HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment of the Army Corps of Engineers Ltir"c'""
I I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY r`t�
w , 1 1. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT
i i M BILLINGS REGULATORY OFFICE
POST OFFICE BOX 2256
BILLINGS MT 59103
' t T.111 S UV P
Reply to Attention of: December 21, 2011
Regulatory Branch
R ECEGVIE
Montana State Program
Corps No: NWO- 2011 - 02145 -MTB
DEC 272011
Mr. Kenneth Olson, Mayor CITY OF LAUREL
City of Laurel
Post Office Box 10
Laurel, Montana 59044
Dear Mr. Mayor:
We have reviewed the Montana Joint Application submitted on your behalf by Great West
Engineering, Inc., for Department of Army (DA) authorization to reconstruct and armor approximately
715 linear feet of Yellowstone River bank. The project is located at Riverside Park in Laurel in the S' /z
of Section 15 and the N' of Section 22, Township 2 South, Range 24 East, Yellowstone County,
Montana.
An initial review of the permit application indicates that the proposed activity will have more
than minimal impact on the aquatic environment. Specifically, the activity as proposed would restrict and
impede the passage of high flows when compared to the existing condition. As noted in your application,
the river is constricted at the project site due to an existing railroad bridge and the Highway 212 Bridge.
Your proposal would rebuild the riverbank out into the new, wider active channel below these two
bridges, which would exacerbate the current constricted condition. Nationwide Permit General Condition
9 states that "to the maximum extent practicable, the preconstruction course, condition, capacity, and
location of open waters must be maintained, and activities must not restrict or impede the passage of
normal or high flows." In order to mitigate for this loss of capacity, you propose to excavate material
under the north side of the Highway 212 Bridge to restore some hydraulic capacity. This improvement is
seen as temporary, as this area tends to build sediment every year. It appears as if this area may require
continual, annual dredging in order to maintain any capacity increase. Also, as noted in the 2007
Nationwide Permit Regional Conditions for Montana, bank revetments such as riprap must conform to the
existing bankline.
For the aforementioned reasons, the project as proposed would not meet the requirements for
authorization under the Nationwide Permit program. It will be reviewed under our standard (individual)
permit process, and as such, it will be subject to a project - specific analysis under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines
and the associated public interest review.
The 404(b)(1) evaluation is the substantive criteria by which permit decisions are made, and is
used to determine the least environmentally damaging alternative. The public interest review determines
if the project is contrary to the public interest. Public interest factors include conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply
Printed on = i Recycled Paper
2
and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
The 404(b)(1) Guidelines, found at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 230, contain
the substantive criteria used in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the United
States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. They are applicable to all Section 404 permit decisions.
Fundamental to these Guidelines is the precept that dredged or fill material should not be discharged into
an aquatic ecosystem unless it can be demonstrated that such discharges would not have unacceptable
adverse impacts, either individually or in combination with known and/or probable impacts of other
activities affecting the ecosystem of concern.
The substantive criteria contained in Subpart B, Paragraph 230.10 of the Guidelines are:
a) Except as provided under Section 404 (b) (2), no discharge of dredged material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less
adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other
significant adverse environmental consequences.
b) No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it violates state water quality
standards, Section 307 of the Clean Water Act, or the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
c) No discharge shall be permitted if it causes significant environmental impacts and
d) Except as provided under Section 404(b)(2), no discharge shall be permitted unless
appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize the potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.
Your stated project purpose is to stabilize the river bank in order to prevent any further migration
to the south in order to maintain flow to the City of Laurel's water intake and the Billings Bench Water
Association's diversion structure. As noted in your application, both intakes are currently functioning
properly. Therefore, it appears that there are likely less- damaging alternatives that will achieve your goal.
Alternatives exist that involve stabilizing the bank at its current location which would prevent any further
southern migration and maintain both intakes in their current functioning condition. The proposed
activity does not appear to be the least damaging, practicable alternative, as required by the Clean Water
Act. Practicable is defined as an alternative that would fulfill the project's basic purpose after considering
cost, existing technology, and logistics.
Additionally, your project lies in an area where there has already been considerable
anthropogenic river modification. Long sections of bank stabilization and levees combined with the
impacts of the nearby bridges and pipelines have significantly limited the rivers ability to meander in the
project vicinity. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts to the
Yellowstone River is required for your proposed project to offset the adverse environmental impacts
which would remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization were achieved.
One alternative for providing compensatory mitigation would be to purchase mitigation credits from a
commercial mitigation bank. For more information on this alternative, please contact this office.
Compensatory mitigation may also be performed using methods such as restoration, enhancement,
establishment, and in certain circumstances preservation of aquatic and riparian resources. Mitigation
sites must be protected through an appropriate real estate or other legal instruments, and may be sited on
public or private lands.
3
A DA permit cannot be issued until a mitigation plan is submitted by you to this office. As
stated in 33 CFR 332, the mitigation plan must include the following 12 components: mitigation
objectives; site location; site protection instrument; baseline information; determination of credits;
mitigation work plan; maintenance plan; performance standards; monitoring requirements; long -term
management plan; adaptive management plan; and financial assurances. Information that is usually part
of these plans includes design drawings, vegetation plans including target species to be planted, and final
success criteria. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure replacement of aquatic functions and
services within the watershed that are lost through project implementation.
Although you are entitled to an evaluation of your permit application, an initial review of your
project indicates it may be very difficult to obtain a permit. You may choose to withdraw the permit
application or submit a revised plan that includes less damaging, practicable alternatives. We can also
continue evaluation of the project as submitted, if that is your wish. Please call or respond in writing
indