State. National Wetlands Newsletter 10(3) :2-5.
Oregon Department of State Lands. 1991. Regulatory Enforcement and
Mitigation Compliance: Interim Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Portland District. Prepared by Ken Franklin. 32pp. and
appendices.
Omemik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers. 77(1):118-125.
Rylko, M. and L. Storm. 1991. How Much Wetland Mitigation Are We Requiring?
Or, Is No Net Loss A Reality? Proceedings: Puget Sound Research
Conference '91:314-327.
Short, C. 1988. Mitigation Banking. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88(41). 103pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Guidelines for the Establishment,
Maintenance and Operation of Wetland Mitigation Banks: Review Draft
Report of the National Wetlands Mitigation Banking Study.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Mitigation Policy. Federal Register.
January 23, 1981. 46(15):7656-7663.
42
-------
Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994.
Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Flans and
Proposals. Publication #94-29. 32pp. + tables
Washington State Department of Transportation. 1994. Washington State
Department of Transportation Wetland Compensation Bank Program
Memorandum of Agreement. Pending signatures by: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Federal Highway Administration, Washington Department
of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Transportation. 52pp.
White House Plan. 1993. Protecting America's Wetlands.
A3
-------
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLES OF FORMS
-------
FILE REVIEW & SELECTION FORM
FILE NAME PN# (File # )
ACCESS PERMISSION NECESSARY? NO YES OBTAINED? YES NO
ADDITIONAL INFO THAT MUST BE OBTAINED
INFO THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO OBTAIN
— same method for each assessment level
- - - no method (§ this assessment level
General As Built Routine Comprehensive
~Location !
~Wetland tvne intended ! intermediate
! resultant
~Drainage area
~Surrounding land use
_
Morohometrv
~Area
~SloDe
~Perimeter-to-area
Hvdroloev
~Water deDth
~Flow nattems
~Indirect indicators
Substrate
~Soil color
Vegetation
~Species lists
~Coverage
~Survivorship
Fauna
~Observations
('casual')
(timed at Derm, pts.)
~Habitat evaluations
Water Oualitv
~Water samples
(D. 0./pH/alk/temp
Additional Information
~Photographic record
onsite ref. Doints
est. permanent nts.
~Descriptive narrative
Priority: Low—Medium High
A-1
-------
MITIGATION
(File # )
Reference/Page/Date
Wetland
-Plantings
-Hydrology
-Water Control Structure
-Other
Fish
-Passage
-Rearing
-Spawning
-Other
Wildlife
-Structures
-Vegetation
-Other
Upland
-Buffer
-Vegetation
-Structures
-Fencing
-Other
A-2
-------
FORM A: SKETCH MAP
File Name:
Field Crew
Commencs:
File //:
Field Dace:
N
t
A-3
-------
STANDARD SYMBOLS
Photo Vantage Point:
f-
Photograph Scale Reference:
Area Boundaries:
(Wetland Determination)
Wetland Boundary:
Wetland Type(s):
Hydrologic Surface Connection (natural)
1-way flow >
2-way flow / >
Photo Point:
cr"
55 1 or
I 35 1
_ i
PS 5
unclear
unclear ,/ ^
Hydrologic Engineered Connection (pipes, paved channels, ditches)
1-way flow y unclear | *[ ^
2-way flow ^ unclear |( "7—>
Groundwater Discharge: GW
Dpland Buffer:
Fencing:
0 0 Q o-
Weir:
Transect:
~L
-X—*—X X* £
Water Quality Sample Site:
A-4
-------
FORM B: OBSERVATIONS ONSITE
File Name: File #:
Field Crew: Field Date:
ANIMALS (species, tracks, scat, sign, activity, structures, location, etc.)
PLANTS (for general comments, species should be listed on vegetation forms)
DISTURBANCE(S)
OTHER
A-5
-------
FORM C: PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD FROM VANTAGE POINTS
File
File Name:
Field Crew:
Field Date:
Film ID //
I. Indicate vantage point location on Sketch Map of Site:
II. Accurately describe vantage point location (include pertinent landmarks)
III. Photograph Description Frame # Slide Compass
Direction
I. Indicate vantage point location on Sketch Map of Site:
II. Accurately describe vantage point location (include pertinent landmarks)
III. PhotQEraph Description Frame 4 Slide U Compass
Direction
A-6
-------
FORM D: PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF WETLAND FEATURES
File Name: File #:
Field Crew: Field Date:
Film ID # Page of
Include photos of: surroundings, wetland overview, representative vegetation,
animal activity, disturbance or obstructions, buffers, stress indicators, the
view down each transect length (label by letter), and other wetland features
of interest and importance. Use only one roll of film per record sheet.
Photograph Description Frame // Slide 4
A-7
-------
FORM E: GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
File Name: File #:
Field Crew: Field Date:
I. Indicate X open water, X vegetated and X non-vegetated areas within the
wetland to nearest 5X (A-C should add up to 100X):
A. X open water
1 . X unvegetated
2 . X with submerged aquatic vegetation
(**NOTE: 1-2 above, 1-3 below should total the percentage value in
A and B respectively.)
B. X vegetated
1 . X trees
2 . X shrubs (15 feet or less)
3 . X herbs
C. X unvegetated (bare ground, not open water)
TOTAL: 100X
II. Indicate X relative cover of surrounding areas within 300 feet of the
wetland boundaries to nearest 5X (A-E should add up to 100X):
A. X trees
B. X shrubs
C. X natural herbaceous vegetation
D. X water body--specify type:
E. X human landuse
crops
fallow
grazing
industrial--specify type:
commercial
1.
X
2.
X
3.
X
4.
X
5.
X
6.
X
7.
X
8.
X
9.
X
transportation corridor (includes r.o.w. plants)
housing--single family dwelling(s)
housing--multiple family dwelling(s)
recreation (trails, playgrounds, etc.)
TOTAL: 100X **NOTE: 1-8 should total the percentage value in E.
III. Indicate to nearest 5X, the X of wetland which is disturbed and describe
the disturbance (e.g., ditches, water control structures, fill):
IV. Comments:
A-8
-------
FORM F: HYDROLOGY AND SOIL INFORMATION
File Name: File #:
Field Crew: Field Date: _
Transect Letter: Transect Length: Page of
Variable
Plot #
Plot #
Plot #
Plot #
Shovel or
Auger
Used?
S A
S A
S A
S A
Depth to
Water(in.)
Rotten Egg
Odor?
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Saturated?
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Saturation
Depth
Distance
fr.
Surface to
Visible
Flow
Soil
Samples
Depth
Mot-
tles
Ox id
Rhiz
Depth
Mot-
tles
Oxid
Rhiz
Depth
Mot-
tles
Oxid
Rhiz
Depth
Mot-
tles
Oxid
Rhiz
Munsell
Soil Color
Depth (m)
1
Comments:
A-9
-------
FORM &: WATER QUALITY SAMPLING FIELD FORM
File Name: PN# File#
Field Crew:
Field Date:
USGS Topo Map:
Time:
Altitude:
Climatic Conditions (circle): % cloud cover 25 50 75 100
Rain in last 24 hrs? Yes No Unknown
Wind direction from? N NE E SE S SW W NW
Station
Total
Hater
Depth
(¦)
SCT
Teap
CC)
Conductivity
(psho)
Salinity
(ppt)
Secchi
(fl)
D.O.
Tesp
CC)
D.O.
(ppa)
PH
Teip
CO
PH
(su)
Alkalin- 1
jtr
(pps
CaCOj) |
A1
81
B2
CI
C2
C3
D1
02
I
Comments:
A-10
-------
FORM H POST PROJECT INVESTIGATION EVALUATION FORM
Project Name #
1. Position in the landscape
Appropriate for mitigation goals & objectives?
Allows/prevents achievement of mitplan goals & objectives?
Allows/prevents ecosystem functioning?
Is the mitigation site landscape position appropriate? Y/N
2. Mitigation site ecological functioning
Functioning maximized given landscape constraints?
(Consider all functions incl. habitat, water quality, etc.)
Specific problems?
Improvements could be undertaken?
Overall, does the mitigation site function well ecologically? Y/N
3. Buffer evaluation
Upland buffer exists?
Buffer provided for in mitigation plan?
Natural or established buffer?
Buffer size (width and length)?
Buffer species composition?
Overall buffer height?
Upland buffer is vegetated?
Buffer is adequate (improves and protects mitsite functioning)?
Was a buffer established in conjunction with this mitigation site? Y/N
Is the mitigation site adequately buffered at this point in time? Y/N
U. Mitigation plan components
Adequate baseline - provided, useful?
Goals and objectives - specified, met?
Monitoring - identified, performed?
Success criteria/performance standards - measurable, met?
Corrective measures - undertaken?
Contingency plan - needed, undertaken?
Monetary assurance - required, established?
Implementation Schedule - provided, followed?
The following mitigation plan components were identified in conjunction with
this mitigation site:
Baseline: Y/N Goals & Objectives: Y/N Monitoring: Y/N Success criteria: Y/N
Contingency Plan: Y/N Monetary Assurance: Y/N Implementation Schedule: Y/N
A-11
-------
FORM H POST PROJECT INVESTIGATION EVALUATION FORM
Project Name
5. Monitoring
Was monitoring required?
For how long?
Was the monitoring performed?
Was the monitoring data reported?
Was the monitoring data useful?
Was monitoring required? Y/N
Was monitoring performed? Y/N
Was monitoring information useful in evaluating mitigation success? Y/N/NA
6. Mitigation site regulatory compliance
Complies with Corps permit conditions?
Complies with mitigation intent?
Complies with mitplan goals & objectives?
Complies with mitplan design specifications?
Complies with mitplan provisions?
For the most part, is the project in compliance with authorized work? Y/N
7. Recommendations
Enforce permit conditions
Work cooperatively with permittee
Seek additional mitigation
Within reason, should measures be taken at this time to complete, improve, or
ensure protection of, the mitigation site? Y/N
Circle those measures which should be undertaken:
Planting Monitoring
Regrading Legal Protection
Fill Removal Enforcement Action
Litter Removal Education/Coordination
Sign Installation
Fence Installation
Instream Alterations
Invasive Plant Removal
A-12
-------
FORM I VEGETATION SAMPLING FORM
DATA FORM1
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSfTE DETERMINATION METHOD OR
COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
(Summary Sheet)
Field Investlgator(s): Date:
Project/Site: State: County:
Applicant/Owner
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method
Transect « Plot * Vegetalion Unit #/Name:
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No (If yes, explain on back)
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. 14
2. 15
3. 16
4. 17
5. 18.
6. 19.
7 . 20
8. 21
9. 22
10. 23
11. 24.
12. 25.
13. 26
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No
Is the hydric soil critenon met? Yes No
Is the wetland hydrology critenon met? Yes No
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
1 This data form can be used for either the Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive
Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used.
A-13
-------
FORM I VEGETATION SAMPLING FORM
DATA FORM
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
QUADRAT TRANSECT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
(Vegetation Data)
Field Investigator(s)
Project/Site: Date.
Applicant/Owner State: County
Transect # Plot n
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data lorm or a field notebook.
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES
Indicator Indicator
Herbs (Bryophytes) Status Saplings Status
1 1
2 2
3 3 —
4 4
5 5 —
6 6 —
7 . 7 _
8 . 8 —
9 . 9 —
10. 10
11 . 11 _
12. 12.
13 . 13
Shrubs Trees
1 1 _
2 2 —
3 3 —
4. 4 —
5 5 —
6. 6 —
7 7 —
8 . 8. —
9 . 9. _
10. 10 —
11 11 _
12 . 12 —
13 . 13 _
Woody Vines
1 .
2 .
3 .
4.
5 .
6 .
7 .
8 .
9 .
10 .
11 .
12 .
13 .
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC.
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B
FOLLOW-THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE
The follow-through letters contained In this appendix serve as a summary of
each compensatory mitigation project's history and required mitigation
elements. These letters also, in synoptic fashion, document the findings of
our field investigations and present the joint resource recommendations of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
-------
%
ssz
PRCX&
O
2
Ui
O
X
/
REPLX 10
ATTN OF
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
United States Department ot the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S E , Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2'
92
' U-S
HSH & Wll Dl IKK
SMtVllh
WD-128
June
Lieutenant Colonel Rex N. Osborne
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Re. Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R GRAYS
15, 1994
HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Osborne:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and onsite
investigation of the mitigation sites associated with the referenced permit.
This letter presents our joint findings and recommendations pertaining to
mitigation implementation and mitigation success.
PERMITTED PROJECT
The referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit dated May 26, 1988
authorized the filling of 0.41-acre wetland adjacent to the Wishkah River and
the filling of 443 feet of tidal slough. The work was to allow roadway
widening of the Wishkah Road in Grays Harbor County. Impact areas were
located on the west bank of the Wishkah River between mileposts 1.91 and 2.86
at T18N, R9W, S33. Impacted wetlands were forested and scrub-shrub habitats,
and the slough was a sparsely vegetated, tidally-influenced arm of the Wishkah
River, in the Chehalis drainage.
Permit special conditions required implementation of a wetland mitigation plan
dated November 12, 1987 Compensatory mitigation described in the plan to
offset project impacts entailed creation of 0.41 wetland acres and creation of
443 feet of tidal slough Specifically, onsite (in the impact vicinity)
compensatory mitigation occurred in four general areas as follows:
Mitigation Area #1
Creation of a dendritic tidal slough (Tidal Slough 1)
Creation of a ditch wetland along Wishkah Rd. northbound
Creation of a ditch wetland along Wishkah Rd. southbound
Mitigation Area #2
Creation of channel tidal slough (Tidal Slough 4)
Mitigation Area #3
Creation of a ditch wetland just south of Baretich Road
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
Mitigation Area #4
Creation of a ditch wetland just north of Frosty Way
These four onsite mitigation areas are located at T18N, R9W, S33.
Offsite compensatory mitigation occurred in one area away from the impact at
T18H, R9W, S21 as follows:
Mitigation Area #5
Creation of a tidally-influenced emergent wetland
The mitigation plan included mitigation goals and objectives, performance
standards, monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans. The permit
required provision of yearly monitoring reports over a three-year period.
AGENCY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
EPA and Service representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the
mitigation sites on August 24, 1992. Also in attendance was Mr. Fred Becker,
assistant county road engineer for Grays Harbor County. Service biologists
revisited the sites on April 19, 1993, again with Mr. Becker of the County,
and with Mr. Dan Guy of the Washington Department of Wildlife.
All mitigation site construction work appears to have been performed.
According to Mr. Becker, mitigation site grading and excavation work was
performed during the summer of 1989; plantings installed in approximately
October 1989; and road construction conducted through December 1989.
At the time of our initial visit no monitoring had been performed nor had any
monitoring reports been produced in accordance with provisions of the
mitigation plan which was made a special condition of Corps permit issuance.
Since that time, however, based on our coordination with the County, we
learned that the Corps had directed the permittee to produce a report to
document the status of project mitigation plan implementation. In January
1994 we received a copy of that July 1993 report entitled Mitigation
Monitoring Report for the Wishkah Road Wetlands, prepared by The Coot Company.
Our comments herein are intended to supplement and verify information
contained in that report and make recommendations which go beyond the report.
For ease of reference, we have used the same locational titles employed in the
monitoring report.
2
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
MITIGATION AREA #1
Tidal Slough I
A multi-lobed dendritic tidal slough (Figure 1) was created by the County
approximately opposite from the intersection of Baretich Road and the Wishkah
Road on the river side. From its river connection, the dendritic slough
branches into 4 lobes which are easily seen on 1990 aerial photography, which
helps to verify the construction date (Figure 2). This dendritic slough
receives freshwater draining from the forested/scrub-shrub wetland (Figure 3)
which lies behind, or further west of, residences fronting Wishkah Road.
Water from that wetland and from roadway runoff collects in the roadside ditch
just south and parallel to Baretich Road, and passes through the tidegated
culvert which empties into Tidal Slough 1.
Electrofishing performed in the pool at the culvert mouth in Tidal Slough 1
(Figure 4), revealed the presence of at least four coho parr and one sculpin.
Biologists involved with the project from its inception noted that the culvert
is larger than the previously existing culvert, and that the present culvert
is perched as a result of being placed at too high an elevation, and/or from
erosive undercutting beneath the culvert mouth. This was similarly noted in
the monitoring report.
Mitigation Area #1 also contains Tidal Sloughs 2 and 3, although these were
not created by the County. These tidal sloughs also receive freshwater inputs
from the west side of the Wishkah Road through culverts with tidegates.
However, these culverts collect drainage via recessed grate inlets located in
the front yards of residences bordering Wishkah Road.
While the two tidal sloughs are valuable in providing slough habitat and
providing a conduit for surface waters and their nutrients to enter the
Wishkah River, measures could be taken by the County to maximize the
ecological benefit of these areas. Landowners with grate inlets in their
front yards should be educated by the County about the connection between what
goes into the grate inlet and what gets into river water, and about the
wetlands behind their houses and how water runs through those areas and into
the river as well. Landowners should then be encouraged by the County to
avoid actions in and around their properties which would degrade water
quality Increasing public awareness about protecting and improving water
quality can be undertaken through various means. Postal mailers, flyers,
contacting neighborhood associations, or door-to-door informers are all
potential means of educating local residents.
Roadside Ditches
Based on our onsite visits with the County, it is our understanding and
observation that in Mitigation Area #1, two roadside ditches were created on
either side of Wishkah Road at the south end of the mitigation area (Figures 5
and 6). This appears consistent with specifications indicated in both
mitigation plan text and drawings, and in Figure 2B of the monitoring report.
3
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
However, the monitoring report text does not indicate this, nor is a specific
created wetland identified on the west side of Wishkah Road in the monitoring
report figure. We request clarification of this apparent discrepancy.
MITIGATION AREA #2
Tidal Slough 4
During our April 1993 site visit, electrofishing was performed in the created
slough (also described as relocated), on the northernmost end of the onsite
mitigation, or Tidal Slough 4 (Figure 7). This lies within the general
Mitigation Area #2. Coho parr and stickleback were present throughout the
slough's length south of the culverted driveway (Figure 8). Mr. Becker noted
that large organic debris (such as logs or rootwads) had been placed in the
mitigation slough after its creation, but that such organic matter had
probably been washed out as no large organic debris was present during either
of our visits. Biologists from the Service and WDW who were initially
involved with the project proposal and present at this second follow-through
site visit, agreed that the mitigation channel looked quite similar to the
impacted slough. They noted that the slough had been relocated about 20 feet
closer to the river than its former location.
We also noted at both site visits that a large blowdown tree at the north end
of the slough has its up-turned rootwad partly in the slough and is providing
cover for fish. We observed juvenile fish in the vicinity of the rootwad in
August 1992. The large spruce which has fallen and lies partly within the
northernmost end of the created mitigation slough should be closely inspected
to determine if fish passage is impaired significantly or stranding occurs
(Figure 9). We do not recommend removal of this downed tree from its location
as it appears to provide good in-slough fish cover; however, we do recommend
ensuring fish passage past the tree if the area is currently blocked.
This created slough was developed on land purchased by the County from a
private landowner. This band of purchased land lies between the roadway and
private land, in front of a private residence. The slough passes through a
culvert over which the private residence driveway sits. There is a distance
of approximately 6 ft. between the top of the slough's east bank top and the
private property fenceline; this distance is mostly vegetated by grasses.
There is a distance of approximately 10 ft. between the top of the slough's
west bank top and the roadway; this distance is also mostly vegetated with
herbaceous plants (Figure 10). Thus, while slough sampling indicated that
juvenile salmon are utilizing this mitigation site, there is virtually no
buffer of this slough from roadway and private land uses.
Native woody vegetation should be planted along the slough to enhance its
habitat values for both fish and migratory birds. Habitat benefits from the
establishment of a dense, native woody vegetation buffer would likely include
increased shading and moderating of water temperatures, insect drop from
overhanging vegetation to the slough environment, and contribution of organic
4
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
and detrital debris to the aquatic system. This would greatly improve
existing fish rearing habitat in the mitigation slough. Additionally, human
and domestic pet disruption of the slough is likely to be reduced, as is the
deposition of litter from the roadway from either accidental or deliberate
means. We recommend that the County establish a dense vegetated buffer
comprised of woody vegetation along both sides of the slough, throughout its
length (at least).
MITIGATION AREA #3
Roadside Ditches
In Mitigation Area #3 the County has installed a cross culvert with a tide
gate at the downstream end of the roadside ditch. This ditch lies on the
south side of Baretich Road. This ditch is hydrologically connected to the
palustrine scrub-shrub and forested wetland swath which runs approximately
parallel to Wishkah Road behind the residences on the west side of, and
directly adjacent to, Wishkah Road. It is unlikely that this ditch receives
any fish use because of the tide-gated culvert and low water levels. No
electrofishing was performed at this site due to inadequate water depths, lack
of cover, and overall good visibility. We observed no fish in this ditch. We
also noted that tide gate functioning was impaired by a piece of plywood
resting on the tide flap itself (we removed the plywood from the flap).
According to mitigation plan drawings and text, roadside ditches with
transplanted and/or nursery wetland plants installed, were to be created on
both sides of Baretich Road (the former Garden Homes Tract Road). We observed
ditches on both sides, yet the monitoring report does not accurately depict,
describe, or verify the presence of two ditches.
MITIGATION AREA #4
Roadside Ditches
Similarly for this mitigation area, it appears from mitigation plan drawings
and text, that roadside ditches with transplanted and/or nursery wetland
plants installed, were to be created on both sides of Frosty Way (the former
Baretich Road). We observed ditches on both sides, yet the monitoring report
does not accurately depict, describe, or verify the presence of two ditches.
We performed electrofishing in the two roadside ditches on each side of Frosty
Way near its intersection with Wishkah Road. The south ditch is not a
mitigation site but supports much herbaceous and some woody vegetation, and
contains relatively stagnant, ponded water. The south ditch feeds to the
north ditch via a culvert under Frosty Way, and we found the south ditch to be
utilized by coho parr. The north ditch is a mitigation site and tends to
support less vegetation and a greater, faster flow of water which also hosts
juvenile coho (Figure 11). The north ditch flows through a culvert under
Wishkah Road into the head of Tidal Slough 4.
5
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
Vegetation along this mitigation area is mostly herbaceous, appears to be cut
by road maintenance crews, and has seasonal persistence. Such vegetation
provides very little protection of, or contribution to, the ditch which is
serving as fish rearing habitat. We recommend that the County densely plant
woody vegetation along this mitigation ditch. The corners at the intersection
of Frosty Way and Wishkah Road should be planted with native plant species
which will remain short in height so that maintenance and safety issues will
not be problematic.
MITIGATION AREA #5
Offsite Created Wetland
The offsite mitigation site located at MP 4.2 had uplands excavated down to
the planned grade. However, the unanticipated presence of sandstone at the
site warranted the importing of organic soil to the site. Mr. Becker
indicated that soil excavated during creation of the tidal mitigation slough
was placed to a depth of approximately one to two feet at the offsite
mitigation area over the sandstone. He also noted that this offsite
mitigation area is inundated with a few inches of water from the river at high
tides (which would be primarily during the winter).
We found, as the monitoring report notes, that the site supports mostly
herbaceous vegetation rather than the woody plant species that were the
intended target community (Figure 12). The site's elevation may be consistent
with that which had been specified; however, it appears that the hydrologic
regime necessary to support wetlands similar to adjacent wetland communities,
has not been achieved. Improving the site's hydrologic connection and
lowering the site's overall elevation are likely to lead toward the
development of a vegetated community with similar species and structure of
adjacent riverine wetlands.
On sheet 14, wetland revegetation details, under General Notes, items 2 and 7
have questionably been followed. Specifically, item 2 states that "slopes of
the site shall be graded and dressed to blend with the adjacent terrain".
However, as the monitoring report notes, and as we observed onsite, the north
cut slope of the offsite mitigation area is a bare cut, nevertheless, alders
at the toe of the cut slope have established themselves. Furthermore, it
appears that material was sidecasted along the periphery of the excavated
area, as a small berm is evident along the west and south edges of the site.
The monitoring report does not provide wetland delineation, actual dimensions,
or surveyed elevations of this mitigation area. Thus it is not possible to
accurately assess implementation of the proposed work to specification, or
determine the amount of wetland acreage provided offsite. Furthermore, while
our investigation indicated that the vegetative community of Mitigation Area
#5 is reflective of planted species and volunteer species, this plant
community is not indicative of wetland plant species found in the general
vicinity prior to mitigation construction, according to the mitigation plan.
6
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-QYB-4-010507-R
We recommend the County perform an engineering survey to determine the
mitigation site's elevation(s), and determine the range of elevations of
adjacent, surrounding wetlands. These wetlands are the tidally influenced
scrub-shrub and forested communities which lie between the river and the
mitigation site. This will allow the County, in consultation with resource
agencies and the Corps, to identify any immediate corrective actions or larger
contingency measures which need to be implemented by the County to achieve
mitigation success.
While the offsite mitigation area is currently well buffered by existing
vegetation (Figure 13), assurances that this condition will be maintained in
the future do not exist. It is our understanding that the offsite mitigation
lies within a larger land tract of approximately 30 acres which is owned by
the County. We recommend that the County designate a buffer around the
perimeter of the excavated offsite mitigation area to protect it from
potential future incompatible uses. We recommend that a buffer of at least
100 feet in width be established from the edge of the mitigation area. While
a buffer of this size would not be possible on the west side of the site due
to the existing roadway, this distance would be appropriate along the
remainder of the site's sides.
MONITORING REPORT
We note that the vegetation and the functional assessment methodologies
performed were different than those specified in the mitigation plan.
Figure 1 of this project's monitoring report has described the onsite
mitigation in four general areas. The offsite mitigation lies in Area #5.
Figure 2A of the monitoring report is misleading insofar as it identifies
large swathes of wetland as being mitigation areas, regardless of the fact
that actual compensatory mitigation is only comprised of much smaller elements
within those areas. While the use of general areas is appropriate, it is not
appropriate for the report figure to neglect diagrammatic representation of
the actual mitigation (created) wetlands.
Representation should go beyond the typical roadside ditch planting detail
specifications shown in the mitigation plan. A monitoring report,
particularly this overdue one, should accurately depict current conditions at
each mitigation area.
Neither the text of the mitigation plan nor the monitoring report indicate the
exact width of created roadside ditch mitigation sites in each area. We
observed much variation in roadside ditch depth, sideslope gradient, source of
hydrology, water level, and function. The monitoring report is deficient in
describing such information.
7
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
Other discrepancies we note exist between the station locations shown in
Figure 2A of the monitoring report and those shown in the wetland revegetation
details sheet of the mitigation plan (these details are unreadable in Figure
2B of the monitoring report). With different stations, and without mitigation
site boundary markers, dimensions, exact locations, or field markers, it could
be difficult to identify mitigation site locations. This could make future
regulation, compliance, and follow-through work difficult. Furthermore, it
could impede the County from adequately protecting the mitigation areas.
For example, the roadside ditch that was created on the river side of the
highway is not shown within general Mitigation Area #1, but is described in
the text of the report. However, the report is also deficient in not
providing the exact location or dimensions of the created roadside ditch.
Thus, because the ditch is not specifically shown in Figure 2A, and the text
is remarkably brief, there is no way of knowing the size, length, width, or
configuration of the roadside ditch. Plant characterization and functional
assessment of the created wetland are provided, yet hydrologic information
such as source, connectivity, or quality is not provided.
Again in Figure 2A, the diagram is misleading and not informative as it
indicates a general and large area for Mitigation Area #2 without showing the
actual dimensions and location of the roadside ditch. Additionally, there is
no description of this area's hydrology or connectivity to either the created
tidal slough, roadway runoff, or other wetlands.
DISCUSSION
Mitigation Implementation Status
Grays Harbor County Public Works is to be commended for constructing and
planting the mitigation sites in accordance with the associated mitigation
plan. However, there is departure from plan implementation insofar as the
permittee had not performed the two years of required monitoring until
directed by the Corps to do so in 1993. No as-built conditions report was
available to document that each mitigation site was established as intended,
although this appears to be the case. Furthermore, three years of subsequent
monitoring at each of the mitigation sites has not been performed. The lack
of such documented information makes it difficult to ascertain compliance and
to judge ecological and compensatory success.
Mitigation Protection Through Legal Documentation
The County should undertake mapping of each mitigation site as such on county
assessor's maps (inclusive of any additional buffer areas which the County may
be able to designate) and relevant maps at the County Public Works Department.
This would serve to highlight restrictions and protective management of these
sites. Appropriate deed restrictions should also be established by the
permittee to ensure perpetual protection of all mitigation areas. Proof of
such protection should be documented and provided to the Service, EPA, and
Corps. Furthermore, mapped areas should reference the Corps permit,
8
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
mitigation plan, and a maintenance/management for the sites developed by the
County. We also indicated to the County that entering the sites' locations in
a countywide database would be useful, if and when such a system is developed.
Protective Maintenance
To minimize spraying, cutting, or inappropriate maintenance activities from
occurring in or around the mitigation sites associated with this
project/permit, some type of sign should be used to alert county workers to
the existence of these sites. While explicit language on easily-read signs
could be an option, these may draw unnecessary or undesirable attention to the
mitigation sites, particularly the offsite mitigation area. A better option,
and likely a less costly alternative, would be installation of colored markers
placed on roadside guide posts. These could be easily recognized by trained
county crew members as indicators of sensitive areas deserving little, no, or
special maintenance.
The intakes and outlets of all culverts associated with any of the mitigation
sites for this project should be routinely inspected and cleared of debris
obstructing flow, passage, or operation of tide gates/flaps.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service request that Grays Harbor County Public Works
Department undertake the following after joint coordination with our agencies
and the Corps:
1. Provide written and photographic documentation of existing conditions at
each mitigation site (current status report) inclusive of fish use and
vegetation communities.
2. Eliminate the parking area which lies between the roadway Wishkah Road and
the offsite mitigation area by regrading and planting.
3. Provide educational information to property owners/residents along Wishkah
Road who have had grate inlets installed in their yards to minimize water
quality impacts.
4. Install "No Cut/No Spray" along roadside ditches created as mitigation.
5. Establish a dense buffer of native woody vegetation along salmon-bearing
sloughs in Mitigation Areas #2 and #4 to protect and enhance anadromous fish
habitat. Buffers should be signed adequately to prevent their degradation
through cutting or spraying.
6 Provide large organic debris throughout Tidal Slough 4 This woody
material should be placed parallel to waterflow and may be inserted into
channel substrates, but should not be anchored.
9
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
7. Record a conservation easement on the deed for all mitigation parcels.
8. Remove litter and undesirable debris from roadside mitigation sites.
9. Document each mitigation site's exact location, length, width, sideslope
gradient, and bottom elevation.
10. Conduct an engineering survey of the offsite mitigation (Area #5) to
determine excavated area elevations and surrounding wetlands' elevations.
Then, provide this information to the Service, EPA, WDW, and Corps, to
determine any appropriate corrective action(s).
11. Designate a buffer of 100 feet in width around the perimeter of the
offsite mitigation area in which no cutting or human manipulation would occur.
12. Perform Items 1 through (11) within one year from the date of this letter.
SUMMARY
In summary, while many details are provided herein for your information and
documentation, several salient points warrant highlighting. First, the
permittee, Grays Harbor Public Works Department, has generally implemented
compensatory mitigation as planned and permitted. Second, the implemented
onsite mitigation has replaced various wetland functions and values. Third,
the offsite mitigation area's functions and values appear limited. Fourth,
the 1993 monitoring report for this project is not adequate and should be
replaced by a report provided by the permittee which adequately documents and
provides protection for all project-associated mitigation sites. Fifth, the
permittee should take supplemental actions to improve the ecological
functioning of each mitigation area, in consultation with interested resource
and regulatory agencies.
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent
with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the
Army to assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its
responsibility to assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act. These
comments and recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to
assist the Corps in carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with
§404 permitted activities.
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C et seq.), as amended,
and other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for
environmental values. They are consistent with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Service's Mitigation Policy.
10
-------
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit 071-OYB-4-010507-R
Please contact Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or
Linda Storm of the EPA at (206) 553-2578, for further coordination on this
matter.
Sincerely,
Enclosure(s)
cc• NMFS, Portland
WDE, Olympia
WDW, Montesano (Dan Guy)
Grays Harbor County Public Works Dept , Montesano (Fred Becker)
Charles E. Findley, Director
Water Division
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
(
David C Frederick, Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
11
-------
Figure 1.
Permittee and resource
agency representatives
inspect Tidal Slough 1; a
multilobed, tidal slough
connected to the Wishkah
River, created in
Mitigation Area #1.
Figure 2.
One of the four lobes of
Tidal Slough 1.
Grays Harbor County
Public Works Department
07l-OYB-4-O10507-R
-------
Figure 3.
Forested/scrub-shrub
wetland from which
freshwater feeds through a
ditch and a culvert with
tideflap, into Tidal
Slough 1.
Grays Harbor County
Public Works Department
07l-OYB-4-O10507-R
i
m
&
Figure 4
Perched
culvert
outlet in
Tidal
Slough 1.
-------
Figure 5. Permittee and resource agency representatives inspect
created wetland along west side of Wishkah Road, at south
end of Mitigation area.
Figure 6. Created Wetland along east side of Wishkah Road, at south
end of Mitigation area.
Grays Harbor County
Public Works Department
071-OYB-4-010507-R
-------
Figure 7.
View of the northernmost end
of the onsite mitigation
area, or Tidal Slough 4.
Grays Harbor County
Public Works Department
07l-OYB-4-010507-R
Figure 8.
Coho parr found during
electrofishing the south half
of the relocated mitigation
slough, or Tidal Slough 4.
-------
Figure 9.
View of the northernmost
end of Tidal Slough 4.
Note culvert outlet which
delivers freshwater from
Frosty Way ditches (see
Figure 11), and note
upturned root base of
spruce tree in background.
Grays Harbor County
Public Works Department
071-0YB-4-010507-R
Figure 10
View of
relocated
Tidal Sough 4,
looking south
along Wishkah
River Road.
Note proximity
of slough to
roadway on
right, and
private
property gate
on left.
-------
Figure 11. The mitigation ditch north
of, and along, Frosty Way. Juvenile coho
were found utilizing this ditch in April
1993.
Grays Harbor County
Public Works Department
07l-OYB-4-010507-R
-------
Figure 12.
View of offsite mitigation
Area #5. Upland was
excavated and organic soil
imported to create wetland.
The excavated wetland is
dominated by herbaceous
vegetation.
Grays Harbor County
Public Works Department
07l-OYB-4-O10507-R
Figure 13.
Another view of offsite
mitigation Area #5. Note row
of Alnus rubra (red alder),
which volunteered along the
cut of the excavated upland.
•V
-------
%
UJ
O
T
*L PRO^*-
REPLY TO
ATTN OF
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
United States Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S E, Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2192
f ~\
HNH & WILDI It*
MKVlLh
W7
WD-128
June 15, 1994
Lieutenant Colonel Rex N. Osborne
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Re: Permit 071-OYB-4-009803 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(SR 409/Puget Island Bridge)
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Osborne:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and onsite
investigation of the mitigation site associated with the above-referenced
permit. This letter presents our joint findings and recommendations
pertaining to mitigation implementation and mitigation success.
PERMITTED PROJECT
The referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit authorized the filling of
0.65 wetland acres adjacent to the Cathlamet Channel of the Columbia River by
the placement of approximately 8000 cubic yards of gravel and 3400 tons of
rock riprap. The purpose of the work was to upgrade the Puget Island Bridge
approach on State Route 409. Impacted wetlands were part of a continuous band
of riparian forest which lies between the channel and the county's Little
Island Road. These wetlands were densely vegetated, primarily with an
overstory of cottonwood and willow trees, and considerable understory.
Compensatory mitigation associated with the project was contained within
public notice drawings for the project. The authorized work and onsite
mitigation are located at T8N, R6W, Sll on Little Island in Wahkiakum County,
Washington.
Compensatory mitigation was to entail replacement of 0.65 acres of filled
forested riparian wetland by: removing the old bridge approach fill and
associated pilings and restoring wetlands in the removed fill footprint; by
creating riparian wetland near the junction of the state route and the county
road; and by installing a 72-inch culvert to allow wildlife passage under the
bridge approach. Besides application of a seed mixture, it appears that no
plantings were required. No formal monitoring of the site was proposed or
required.
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SR 409/Puget Island Bridge)
Permit 071-OYB-4-009803
AGENCY FINDINGS
EPA and Service representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the
mitigation site on August 27, 1993. We have also discussed our findings with
a WSDOT representative. It appears that the compensatory mitigation measures
described above and made a condition of permit acceptance have been
implemented, except for the removal of timber piles from the Cathlamet
Channel.
We observed the fill removal site which, at lower elevations inundated by
channel water, supported a vigorous stand of hydrophytic vegetation including
Eleocharis sp., Scirpus sp., and Juncus sp. Further waterward of these sedges
and rushes we observed a number of timber piles; we assume these were the
piles that had been identified for removal by WSDOT as a mitigative measure.
Mid-level elevations at the site supported Phalaris arundinacea, Bidens sp.,
and Aster sp., while the higher elevations at the site (still apparently
below mean higher high water as evidenced by the wrack line) supported
dunegrass. Vegetation at the road fill toe included weedy species such as
common plantain, clover, and thistle.
Thus, at this northwest third portion of the mitigation site, it appears that
natural revegetation has occurred to some degree but that removal of the old
bridge approach fill failed to bring the mitigation site down to pre-
development elevations (see Area A, Figure 1). Comparison to adjoining
riparian forest edge revealed that the mitigation site edge elevation was
approximately 2-3 feet higher. An elevation difference this large appears to
be preventing the establishment of woody riparian vegetation targeted as
compensation.
The southeast two-thirds of the site (see Area B, Figure 1) does not appear to
be maximizing its ecological potential. It appears that the site may not have
adequate hydrology to support riparian species, that soil treatment may be
needed to alleviate compacted soils, and/or that roadside application of
chemicals (presumably by county road maintenance crews) is killing vegetation
within approximately 50 feet of the road shoulder. We observed similar dead
vegetation within a band along the road in riparian areas north of the
mitigation site as well as a number of large trees close to the roadway which
had been felled.
The wildlife culvert appears to have been installed per specification. We do
note, however, that even though not originally planned as such, if the invert
elevation of the culvert had been lower, the culvert would not only provide
wildlife passage but facilitate hydrologic movement as well, with some
potential environmental benefits.
2
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SR 409/Puget Island Bridge)
Permit 071-OYB-4-009803
We also noted that either end of the culvert was heavily littered with trash
seemingly discarded by passing motorists, and that litter was heavily
concentrated in the area just at the bridge approach.
DISCUSSION
Qualified environmental staff for WSDOT should inspect and assess current
mitigation site conditions to identify problems and appropriate corrective
actions to undertake which would maximize the site's ecological functioning.
Relatively simple but important actions should be done immediately. Trash
that has accumulated on both sides of the existing bridge approach should be
removed to minimize any potential harm to wildlife and restore the area's
aesthetics. The WSDOT should solicit concerned community members to adopt
this section of highway for periodic litter removal. Signage to discourage
littering should be installed, particularly along the bridge approach, to help
curb this ongoing problem. Further, mitigation site identification signs
should be installed to demarcate the site's boundaries, to provide a contact
agency and telephone number, and to help foster appreciation for the site's
natural values. Based on conversation with the permittee, we understand that
WSDOT is currently developing signs to install at their mitigation sites.
More complex actions should be completed and documented within a year from the
date of this letter. First, appropriate county personnel should be contacted,
informed about the mitigation site, and asked to help resolve onsite problems
to the extent that the county may be responsible for such problems. Since our
investigation indicated that woody vegetation was selectively cut along the
roadside and herbicide spraying was performed along the roadside, measures
should be developed with the county to ensure that these and any other actions
potentially harmful to the mitigation site are avoided. Specifically,
vegetation cutting/removal and herbicide spraying should be prohibited at the
WSDOT site, although litter removal would be acceptable. Roadside ditch
digging, placement of additional shoulder fill, or any other harmful activity
should similarly be prohibited.
Second, elevational and vegetative community differences between the
mitigation site and surrounding riparian areas should be examined to determine
the appropriateness and amount of regrading necessary to establish a riparian
community similar to existing, reference riparian areas. Still using these
reference areas, a planting plan should be developed which targets their
attributes. Evaluation and replanting should similarly be undertaken in the
area where it appears there has been no survival of planted woody vegetation
(see Figure 1).
Upon completion of the foregoing corrective actions, the above-described work
and final site features should be documented in a report similar to an as-
built conditions report. A schedule for site maintenance and inspection
3
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SR 409/Puget Island Bridge)
Permit 071-OYB-4-009803
should be identified and included in the report. This report should be
submitted to the EPA, Service, Corps, and other interested parties.
Legal record and protection of the mitigation site in perpetuity should be
undertaken and documented.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service request that WSDOT undertake the following actions.
1. Inspect and assess the subject mitigation site to determine appropriate
and specific corrective actions to perform, particularly as they relate to
implementing items 2 through 8 below.
2. Remove accumulated trash on both sides of the existing bridge approach,
particularly as the roadway turns onto the bridge.
3. Install signs along the bridge approach to discourage littering and
solicit a community group to adopt this highway section for routine litter
removal.
4. Install mitigation site identification signs at the boundaries of the
mitigation site along the roadway.
5. Coordinate with local county road maintenance staff to exclude the WSDOT
mitigation site from all county maintenance activities potentially harmful to
the mitigation site.
6. Regrade the mitigation site to elevations equivalent to the adjacent
riparian areas on either side of the site (see Figure 1)
7. Replant the regraded site with native woody plant species like those found
in adjacent riparian areas on either side of the mitigation site. Planting
density on the mitigation site should be equal to at least 75% of the stem
count of adjacent riparian forested areas; measures should be undertaken to
ensure a 90% minimum survival of these planted specimens over a 3-year period.
8. Replant dead original woody vegetation originally planted onsite that has
been adversely affected by roadside spraying or disease.
9. Document mitigation site features inclusive of: site grade and elevation
relative to adjacent riparian habitat; number, species, size, and location of
plantings; and number and location of signage. Documentation should be
conducted after corrective actions have been undertaken at the site.
4
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SR 409/Puget Island Bridge)
Permit 071-OYB-4-009803
10. Record the mitigation site as such on WSDOT right-of-way maps, and on
conveyance document(s) for the property which should be recorded with the
county auditor.
11. Perform Items 1 through 10 above within one year of the date of this
letter.
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent
with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the
Army to assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its
responsibility to assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act. These
comments and recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to
assist the Corps in carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with
§404 permitted activities.
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as amended, 16 U S C et seq.), as amended,
and other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for
environmental values They are consistent with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Service's Mitigation Policy Please contact
Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or Linda Storm of the EPA at
(206) 553-2578, for further coordination on this matter
U.S Environmental Protection Agency U S rish and Wildiire service
cc• NMFS, Portland
WDE, Olympia
WDF, Olympia
WDW, Vancouver/Hazel Dell
WSDOT, Olympia (Jim Schafer/Steve Zaske)
Sincerely,
''Charles E. Findley, Director
Water Division
David C Frederick, State Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
5
-------
Figure 1. Existing conditions
at SR 409/Puget Island Bridge
mitigation site. (Adapted from
1985 permit application.)
t
weTlFiNCfc "TO HAVE
6e EN R£STORED>
WETLftNbS
PIUV-Et>
^71 6X»VnM<0, UKlF\V.ue:
VAlGTUf^N^^
OLO IMKE Awfc
t>R HO<\
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
071-OYB-4-009803
0 SO ioo
-------
%
a.
o
REPLY TO
ATTN OF
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
United States Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S E, Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2192
'UA \
WD-128
June 15, 1994
Lieutenant Colonel Rex N. Osborne
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Re: Permit 071-OYB-4-009885-R, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(SR 507/McKenna Bridge)
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Osborne.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and onsite
investigation of the mitigation site associated with the referenced permit.
This letter presents our joint findings and recommendations pertaining to
mitigation implementation and mitigation success.
PERMITTED PROJECT
The referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit dated September 18, 1985
authorized the placement of fill in and adjacent to both the Nisqually River
and its overflow channel (old McKenna Creek) in the Nisqually Basin. Work
specifically included: filling 0.2 wetland acres (0.1 temporary, 0.1
permanent), installing a culvert measuring 7 feet wide and approximately 145
feet long, and placing riprap. The purpose of the work was to allow bridge
replacement over the Nisqually River and its overflow channel on State Route
507 at McKenna, Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington at T17N, R2E, S28.
While no baseline data are available for site specific pre-project conditions,
there is some information which indicates the impact areas were well vegetated
and utilized by anadroraous salmonids and migratory birds.
Compensatory mitigation to offset project impacts was to entail removal of a
temporary detour fill (650 cu. yds.). Revised drawings also indicate that 450
cu. yds. of unsuitable material would be removed from wetlands and replaced
with "good quality granular backfill". It is unclear where these areas were
exactly, and if they were the same areas. Nonetheless, revised drawings
indicate that mitigation was to entail providing 3300 sq ft of wetlands to
offset the "covering" of 3000 sq. ft. of wetlands for project construction.
However, it is unclear again if this was inclusive or exclusive of the
temporary detour fill removal
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SR 507/McKenna Bridge)
071-OYB-4-009885-R
No mitigation plan document is associated with the project; however, two
sheets of revised drawings dated June 27, 1985 which accompany the permit
reflect the proposed fill removal as well as a reduction in originally-
proposed project impacts. These drawings state that in the overflow channel,
approximately 0.08 acre (3300 sq. ft.) of wetland mitigation would be provided
to replace 3000 sq. ft. of wetlands filled by the project. The mitigation
site, indicated in the revised drawings to be split to approximately the north
and west sides of the overflow channel, was to have been planted with
birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus sp.).
AGENCY FINDINGS
EPA and Service representatives conducted a field investigation of the
mitigation site on August 4, 1992 and Service representatives revisited the
site on November 17, 1992. Limited information contained in the Corps permit
and drawings hampered onsite investigation. Nonetheless, our findings are as
follows.
Bridge replacement had been completed and the culvert installed. It appeared
that detour fill had been removed. The boundaries of the mitigation site were
not evident, nor marked. There is some indication that birdsfoot trefoil was
planted, though minimal patches remain on the slope of the north portion of
the mitigation site (adjacent to the Elledge property). This slope is steep,
littered with roadside garbage, invaded by Scot's broom, and has a human-made
trail cutting through it to the overflow channel. This north portion of the
mitigation site is accessible to human disruption primarily due to its
proximity to the river access road.
The exact location of the west portion of the mitigation site, also where
detour fill was to have been removed, was not readily identifiable. Depending
on its exact dimensions, that area is either dominated by obligate hydrophytic
vegetation and an extension of the overflow channel, or that area is a
gradation of the channel bank dominated by alder and willow. The west portion
of the mitigation site is less accessible to human disruption primarily as a
result of dense vegetation on the adjoining property.
The two strips of vegetation which lie along the shoulder of SR 507 and just
below the shoulder on either side, are providing important buffering to the
overflow channel and its associated wetland habitats. Although these
vegetated strips are comprised of invasive plants, they do serve as visual
buffers for the wetlands below (particularly on the north side); they provide
a means of trapping fines, grit, asphalt chips, litter, and runoff from the
highway pavement; and they are stabilizing soils of the relatively steep
slopes formed on either side of the highway.
2
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SR 507/McKenna Bridge)
071-OYB-4-009885-R
During our site visits we observed various migratory birds including
passerines, waterfowl, and wading birds using the overflow channel in the
immediate vicinity of the mitigation site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service recommend that WSDOT undertake the following actions
after coordination with the Corps:
1. Establish a dense vegetated buffer on the northeast bank of the old
McKenna Creek or overflow channel to protect the compensatory mitigation site.
The buffer should be comprised of native woody upland species planted between
the toe of the steeply sided bank and top of the bank.
2. Remove accumulated trash from vegetation in and along the overflow channel
adjacent to SR 507 and solicit a community group to adopt this highway section
for routine trash removal.
3. Record the mitigation site on both sides of the overflow channel as such
on WSDOT right-of-way maps, and on conveyance document(s) for the property
which should be recorded with the county assessor.
4. Provide documentation to the EPA, Service, and Corps that foregoing items
1-3 have been undertaken and that the site will be monitored and maintained.
5. Perform Items 1 through 4 within one year from the date of this letter.
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent
with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the
Army to assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its
responsibility to assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act. These
comments and recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to
assist the Corps in carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with
§404 permitted activities.
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish arid Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. et seq.), as amended,
and other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for
environmental values. They are consistent with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Service's Mitigation Policy.
3
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SR 507/McKenna Bridge)
071-OYB-4-O09885-R,
Please contact Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or
Linda Storm of the EPA at (206) 553-2578, for further coordination on this
matter
Sincerely,
/Charles E. Findley, director
Water Division
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
David C Frederick, State Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Enclosure(s)
cc • Nisqually Tribe
WDE, Olympia
WDF, Olympia
WSDOT, Olympia (Jim Schafer)
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
HSH & Wll III IH-
MJlVICh
f \
MSH&WII |)| ll-l-
United States Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S E, Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2192
REPLY TO
ATTN OF
WD-128
June 15, 1994
Lieutenant Colonel Rex N. Osborne
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Re: Permit 071-OYB-2-010355-R CARLSON BEACH PROPERTIES
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Osborne:
The U S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and on-site
investigation of the mitigation site(s) associated with the above-referenced
permit. This letter presents our joint findings and recommendations
pertaining to mitigation implementation and mitigation success.
The referenced U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit dated April 13,
1987 authorized the filling of 0.1 wetland acres adjacent to the Columbia
River at RM 58 5, within Cowlitz County, Washington at T8N, R3W, S17. These
were palustrine emergent wetlands dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea). The purpose of the fill was to allow the development of a
residential building site on Willow Grove Island.
Compensatory mitigation to be implemented to offset project impacts entailed
onsite, in-kind replacement by the creation of a 0.1 acre wetland through
grading of an area along the shoreline and its revegetation with P.
arundinacea from the site to be filled. The permit also provided for Corps
inspection of the mitigation after revegetation was completed and prior to
filling, and then again three years after permit issuance to evaluate
revegetation success. No detailed mitigation plan was developed for this
project, just three permit conditions and one page of revised drawings dated
September 25, 1986.
EPA and Service representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the
mitigation site on August 27, 1992. We were unable to meet with the property
owner at that time. It should be noted that the permit has been transferred
from Mr. Gordon Enbusk - the original permittee, to Mr. Donald Kleine - the
present property owner. It appears that the authorized fill was placed and a
residence and garage have been constructed. It appears that the compensatory
PERMITTED PROJECT
AGENCY FINDINGS
-------
CARLSON BEACH PROPERTIES
071-OYB-2-010355-R
mitigation has been undertaken, although the mitigation site is not obvious.
However, in the area which we presume is the graded mitigation site (see
Figure 1 of the revised drawing), there is a patch of mowed reed canarygrass
with interspersed birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus sp.) and horsetail (Equisetum sp.).
We were unable to ascertain whether plantings of any sort had been undertaken.
We also observed cut sections of cottonwood tree(s) lying on the west side of
the property.
DISCUSSION
The small patch of vegetation we identified as the likely mitigation site is
providing minimal wetland functions and values. This is due in part to its
vegetation composition, lack of connectivity to riparian habitats, and human-
maintained condition. The mitigation site's habitat value could be improved
in a number of ways.
First, the landowner should not continue mowing the site, as this eliminates
vegetative structure, wildlife cover, and discourages growth of woody
vegetation. This would allow the site to mature and develop on its own,
presumably with an increase in riparian habitat characteristics.
Second, the landowner should demarcate the boundaries of this mitigation area
to facilitate site identification. This can be accomplished by marking the
area with posts, rocks, or logs to distinguish it from other parts of the
property, thus making it easier to avoid mowing or other maintenance
activities within the mitigation area. Additionally, if landowners again
change, the mitigation area is more likely to be recognized and receive better
protection.
Third, the landowner could immediately improve the mitigation area by planting
it with native cottonwood (Populus sp.) or willow (Salix sp.) whips in order
to foster the growth of woody riparian vegetation. During the public notice
review period for this project, resource agencies identified large cottonwood
trees onsite as valuable habitat and requested these trees be protected. The
Corps' environmental assessment for this project indicates that this grove of
cottonwoods was to remain undisturbed. However, we understand that the
cottonwoods were cut since they presumably posed a risk to the constructed
house. Since it appears that residential construction has thus resulted in
the loss of large woody vegetation (i.e., cottonwood trees), such planting
would be very appropriate to offset such habitat loss.
Fourth, the landowner could remove purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) from
the wetland west of the mitigation area. This non-native, invasive plant is
not ecologically desirable and has a tendency to spread rapidly and
out-compete more beneficial, native wetland species. The enclosed brochure is
provided for specific recommendations on removal, contacts for weed control
procedures, and information on removal specifications. Removal of this plant
2
-------
CARLSON BEACH PROPERTIES
071-OYB-2-010355-R
at its present low levels could be accomplished and could provide an
opportunity for recolonization by native plants. Hand removal and wicking of
individual plants with a state approved herbicide is recommended. Planting
native woody vegetation after loosestrife removal is also recommended to
assist with inhibiting recolonization of this aggressive exotic. A variety of
native shrubs typical of riparian zones along the Columbia River are available
if the landowner is not interested in planting willow or cottonwood. Both the
Service and the EPA would gladly provide technical assistance on this matter
at the landowner's request.
Fifth, any woody vegetation planted by the landowner should be properly
maintained until its establishment. Maintenance may involve actions such as
watering, mulching, weeding, or fertilizing.
Sixth, to provide longterm mitigation site protection, a conservation easement
should be placed on the property deed. We recommend that the Corps require
the landowner to undertake this measure and provide proof of such
documentation to our resource agencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service recommend that the Corps request the permittee to
undertake the following:
1. Discontinue mowing of the mitigation site.
2. Physically mark the perimeter of the mitigation site.
3. Plant native woody vegetation (i.e., cottonwood or willow) in the
mitigation site, and optionally in the wetland to the west of the mitigation
site (after removal of purple loosestrife) .
4. Remove purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), from the wetland west of
the mitigation site. Planting native woody vegetation after loosestrife
removal is also recommended to assist with inhibiting recolonization of this
aggressive exotic. Refer to enclosed pamphlet for removal recommendations and
county extension contacts.
5. Maintain any planted woody vegetation to ensure its survival and
establishment (i.e., watering, weeding, mulching, fertilizing).
6. Identify the mitigation site on the property deed and provide
documentation of such to the Corps, EPA, and the Service.
7. Perform Items 1 through 6 above within one year of the date of this
letter.
3
-------
CARLSON BEACH PROPERTIES
071-OYB-2-010355-R
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent
with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the
Army to assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its
responsibility to assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act These
comments and recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to
assist the Corps in carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with
§404 permitted activities.
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U S.C ec seq ), as amended,
and other authorities mandating Department of Che Interior concern for
environmental values They are consistent with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Service's Mitigation Policy
Please contact Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or
Linda Storm of the EPA at (206) 553-2578, for further coordination on this
matter.
U S. Environmental Protection Agency U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Enclosure(s)
cc. NMFS, Portland
WDE, Olympia
WDW
Permittee
Sincerely,
•Charles E. Findley, Director
Water Division
4
-------
Figure 1
u. r~* (Qr ];
%N
'iO'Z5
I Grove
**PROJECT \
' ^ G*een Pt \ *q
' 4. m
>«.S
¦.
v. 4 .'s>^ _
r =.
/ I- S://^_
- Sir r~J
~c=tat:o;! ta
= ZBTAV/2P
5c.al£ im FeeT
FXC-POS-P r.'gg yp ru»>p w.H-
Ph
/ //A
77kF'^
2. CROSS
TZf&e*" ,c,-n
90
: TTEST'
"SECTAIQKIZA.-A
^ i"
WOTG'. T.n S?_
RgygrATS-O L)5IM^ PLAn'^
'.V£rL.\Klg A~c>- PR is
-7(3 pLAwI^gt ?¦-- MATSZI/L
13
I
Q .< — r
, /
tl -L
10
\-
LU
j^/7"/7rp^(
sirWAG£z&5Y*
~P%QPOScO riLL. A££i4
fvft. iff v* PLton
lo.'7 rJ?£)
"-(3
\r
07! -OYB- 2 - 010355"
PROPOSED FILL-
IN : COLUMBIA EIVER.
VISAR.-- LOWSVIEW
CCimy OF• COWLITZ, state'• WA.
APPLICaT ICH QY > CA!?L5DM BEACH
PROpeC.TI-65
SHEET I or | DATE 2,1 API2 !
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
f \
USH&VMI 1)1 IKK
Sjgzi
XpRfll^
United States Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S E, Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2192
REPLY TO
ATTN OF
WD-128
June 15, 1994
Lieutenant Colonel Rex N. Osborne
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Re: Permit 071-OYB-2-011123-R ANDERSEN, ARNOLD E.
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Osborne:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and onsite
investigation of the mitigation site associated with the referenced permit.
This letter presents our joint findings and recommendations pertaining to
mitigation implementation and mitigation success.
The referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit dated March 8,
1988, with 2 sheets of revised dated May 12, 1987, authorized the filling of
0.18 acres in Steamboat Slough and its adjacent wetlands. The site is located
at T9N, R6W, S17, near Skamokawa, Washington. These were tidally-influenced,
riverine, forested/scrub-shrub wetlands along a Columbia River slough in
Wahkiakum County. The purpose of the work was to provide access to a
commercial establishment and provide a sanitary leach field.
Compensatory mitigation required to offset project impacts entailed removal of
a derelict structure onsite to allow the area to naturally revegetate, and
specific plantings on landward fill slopes. Other mitigative elements of the
project were included only as drawings attached to the Corps permit, and/or
the state hydraulic project approval. Corps permit conditions further
required provision of the permit transmittal letter, permit form, and permit
form drawing to contractors performing the work, and compliance with state
water quality certification conditions. No mitigation plan was associated
with this project.
PERMITTED PROJECT
AGENCY FINDINGS
EPA and Service representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the
mitigation site on August 27, 1992.
-------
ANDERSEN, ARNOLD E.
071-OYB-2-011123-R
Fill work has been undertaken; however, it does not appear that compensatory
mitigation or minimization of impacts is consistent with the intent or
specifications of the Corps permit or state Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA).
A gap measuring 10 feet in width was supposed to be allowed between the riprap
slope and the east side of the building (shown in revised drawing sheet 1
dated May 12, 1987 and as item 5. in the Department of Fisheries' July 2, 1987
HPA). This distance, or setback, was present for only approximately one-third
the length of the building closest to the slough. Throughout the remainder of
the building length, the distance between the side of the building and the
riprap slope varied from 6 inches to 8 feet (Figure 1).
A parking area fill on the north side of the building was supposed to measure
90 feet by 40 feet per revised drawing, sheet 1. Our onsite measurements,
however, indicated the fill in this area to be 120 feet by 40 feet.
The new access road fill onto the property which was authorized by the subject
permit was to have a surface 18 feet wide. Our four evenly spaced
measurements of the road's surface width, however, were 16, 18, 19, and 21
feet. Toe of the road fill extended 1 to 3 feet into surrounding wetlands
beyond surface widths. Also, the road did not appear straight as indicated on
the revised drawing, but was slightly curved.
The new access road fill authorized to extend along the northeast side of the
existing building appears to extend in a southeast direction beyond the top of
the bank (or ordinary high water mark) into Steamboat Slough beyond the
dimensions indicated on the revised drawings. The new toe of the fill
measured approximately 40 feet; however, section C on sheet 2 of the revised
drawings shows new fill to extend 22 feet southwestward from the bank.
In accordance with the state's HPA which was a condition of permit issuance, a
cobble-gravel blanket was to be placed beneath the existing overwater
structure to benefit aquatic organisms using nearshore, shallow water
habitats. We were unable to ascertain whether or not this substrate blanket
had been installed (Figure 2).
The dilapidated structure northeast of the fill site was to be removed in
accordance with special condition c. of the Corps permit. We observed that
the structure had not been removed. Due to the lapse of time between permit
issuance and the present, natural vegetative growth, and decomposition of wood
materials in the structure, we recommend that the dilapidated structure not be
removed to attain regulatory compliance. Removal at this time could result in
destruction of native wetland vegetation and introduction of invasive plant
species to the wetland.
All landward fill slopes were to be planted with tall fescue and birdsfoot
trefoil in accordance with special condition d. of the Corps permit. Neither
of these species were apparent on any of the fill slopes in the project area.
2
-------
ANDERSEN, ARNOLD E.
071-OYB-2-011123-R
Separate from permit requirements, we observed that various uses and
activities alongside the permitted access road are contributing to the
degradation of the adjacent forested/scrub-shrub wetland. First, a propane
tank is stored on the east side of the road fill in the wetland. Second,
organic trash is being disposed of in the wetland while other trash appears to
be burned in a can on the edge of the road. Third, metal sheetwall scraps
have been dumped in wetlands on the southeast edge of the road fill along the
slough. Better management practices by the commercial and/or private entities
using the historic building should be implemented.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service request that the Corps conduct an onsite inspection to
evaluate compliance with authorized work and permit special conditions. We
also request that the Corps direct the permittee to undertake the following:
1. Document performed work by providing engineering drawings and calculations
of fill footprint acreage, areal extent of riprap, gradient of all fill
slopes, road dimensions, and riprap slope setback from building (we recommend
that the permittee not perform such documentation himself, although he is a
licensed surveyor, due to the compliance issue in question).
2. Provide this information to the Corps, the EPA, and the Service. After
evaluating this information, these three agencies should assess which, if any,
of the following actions should be implemented, and the Corps should inform
the permittee accordingly:
a. Remove fill in excess of that authorized.
b. Remove invasive, non-native plant species on fill slopes and
revegetate with native herbaceous and/or woody vegetation. We do not
recommend that tall fescue or birdsfoot trefoil be planted in these
areas.
c. Remove accumulated trash from road, roadside, and adjacent wetlands.
3. Perform Items 1 and 2 above within one year of the date of this letter.
Again, we do not recommend that the permittee remove the dilapidated structure
to the northeast of the fill site.
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent
with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the
Army to assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its
responsibility to assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act. These
comments and recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to
assist the Corps in carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with
§404 permitted activities.
3
-------
ANDERSEN, ARNOLD E.
071-OYB-2-011123-R
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. ec seq.), as amended,
and other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for
environmental values. They are consistent with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Service's Mitigation Policy
Please contact Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or Linda
Storm of the EPA at (206) 553-2578, for further coordination on this matter.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Enclosure(s)
cc: NMFS, Portland
WDE, Olympia
WDF, Olympia
WDW,
Permittee
Sincerely,
! Water Division
/r.harise r Findley , Director
David C Frederick, State Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
4
-------
Figure 1.
View of road fill and riprap
slope placed on east side of
building at the project site.
Note proximity of riprap to
building.
Figure 2.
View of substrate
beneath and
adjacent to west
side of building at
the project site.
Riprap, angular
rock, and mud are
evident.
UlluK^
Arnold E. Anderson
071-OYB-2-01112 3-R
-------
,J?€DSB%
fe,
*1 PRO^".
o
/
REPLY TO
ATTN OF:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
United States Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S.E, Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2192
WD-128
fus, ^
nsHAWlUl IKK
M-KVIlh
m
March 23, 1994
Colonel Walter Cunningham
District Engineer
Seattle District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Re: Permit 071-OYB-2-011719 COLUMBIA SHORES, INCORPORATED
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and onsite investigation of
mitigation work associated with the above-referenced permit. This letter presents our
joint findings and recommendations pertaining to mitigation implementation and
mitigation success.
PERMITTED PROJECT
The referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit dated 22 June 1988 authorized
the filling of 0.5 acre of riverine wetlands adjacent to the Columbia River to protect the
bank and make the shoreline attractive for commercial development on adjacent
uplands. Authorization specifically allowed installation of 2090 lineal feet of bank
protection, inclusive of: 18,000 cubic yards of fill; 240 feet of concrete block bulkhead;
10,800 cubic yards of riprap; 24 wooden foundation piles; and dredging of 3000 c.y. of
material for backfill.
The project site was classified as an unconsolidated shoreline, lower perennial riverine
wetland.
Compensatory mitigation to be implemented to offset project impacts entailed:
construction of a rock bulkhead with a slope no steeper than 1.5:1 (h:v); placement of
riprap in front of 240 feet of concrete bulkhead; and planting of at least 1 willow twig
per linear yard at the bulkhead heel prior to riprap placement. The work was to be
performed at RM 107.2 at T2N, R1E, S35 in Vancouver, Clark County, Washington.
Mitigation implementation was made a special condition of permit issuance as
described in the February 2, 1988 Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by the
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF)
-------
2
Modification of the HPA was made October 13, 1989 at the request of the permittee.
An additional HPA provision, item 15, was included which allowed use of clean,
uncontaminated demolition debris from an onsite building for backfill after sorting and
removal of contaminated materials from the debris.
AGENCY FINDINGS
EPA and Service representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the project site
on August 27, 1992. A Service biologist revisited the project site on December 21,
1993 and met with Mr. James J. Pomajevich, the project's original agent, to discuss
prior site work and current conditions.
Mr. Pomajevich stated that all fill had been placed by the end of 1989, approximately
within a year of permit issuance. He also stated that fill included building demolition
debris, from which rebar hacj been removed. Nonetheless, we observed rebar
associated with unfaced fill material along the shoreline.
The permitted vertical concrete bulkhead measuring 240 feet in length by 13 feet in
height has been built in the location indicated in permit drawings (Figures 1, 5).
However, no Class II riprap, or any riprap, was found placed in front of this concrete
bulkhead as called for in the HPA condition #2. No willow twigs or other plantings
were observed, even though the HPA condition #4 specified that at least 1 willow twig
per lineal yard would be planted at the bulkhead heel.
Mr. Pomajevich said that the authorized work commenced in 1988 and was completed
in early 1989. He also confirmed that completed work included fill and vertical
concrete bulkhead construction, but that no riprap and no plantings were installed.
Similarly, he said that no dredging was undertaken or used for backfill.
According to Mr. Pomajevich, Columbia Shores, Inc. went out of business after
completing the fill, but prior to completing riprap and willow plantings. The property
deed was initially taken over by First Interstate Bank and then sold.
During our December 1993 site visit, new condominiums were being built parallel to
the shoreline, in approximately the lower (downstream) third of the project site (Figures
2, 4, 6). A sign on the site indicates this is "The Village at Columbia Shores", being
developed by Mortgage Investments, Inc. Mr Pomajevich believes Mssrs. Paul
Christiansen and Greg Daniels are the current property owners.
The middle and top (upstream) third portions of the project site have not been
developed, although roadway and infrastructure have been installed. The middle
portion of the site is being offered by Bullier & Bullier (telephone 503-223-3123).
Specifically, Lot 3 (6 8 acres) and Lot 4 (9.1 acres) are for sale The top third of the
site closest to the water, atop fill, is also being offered for sale; again, shoreline fill
-------
3
associated with this site has not been riprapped. Portion of this top third further away
from the water have been commercially developed.
A site inspection conducted by WDF's regional habitat manager (Mr. Bob Burkle) on
December 28, 1993 confirmed noncompliance with the Corps of Engineers permit and
revealed violations of the state hydraulic code. Mr. Burkle confirmed that no riprap or
willow plantings had been placed, that fill had been placed on the shoreline, and that
unclean materials had been used for both backfill and shoreline fill (Figures 4, 7).
Backfill and shoreline fill contained rebar, asphalt, metal cable, pipe, large scrap metal,
and both old and recent construction debris (Figure 8). Based on resource agencies'
photographs of the site, shoreline vegetation was cleared in the period between
August 1992 and December 1993, unprotected fill dirt has been sidecast over the bank
on either side of the concrete bulkhead, and uncured concrete poured over the bank
(Figures 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 ,and 6). Best management practices for stormwater
management, erosion control, and general construction are not being implemented at
the condominium development site.
DISCUSSION
The authorized work for this project was never fully completed and the associated
mitigation not implemented.
Given existing site conditions, it is no longer appropriate for current property owners to
carry out mitigation measures which accompanied fill and bulkhead authorization.
Rather, it would be appropriate for both immediate rectification measures and planned
mitigation measures to be undertaken at the site to offset resource impacts from
unauthorized actions and to compensate temporal resource impacts incurred at the
time of fill placement and concrete bulkhead construction.
Rectification measures could entail removing construction and fill debris on the beach.
Compensatory mitigation measures could entail: removing portions of onsite shoreline
fill and restoring strips and/or pockets of riparian vegetation; planting an increased
number and diversity of native riparian species at appropriate locations in slope-
stabilizing materials onsite; bioengineering soft bank armoring; and/or restoring offsite
riparian zones.
Together, these rectification and compensation measures would benefit anadromous
fish and migratory birds by restoring ecological functions associated with the aquatic-
terrestrial interface. Specifically, these would include: restoring shallow water cover for
outmigrating juvenile salmon by reducing unnatural shoreline cover for their predators;
restoring clean, fine substrates along the shoreline to foster invertebrate growth, a vital
component of food web production; improving opportunities for organic, detrital, and
-------
4
invertebrate inputs from the terrestrial into the river system; and providing riparian
vegetation habitat for migratory bird cover, nesting, and feeding.
Any of these potential mitigation measures should entail: use of existing riparian zones
as reference sites to target species diversity and planting elevations; provision of as-
built documents to all involved resource and regulatory agencies; monitoring of
performed mitigation work to ensure attainment of measurable performance standards
for plant survival and growth; and perpetual protection of mitigation areas through
legally-binding deed restriction(s).
The permittee(s) or current landowners of the subject permit site should be
responsible for undertaking these rectification and compensatory mitigation activities.
We recommend the following activities:
1) removing construction and concrete debris on the beach throughout the project
area of the subject Corps permit;
2) removing unclean, contaminated materials below ordinary high water throughout
the subject site (inclusive of cement, rebar, asphalt, tires, scrap metal);
3) restoring the beach in the project area (exclusive of the area waterward of the
vertical concrete bulkhead) to its pre-project condition which was characterized by a
gentle gradient and clean, fine substrates;
4) removing approximately 1850 feet of shoreline fill from the waterward edge of the
banktop concrete sidewalk down to original beach grade at a 1.5:1 slope, in those
areas characterized by section A-A on the public notice;
5) facing the shoreline fill slope with native vegetation (likely to be achieved by
installing geotextile grid materials, organic soils, and native plants surveyed at similar
elevations at natural reference sites found both upstream and downstream from the
project area, such as at Marine Park);
6) removing all existing wooden piles along the shoreline in the project vicinity as
described in the December 30, 1987 public notice, authorized in the Corps permit, and
consistent with current in-water work timing restrictions to protect fish; and
7) permanently protecting, through legally-binding measures, those areas in which
compensatory mitigation work is performed.
Both the Service and the EPA are available to provide technical assistance in the
development of a plan to address compensatory mitigation issues.
-------
5
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service recommend that the Corps immediately assess the current
situation at the Columbia Shores, Inc. site. We request that the Corps determine if
the residential housing development being undertaken onsite is consistent with the
original project purpose and if the permitted fill should be maintained or should be
partially or wholly removed. Based on that determination, we also request that the
Corps resolve outstanding compliance and mitigation issues in conultation with WDF,
the Service and EPA.
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent with the
1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the Army to
assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its responsibility to
assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act. These comments and
recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to assist the Corps in
carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with §404 permitted activities.
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. et seq.), as amended, and other authorities
mandating Department of the Interior concern for environmental values. They are
consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Service's
Mitigation Policy.
Please contact Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or Linda Storm of the
EPA at (206) 553-2578, for further information on this matter.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Enclosure(s)
cc: FWS, Portland (Marv Yoshinaka)
NMFS, Portland (Nick ladanza/Ben Meyer)
WDE, Olympia (Pat Trerice)
WDF, Olympia (Bob Burkle)
Sincerely,
,/ Charles E. Findley, Dftector
David C. Frederick, State Supervisor
David C. Frederick, State Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
Water Division
-------
Figure 1. View of concrete
bulkhead and undeveloped
project site, looking
downstream, on August 27,
1992. Note location of van
on right.
Figure 2. View of
same concrete
bulkhead and
developed project
site, looking
upstream, on
December 28, 1993.
Note presence of
condominiums in
same area as that
indicated by van in
Figure 1 above.
Bit
Columbia Shores, Inc.
071-OYB-2-011719
-------
it
Figure 3. View of undeveloped
shoreline just upstream and
adjacent to concrete bulkhead,
looking down at beach and
toward Columbia River, August
27, 1992. Concrete bulkhead
corner is just out of sight in
the lower right corner of the
photograph.
Figure 4. View of
developed site
behind, and altered
shoreline adjacent
to, the concrete
bulkhead. view is
from Columbia River
Beach looking
landward, December
28, 1993. The
concrete bulkhead
corner shown is
just out of site in
the lower right
corner of Figure 3
above. Note fill
materials that have
been pushed over
the bank.
Columbia Shores, Inc.
071-OYB—2-011719
-------
r
Figure 5. View of concrete bulkhead and undeveloped project site,
looking downstream on August 27, 1992. Note location of
single pile at water's edge in background, shoreline
profile downstream of concrete bulkhead, and shoreline
vegetation.
Figure 6. View of concrete bulkhead and developed project site,
looking downstream, on December 28, 1993. Note location
of single pile is same as that shown in Figure 5 above,
shoreline profile downstream of concrete bulkhead has
been altered due to fill, and shoreline vegetation has
been removed by development and fill.
Columbia Shores, Inc.
07l-OYB-2-011719
-------
Figure 7. View of upstream portion of developed project site and
associated shoreline looking downstream, on December 28,
1993. Note demolition debris shoreline fill and wooden
pilings which remain in place.
Figure 8. View of developed project site, associated shoreline, and
associated beach, looking downstream, on December 28,
1993. Note debris and fill materials which have been
pushed over the bank and onto the beach, inclusive of
construction debris, rebar, cable, concrete, and scrap
wood.
Columbia Shores, Inc.
07l-OYB-2-O11719
-------
eDsr^v
%
'4> c*
PRO"^
UJ
O
r
REPLY TO
ATTN OF
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
United States Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S E, Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2192
f uj.\
WD-128
June 15, 1994
Lieutenant Colonel Rex N. Osborne
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Re: Permit 0YB-2-012153 DES MOINES, CITY OF
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Osborne:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and onsite
investigation of the mitigation site associated with the above-referenced
permit. This letter presents our joint findings and recommendations
pertaining to mitigation implementation and mitigation success.
PERMITTED PROJECT
The referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit dated June 6, 1989
authorized the filling of approximately 0.2 wetland acres through the filling
of 320 feet of Des Moines Creek and the nearby reestablishment of
approximately 342 feet of creek, to allow public park development and access
by construction of a new road. The project site is located at T22N, R4E, S8
in the City of Des Moines, King County, Washington. Files indicate that the
stream channel, associated wetlands, and riparian zone were degraded by both
upstream and onsite disturbances.
Compensatory mitigation to be implemented to offset project impacts was not
distinct from the overall stream relocation, reestablishment, and enhancement
A four-page mitigation plan accompanied permit issuance. The plan described
the proposed project overview, existing site conditions, proposed relocated
channel and associated riparian corridor features, a planting plan, and
monitoring/contingency plans. The Corps permit specifically required a
vegetation performance standard.
AGENCY FINDINGS
EPA and Service representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the
mitigation site on September 28, 1992, and Service representatives revisited
the site on November 17, 1992. During our first site visit we spoke with Mr.
Jon Jainga, City of Des Moines parks supervisor, about the project.
-------
DES MOINES, CITY OF OYB-2-012153
The authorized fill work has been completed as the park access road is built
and the stream relocated away from the toe of the bluff. Stream channel
location, dimensions, and features have been installed very closely to the
permitted work and mitigation plan features. Streambank and riparian
plantings have similarly been established almost identically to the originally
proposed and authorized work. Site work was completed by 1988.
The mitigation site is situated within a relatively urbanized setting, aligned
in a narrow corridor between the park access road and an asphalted foot path
(Figure 1). The reestablished stream channel and riparian corridor run from
the senior citizen center (a building built over the creek) to the concrete
foot bridge over the creek (nearly at its mouth). The park is heavily
utilized by visitors and the creek is a focal point for many, particularly
those who come to regularly feed a flock of mallard ducks which typically
congregate in the creek just around the concrete bridge crossing. Park users,
particularly children, appear to occasionally depart from park paths in order
to go down into the stream channel at low tide when substrate is exposed in
the stream channel. Their use of the streambank exacerbates existing bank
erosion which occurs in areas limited to those just upstream of the foot
bridge.
During our second site visit, we collected slope and stream gradient
measurements (see Exhibit 1, Figures 2 and 3). This information further
describes present site conditions, and may serve as baseline to which future
measurements may be compared.
DISCUSSION
Overall, stream relocation and riparian plantings have been undertaken as
proposed by the City and required by permit conditions. However, some site
problems exist which limit the ecological functioning of this tidally-
influenced freshwater system. Furthermore, the location of Des Moines Creek
and its riparian corridor in an urban park strains and reduces its ecological
functioning, and thus its benefits for fish and wildlife. Corrective actions
should be implemented to immediately address onsite problems at a minimum.
Supplemental work should also be pursued to increase the longterm, improved
ecological functioning and stability of this system.
Underdeveloped Riparian Corridor
Corrective actions in the lower half of the mitigation site are needed to
address poor plant growth on the southeast streambank (left bank, looking
downstream), between the access road and the creek (see Area A on Figure 1).
Plantings in this area exhibit high survival but low growth and low vigor
which are likely attributable to inadequate water and soil nutrients.
Inadequate water may be a problem since most roadway runoff is directed to a
ditch on the other side of the road away from the riparian plantings, and low
nutrients because minimal topsoil has been placed over the pit run material on
which riparian vegetation has been planted. Similarly, while planted
2
-------
DES MOINES, CITY OF OYB-2-012153
vegetation is vigorous on the right bank, mowed grass constitutes most of the
cover between the path and the creek rather than a well-stratified riparian
zone.
The City should first identify those factors limiting native plant growth
along Des Moines Creek throughout its relocation section, and then implement
measures to address those factors. Measures may include, but are not limited
to: irrigating, amending soils, fertilizing, mulching, replanting, additional
planting, fencing, berming, and prohibiting grass cutting. Then, supplemental
native plantings should be installed to maximize creek buffering, invasive
plant control, bank stabilization, bird habitat, and organic/detrital input to
the aquatic system. Supplemental plantings are particularly needed on the
northwest bank between the footpath and the creek.
Access and Education
Human access down to the creek channel and duck-feeding points should be
discouraged through re-design and education. Dense bank planting,
obliteration of unwanted foot trails, and posting signs could reduce visitor
use of streambanks and streambed. Interpretive signs in parking areas and on
the bridge could reduce public desire to feed food of low nutritional value to
disturbance-tolerant waterfowl. Controlling access and educating the public
could, in combination, improve habitat conditions in both Des Moines Creek and
its riparian corridor. Aesthetics and the public's overall experience are
likely to be enhanced, and a greater diversity of migratory birds are likely
to utilize the area.
Additionally, curbing or signage to discourage foot traffic and vehicle
parking should be installed between the planted strip on the left bank and the
access road. This would minimize disturbance to the riparian plants and
discourage foot traffic through the creek.
Longterm Solutions
Corrective actions and longterm solutions are also needed in the lower half of
the mitigation site to address poor plant survival on the northwest streambank
(right bank, looking downstream) (see area B on Figure 1). Plantings in this
area were replaced by the City of Des Moines after flooding. Apparently,
winter high flows in combination with the stream channel constriction under
the concrete foot bridge result in water backing up and overtopping the stream
banks. The right bank just before the bridge is the area in which Des Moines
Creek jumps channel, spills over its bank, and removes bank vegetation.
Corrective actions to address this problem may include replanting with
riparian vegetation; however, a longer term solution to this problem is
necessary.
Longterm solutions could entail a number of approaches and techniques. For
example, recontouring the bank and applying bioengineered bank stabilization
measures may present one solution. Widening the stream channel from this
point to its outermost mouth may present a second solution, as would reforming
the creek mouth at this point so that it opens into an array of shallow,
3
-------
DES MOINES, CITY OF OYB-2-012153
dendritic drainages across the intertidal zone (both of these options would
likely necessitate bridge extension, relocation, or removal); and creating a
second channel beginning at the overflow bank to accommodate high flows could
present a third solution. While any of these potential solutions would
require investigation, planning, and funding, each represents a longterm,
ecologically beneficial solution to a recurring problem.
Monitoring
The City of Des Moines' mitigation and monitoring plan for this project
contained provisions to annually evaluate the relocated stream's habitat
quality and quantity, integrity of habitat structures, and riparian vegetation
establishment. If such evaluation has been conducted by the City, no
documentation of such has been provided. However, the plan also provided for
yearly monitoring reports to be furnished to the Corps for three years after
site construction. To the best of our knowledge, these reports have not been
developed or provided.
The permittee should undertake the corrective measures necessary to improve
the site's ecological functioning and then develop a first report to the
Corps, EPA, and the Service. This first report should: provide an overview of
the project and work undertaken inclusive of corrective measures; document as-
built conditions inclusive of all structural features onsite; provide the
evaluations of habitat, habitat structures, and vegetation called for in the
mitigation and monitoring plan; provide photodocumentation of the entire site
from permanent photo points; and identify a maintenance schedule to ensure
riparian vegetation survival and growth. This information should again be
collected and provided for another two consecutive years thereafter, thereby
fulfilling monitoring requirements associated with permit issuance. The
second and third monitoring reports should additionally include a discussion
of any onsite problems, identification of corrective measures needed or taken,
and lessons learned from project implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service request that the permittee undertake the following
after coordination with the Corps:
1. Identify factors limiting native, woody plant growth within 25 feet of the
ordinary high water mark of Des Moines Creek, throughout its relocated length.
2. Implement measures to address factors limiting plant growth so that a
dense, riparian buffer with multiple structural diversity is achieved.
3. Install interpretive signage at the park foot bridge to discourage duck
feeding and travel through streambank vegetation and the streambed. Sign text
should clearly articulate the environmental benefits from avoiding these
activities.
4
-------
DES MOINES, CITY OF OYB-2-012153
4 Investigate both immediate methods and longterm solutions for addressing
chronic right bank overtopping and erosion, and coordinate with interested
federal., state, and local resource agencies in selecting a course of action.
5. Implement immediate methods and longterm solutions selected in item 3.
6. Prepare a monitoring report immediately following implementation of
corrective measures
7. Perform items 1 through 4 and item 6 above within one year of the date of
this letter
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent
with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the
Army to assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its
responsibility to assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act These
comments and recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to
assist the Corps in carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with
§404 permitted activities
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as amended, 16 U S C ec seq ), as amended,
and other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for
environmental values They are consistent with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Service's Mitigation Policy
Please contact Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or Linda
Storm of the EPA at (206) 553-2578, for further coordination on this matter
U.S Environmental Protection Agency U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Enclosure(s)
cc NMFS, Portland
WDE, Olympia
WDF, Olympia
WDW,
Permittee
Sincerely,
'Cfiarles E. Findley, Director
Water Division
David C Frederick, State Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
5
-------
Figure 1. View of Des Moines Creek in its relocated channel, looking
upstream. Note paved road (right side of figure), where the
creek was formerly located. Note stunted plant growth on
left bank (right side of Figure, Area A); eroded and bare
right bank (left side of Figure, Area B); proximity of human
developments; and congregation of mallard ducks by foot
bridge from which photo was taken.
City of Des Moines
OYB-2-012153
-------
OP&N U4T£K?
0 50
CITY D£S nOXNZS
£Yb-^-.L2.L&3
Figure 2
-------
&L£VAri£N ;
w
o
&
w
20
4 O
<50
no
TO
GO
oisr/NC& tex.)
S£CTX<9N A-/\
&L£v,4 rnz^
*
11
- 0 * ,7 ^ 0 ' ^
' ,¦ - ' V- ° - '* ¦ 1 ¦ RQPO
1
s
^ " ' ¦¦ «
% x ; /
0 1 , X V % ^
^
—m
• —
—
%
v
<9 & W IS 20 25 2>0 2& 40 4Z> Z>0 Z& GO 20 2A0 560 3x5O
OXST/VSC& (.ft. j
CITY oc o&S nOXNZS
5Tte&AM QZAOX&NT
enb-Z-LZVbS
Figure 3
1 % % * * x % * ' 0 k * a % % 1 v»
i 9/~
-
;
y+&0 'a —,—_
% m ^ ,
• ¦. • ' • ¦¦. ¦
¦¦ ¦¦¦•¦¦
-------
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF DES MOINES
OYB-2-012153
This survey was performed on November 17, 1992. The weather was cool, about 50
degrees with high overcast and occasional sun breaks. This project involved a
stream channel re-location, armoring portions of the stream banks with rip rap,
weir installation, keying large woody debris into the stream banks and planting.
Our main objective at this site was to measure the stream bank slopes and the
stream bed gradient. Slopes were determined with the use of a Wild auto level,
clinometer and survey rod.
Two transects, representative of the stream cross sections, were measured. They
are labeled sections A-A and B-B as indicated in Figure 2 and shown in Figure 3.
Eight additional slope measurements were taken:
Point X Slope Ratio
1 65 1.5:1
2 60 1.7:1
3 33 3.0:1
4 35 2.9:1
5 50 2.0:1
6 50 2.0:1
7 50 2.0:1
8 78 1.3:1
The stream gradient was measured from a point approximately 325 feet upstream
from the bridge (Point C, Figure 2, just below the senior citizen center). From
this point to Point D, 185 feet downstream, the gradient was 0.21X (S = 0.0021).
From here downstream to Point E, outside the mouth of the creek, the gradient is
1.26X (S - 0.0126). See Figure 2 for approximate point locations and Figure 3
for gradient cross - sections.
CITY OF DES MOINES
OYB-2-12153
EXHIBIT 1
-------
\ PR0^0
-------
REDMOND, CITY OF OYB-4-013630
AGENCY FINDINGS
EPA and Service representatives conducted an onsite investigation of the
mitigation sites on August 10, 1992. Service representatives revisited the
stream restoration site on November 18, 1992. To the best of our knowledge,
the stream is unnamed, and referred to only as #0102, according to Washington
Department of Fisheries' 1975 stream catalog.
Offsite mitigation areas had been constructed in accordance with mitigation
plan specifications and appeared to be receiving active management. Riparian
plantings along the new roadside had been planted and were being irrigated.
Construction of the stormwater treatment area had not been fully completed;
while most grading had been undertaken, plantings were not complete, although
many plant specimens were bundled and stored to the side of the site, and were
being actively watered. Review of the second monitoring report for this
project indicates that those plants have since been installed, and recent
discussions with the permittee's agent confirms this
Generally, the offsite mitigation area comprised of stream and stream corridor
restoration is providing fish and wildlife habitat within its size and age (2
years) constraints, (Figure 1). We observed approximately 1900 feet of
restored stream channel, stream bank, and riparian areas utilized by juvenile
salmon, heron, mallard duck, and a variety of songbirds. Invasive plants do
not appear problematic, although vigorous native plant growth is not apparent.
Vandalism is not apparent although uninvited use of the site by pedestrians is
occurring. Minor littering and various forms of disturbance and intrusion
from nearby commercial use is occurring.
Mitigation site construction had been completed by, and vegetation planted in,
September 1991. The first year monitoring report dated July 1992 serves as an
as-built conditions report as it quantifies number and type of instream
structures. The second year monitoring report dated October 1993 primarily
presents methods of field monitoring and results thereof, and recommendations
for site maintenance.
Based on discussion with the permittee's consultant (Ms. Diana Denham), we
understand that the mitigation site has been stocked with juvenile salmon by
Washington Department of Fisheries. We also learned that in June, 1993 a
chlorine spill occurred which resulted in a significant fish kill in the
restored stream. The spill occurred at a City of Seattle water pipeline break
on a tributary to the restored stream.
MONITORING REPORTS
During our review of the two monitoring reports produced for this project, we
noted that several improvements in reporting could be undertaken to improve
the quality of the report and facilitate communication of important
information contained therein.
2
-------
REDMOND, CITY OF OYB-4-013630
Photodoeumentation
First, we recommend that future photodoeumentation be improved relative to
that presented in either report. The 1992 report is useful because it
provides clear, comparable photographs of the site before and after mitigation
site completion. The 1993 report is useful because it provides a greater
number of photos from identified photo points and along identified transects.
Future photodoeumentation should first be consistent with that already taken
and presented in the 1993 report, and then expanded to capture site features
missed in previous photodoeumentation. Photo identification should allow
side-by-side comparison of photodocuments between reports and provide better
visual assessment of the site. We recognize that complete photodoeumentation
increases the cost of the overall monitoring program; however, it is
invaluable for conveying information, making comparisons, tracking corrective
action outcomes, and downloading results in quick fashion.
Additionally, aerial photography of the entire site would be tremendously
valuable to assess vegetative growth, stream channel changes, and surrounding
land use alterations over the duration of the monitoring program. The City
may be able to obtain periodic aerial photography of the site by coordinating
with State of Washington agencies, particularly the Department of
Transportation.
Corrective Actions
Second, we also recommend that subsequent monitoring reports itemize and
further describe any corrective actions that the City of Redmond has
implemented to address onsite failures or problems. Not only does this give
credit to the permittee for maintaining the mitigation site, but it allows
specific corrective measures and their effectiveness to be evaluated at a
future date.
Implementation of corrective actions may be particularly crucial during the
initial establishment and growth of planted vegetation at the mitigation site.
Control of invasive plant species (through manual removal or herbicide spot
treatment) at this stream restoration site is imperative until planted woody
vegetation is well-established. This is especially true due to the site's
location amidst acres of invasive reed canarygrass. Furthermore, other
corrective actions such as watering, weeding, mulching, fertilizing, or
replacing with healthier specimens, may be required to promote the growth of
planted specimens to increase both stream and streambank shading.
The 1992 (first) monitoring report for this project identifies corrective
actions to be undertaken by the City of Redmond in order to improve the
mitigation site's ecological functioning or mitigation success. The
subsequent 1993 report, however, does not indicate whether such corrective
actions were implemented or disregarded. Corrective actions, taken during the
monitoring period, should be considered by the permittee as part of the on-
going, longterm maintenance of the mitigation site Again, we recommend that
the next (1994) monitoring report provide an accounting of those corrective
actions which: have been taken to date, should be taken and when, and those
intended to be taken.
3
-------
REDMOND, CITY OF 0YB-4-013630
Additional Ways to Share Information
Third, we would further recommend that reports contain a section which allows
consultants performing monitoring work to critically assess how certain
mitigative approaches have worked. This section should provide the
opportunity to share information and "lessons learned" with resource,
regulatory, and other interested parties. Such information sharing
supplements academic, experimental research and helps close the feedback loop
among those involved with wetland mitigation and restoration.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
CONTROL ACCESS
The Service and EPA recommend that the City of Redmond implement several
corrective actions at this time to improve the short and longterm ecological
functioning of the offsite stream restoration area.
Assure Woodv Vegetation Survival and Growth
Control of invasive plant species (through manual removal or herbicide spot
treatment) at this stream restoration site is imperative until planted woody
vegetation is well-established. This is especially true due to the site's
location amidst acres of reed canarygrass. Furthermore, other corrective
actions such as watering, weeding, mulching, fertilizing, or replacing with
healthier specimens, may be required to promote the growth of planted
specimens to increase both stream and streambank shading.
Supplement Plantings
The provision of additional plantings of native, woody vegetation on the
stream banks and upland areas within the mitigation site could substantially
improve the site's overall habitat value to both migratory birds and fish.
Such plantings could diversify plant species composition; increase structural
diversity, thereby creating and enhancing habitat; and augment shading,
thereby moderating summer low flow temperatures in the stream and discouraging
reed canary grass growth. Denser vegetation with increased vertical
stratification would also more effectively buffer the stream from human access
and disturbance than the existing wooden fence surrounding the mitigation
site.
We identify two areas in particular which would benefit greatly from
supplemental planting. One area lies adjacent to the school bus yard (see
Figure 2) on the south side of the restored stream where a grassy area is an
invitation for pedestrian use, and where the close proximity of bus movement
introduces undesirable disturbance. The other area lies at the upstream end
of the restored stream adjacent to the inlet culvert. The right bank adjoins
a paved lot at the back of a building where garbage and unwanted materials
seem to end up. Encroachment on the mitigation site is evident by the
presence of debris, a broken fence, and a compost pile of sorts (Figure 4).
Both these areas should be planted, and the second one re-fenced and signed,
to make use of their spaces as contributory buffers to the mitigation site
rather than detractive elements.
U
-------
REDMOND, CITY OF OYB-4-013630
Add Signage
In our collective experiences, the feeding of human-tolerant waterfowl at
mitigation sites is undesirable and degrades habitat. The occurrence usually
results from any or a combination of the following: inappropriate or excessive
human access; poor site design; inappropriate site location; change in
surrounding land use; and lack of education of the public. The results
include: interference with waterfowl nutrition and migration; degradation of
site vegetation; increased fecal coliform inputs within a concentrated area
(degraded water quality); decreased use of the site by a greater array of
wildlife (decreased diversity and reduced habitat value); and perpetuation of
ecologically undesirable human-wildlife interactions.
Interpretive sign installation, in conjunction with buffer augmentation, is
one measure the City of Redmond can undertake to prevent or minimize this
occurrence. While several excellent identification signs on the fence already
mark the site (Figure 3), additional interpretive signs could be installed to
discourage the feeding of ducks and other wildlife, as well as discouraging
foot traffic inside the fence. (We observed a woman walking her dog inside the
fence of the mitigation site, and it appeared to be a fairly routine event.)
The Service and the EPA can provide assistance in developing signage language
upon request.
Discourage Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to the area in which the mitigation site lies should be
controlled, or at least discouraged, except for authorized vehicles. This
would minimize the potential for littering, dumping, vandalism, soil
compaction, and increased disturbance. The potential for vehicle use in the
area is also likely to increase once the planned equestrian trail is
developed.
We recognize that because the mitigation site lies within a transmission line
corridor, access to this area is necessary. Similarly, it appears that
maintenance vehicles for the Sammamish River trail also obtain access in this
general vicinity. Nonetheless, access points to this area could be controlled
by a gate(s), and unnecessary vehicular access discouraged by a sign(s).
Specifically, the existing access area at station 0+00, between the two
lengths of the restored stream, should be controlled.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Redmond and its consultants are to be commended on implementation
of the required mitigation plan. Given the offsite mitigation area's stream
corridor physical constraints, the area is functioning reasonably well.
Nonetheless, certain actions should be undertaken by the permittee at this
time to help ensure that the longterm ecological functioning of the site is
maximized. Accordingly, the Service and the EPA request that the Corps
require the City of Redmond to undertake the following actions at the offsite
stream restoration site.
5
-------
REDMOND, CITY OF OYB-4-013630
1. Establish additional signage at diverse points around the mitigation site
to discourage foot traffic inside the fence and to discourage the feeding of
wildlife, particularly ducks.
2. Provide additional native, woody vegetative plantings on the upland
portions of the mitigation site to create effective stream buffering.
3. Control vehicular access in the vicinity of the mitigation site by
installation of signage or gating as appropriate.
4. Standardize the monitoring report date of release in order to improve
tracking and increase consistency.
5. Perform Items 1 through 4 above within one year of the date of this
letter.
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent
with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department of the
Army to assure attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its
responsibility to assure compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act. These
comments and recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to
assist the Corps in carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with
§404 permitted activities.
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations under the
authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. et seq.), as amended,
and other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for
environmental values. They are consistent with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Service's Mitigation Policy.
6
-------
REDMOND, CITY OF 0YB-4-013630
Please contact Joanne Stellini of the Service at (206) 753-9440, or
Linda Storm of the EPA at (206) 553-2578, for further coordination on this
matter.
Sincerely,
/^harles E. Findley, director
' Water Division
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
David C Frederick, State Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Enclosure(s)
cc* NMFS, Portland (Ben Meyer)
WDE, Olympia
WDF, Olympia (Rich Johnson)
WDW, Olympia
City of Redmond (Dennis Brunelle)
David Evans and Associates, Inc., Bellevue (Diana Denham)
-------
Figure 1.
Offsite mitigation area
featuring riparian
restoration, stream
enhancement, and wetland
enhancement.
Figure 2.
Portion of
offsite
mitigation
area which
would benefit
from
supplemental
planting to
augment
visual
buffering.
City of Redmond
OYB-4-013630
-------
SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT
SfLEASCOONOTENTSR
WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
t property* am »I t»f o -»( Ma a art «*fc»r4 M 1
nrw imt w>n« * w***** v,,
Figure 3.
Identification and
interpretive sign erected
at offsite mitigation.
IWt si «*• >s( ttw "
+F'- • * r
_ »'¦ *
t AREA CAN BE DAMAGED FROM
i ANO AJ^IAL INTRUSION
iSE do not enter
E3H» ^
¦I rife? ;U* .J#
Bar 9*8?.$
City of Redmond
OYB-4-013 63 0
Figure 4.
Encroachment
on offsite
mitigation
buffer.
Compost and
trash have
been
deposited
within
buffer.
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1 200 Sixth Avenue, WD-128, Seattle, Washington 98101
LLS
HSH&UII di it*
M-RVICt-
United States Department ot the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services, 3704 Griffin Lane S E, Suite 102, Olympia Washington 98501-2192
REPLY TO
ATTN OF
WD-128
June 16, 1994
Lieutenant Colonel Rex N. Osborne
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
RE: Permit 071-OYB-4-012513, PICKERING PARK
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Osborne:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) have conducted an in-office file review and onsite investigation of the
mitigation site associated with the above referenced permit. This letter presents our
joint findings and recommendations pertaining to mitigation implementation and
mitigation success.
The referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit dated July 16,
1991, authorized fill placement in 3.3 acres of palustrine emergent seasonally
inundated wetlands near the mouth of Issaquah Creek in Issaquah, King County,
Washington. The fill was placed to construct an office park and children's hospital,
non-water dependent activities. Compensatory mitigation associated with the project
specified as permit conditions included creation of 2.91 acres of deep open water,
2.19 acres of emergent wetland, and a total area of 1.41 acres of upland forested
buffer. In addition to the wetland creation and enhancement proposed, (1) 200 lineal
feet of Issaquah Creek was to be planted with riparian species and designated as
open space, (2) 26.04 acres was to be designated as open space including forested
wetlands to be preserved, and (3) 1100 feet of salmon habitat was to be protected.
The documents referenced as enforceable conditions of the Corps permit are: Wetland
Mitigation Plan. Seattle Corporate Center, dated April 11, 1988, and Conceptual
Wetlands Mitigation for Alternative No. 3. dated August 10, 1990, both prepared by
Raedeke and Associates. Apparently, the conceptual wetlands mitigation plan for
Alternative No. 3 included 0.81 acres of additional palustrine wetland creation, and 0.3
acres of wetland enhancement that was required by the Corps subsequent to the
public comment and review period. We were not aware of two additional wetland
PERMITTED PROJECT
-------
2
mitigation sites that were in fact required as permit conditions at the time of our
September 16, 1992, mitigation site investigation. While referenced in the Corps
permit, the actual documentation of these additional wetland sites were poorly
documented and unavailable in agency files.
AGENCY FINDINGS
EPA and Service representatives conducted an on-site investigation of the
mitigation site on September 16, 1992. A subsequent meeting and site visit was
conducted on February 4, 1994, with Mr. Russ Keithly of Langley Associates, the
permittee's representative. It appears that the compensatory mitigation project has
been implemented in general as described above. However, a number of concerns
were identified during the initial site investigation which indicate that the project may
not fully meet its intended goals and objectives, though it appears to be in compliance
with the permitted conditions and the mitigation site design diagrams.
One of the difficulties in determining if projects meet the intended goals and
objectives is that lack of any as-built conditions report or follow-up monitoring reports.
No monitoring reports or as-built conditions report were found for these mitigation
areas during our file review for this field investigation. Therefore, whether some of the
requirements were actually implemented still needs to be confirmed through
documentation. Many of EPA and the Service's questions were answered by Mr.
Keithly during our second site visit. However, evidence should be provided that shows
riparian plantings were installed along Issaquah Creek (with map of area and extent of
plantings). In addition, copies of legally binding protective measures (such as deed
restrictions) should be provided to demonstrate that the open space protection areas
have been in fact been legally designated for both the protected salmonid habitat and
the 26.04 acres of Issaquah Creek Riparian/wetland Corridor and associated
wetlands. As a result of the follow-up visit with Mr. Keithly, we were shown an area
where some stream re-location and restoration work had been conducted within and
along the banks of a Tibbets Creek tributary, which lies on the western portion of the
overall corporate park and is adjacent to Interstate 90. It was not clear on any of the
design diagrams for the mitigation project where this stream restoration work was
proposed. Therefore, this area, in addition to that conducted on Issaquah Creek,
should be clearly mapped and recorded on property title and deeds and provided for
your and other agencies' records.
Project Goals and Objectives:
As indicated above, the targeted acreage amounts to offset project impacts
were: 2.91 acres of open water, 2.19 acres of emergent wetlands, and 1.41 acres of
riparian buffer around mitigation wetland/ponds. The actual acreage amount attained
at the wetland mitigation pond site, as of 1992 (based on planimeter measurements
-------
3
taken from the 1992 aerial photograph), are: 4.03 acres of open water, 1.36 acres of
emergent wetland fringe, and 1.29 acres of buffer fringe. While the total area of
aquatic habitat is slightly larger than that targeted, the area is predominantly
comprised of open water. During our February 4, 1994, meeting with Mr. Keithly we
discovered that subsequent to the public comment and review period for this project
two additional mitigation areas were identified and approved by the Corps as
additional palustrine wetlands compensation. These additional sites are indicated as
wetlands #1 and #2 on the highlighted map enclosure (Exhibit A).
The stated ecological goals and objectives for the main mitigation area are as
specified on page 13 of the April 1988 Mitigation Plan document were:
(1) Replace 3.3 acres of existing wetland with 5.10 acres of created wetland and
1.51 acres of vegetated buffer resulting in an almost two-for-one replacement of
wetlands onsite.
(2) Increase plant species diversity and habitat diversity in the created wetlands,
and thus increase wildlife diversity in the wetlands.
(3) Maintenance or enhancement of appropriate functional values of the
wetlands to be filled.
(4) Enhancement of habitat for migratory birds, especially the provision of
breeding habitat for migratory birds.
(5) Creation of wetland classes that are currently absent on site, resulting in an
increase in overall habitat value of the wetlands.
(6) Replacement of the existing seasonally flooded wetland habitat with
permanent open water wetland communities.
(7) Incorporation of interpretive displays along the wetland edge to increase
public awareness of values of wetlands.
DISCUSSION
While the project appears to be generally in compliance with design
specifications and mitigation project plans, there are a number of ways management
of the mitigation sites could be improved to better attain the compensatory mitigation
goals and objectives.
-------
4
Past and present management activities at the site which impede attainment of
the ecological goals and objectives include the following:
(1) routine hazing of geese and other waterfowl which use the wetlands and adjacent
uplands,
(2) mowing vegetation adjacent to and within the emergent zones of the North and
East lobes of the Northern mitigation pond (see Figures 1-3),
(3) grass carp planted in ponds which keep submerged aquatic plants and other
aquatic and hydrophytic vegetation from growing which might provide important food
chain support for the targeted waterfowl,
(4) inappropriate signs posted (e.g., they state "DO NOT FEED THE DUCKS" as
opposed to providing educational instruction as to the wildlife, habitat, aesthetic and
other values of wetlands, see Figure 4).
These management measures tend to conflict with the specified goals and
objectives of the project to:
(1) allow development of diverse aquatic and vegetative communities,
(2) provide habitat for diverse species of waterfowl and other migratory birds, and
(3) attain the specified acreage amounts of emergent wetlands around the periphery of
open water habitats.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA and the Service request that the Corps require the applicant to
undertake the following actions which are directed primarily at the main mitigation
ponds depicted as drawn during August 8, 1990, field investigation (Exhibit B).
Mitigation Pond Areas:
1. Discontinue mowing and any removal of wetland and riparian plant species
between trails and pond edges to allow natural colonization of wetland plants along
the periphery. Ideally, additional plantings could be undertaken to provide added
habitat values for wildlife as well as buffer human disturbance of pond areas.
2. Allow native vegetation establishment within targeted emergent and aquatic
vegetated areas and control establishment of invasive, non-native vegetation
-------
5
(particularly Lythrum salicaria, purple loosestrife, and Phalaris arundinacea, reed
canary grass) by hand removal or herbicide wicking of individual plants.
3. Post educational interpretive signs which:
(a) inform the public as to the purpose and goals of the compensatory wetland
mitigation areas to offset and improve habitat for wildlife and the other targeted
functions identified in the mitigation plan,
(b) illustrate and identify the various migratory birds, including waterfowl,
songbirds, and raptors that are likely to utilize the area for feeding, wintering,
loafing, and nesting;
(c) explain the ecological importance of plant structural and species diversity for
habitat complexity;
(d) describe the importance of protecting urban wetlands within larger habitat
corridors through open-space designation programs.
4. Plant the bare eastern portions of the compensatory mitigation ponds with native
woody shrub species such as those present in other areas of the site to discourage
infringement by humans (see Figure 5).
5. Legal recording and protection of the mitigation site in perpetuity should be
undertaken and documented. Specifically, record all mitigation sites as such on all land
titles and deeds and on all lease agreements of current and potential future tenants
within the Corporate Park. Provide such documentation to the Corps, EPA, and the
Service.
Issaquah Creek Riparian Corridor:
6. Provide written legally binding evidence that the proposed open space areas
identified in the April 1988 Mitigation Plan by Raedeke and Associates have in fact
been dedicated and designated as such. If not designated, proceed with placing in
permanent open space status.
7. Provide map of above areas in addition to the 1100 lineal feet of area to be
preserved as salmonid habitat (this was unclear in mitigation plan; but may be the
area identified as the stream re-location/restoration work conducted on Tibbets Creek
tributary) to Corps, EPA, and the Service
8. Perform Items 1 through 7 within one year from the date of this letter.
-------
6
9. Upon completion of the foregoing corrective actions, the above-described work
and final site features should be documented in a report similar to an as-built
conditions report. A schedule for site maintenance and inspection should be identified
and included in the report. This report should be submitted to the EPA, Service,
Corps, and other interested parties no later than two years from the date of this letter.
EPA has undertaken this mitigation follow-through investigation consistent with
the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Corps to assure
attainment of the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands through its responsibility to assure
compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act. These comments and
recommendations are provided in the spirit of cooperation and to assist the Corps in
carrying out its responsibility to assure compliance with §404 permitted activities.
The Service has prepared these comments and resource recommendations
under the authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C et seq.), as amended, and
other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for environmental
values. They are also consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy
Act and the Service's 1981 Mitigation Policy.
Please contact Linda Storm of the EPA at (206) 553-2578 or Joanne Stellini of
the Service at (206) 753-9440 for further information on this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Findley, Director
Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
David C. Frederick, Supervisor
Ecological Services Unit
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Enclosures
cc: Ecology, Olympia
WDF, Olympia
WDW, Olympia
Permittee
Langley Associates, Mr. Russ Keithly
-------
Figure 1.
Issaquah Mitigation Site;
southeast edge of northeast lobe
of Pond #1.
Note proximity of trail to water's
edge and mowed buffer.
I Figure 2.
Northeast lobe of
Pond #1.
Figure 3.
Northeast lobe of
mitigation site,
Pond #1.
Pickering Park, Inc
071-OYB-4-012 513
-------
PLEASE!
DO NOT FEED
THE WATERFOWL
a 0w*opv#"eB**dnt*i*Wek,lhe4fcelhlllw1Cfwae
jrawth take (tocay
M»MfiKary an«f unn^wfy
-------
• -' ^ ¦' > ' .
-------
. j tOVTMlAIT J** ITItfJ
1 *- j?r" ' hfljr¦ i
8®°
srosgg
38
FOOD tA YIUON
tt
LOT $
mouDAt itrn
T
LOT f ,
7
(///r •
IfA/O*
H r-
Jri*
Limine
~2-\
. rrriCAL seating, arca .
MAJO*
TYPICAL BEHCH DETAIL
CHILDREN'S EASTSIDE
MEDICAL CAMfVS
-------
u»poa
00^
»-«^-po
^Afchd&l
*4
fc3(»t»vMU
------- |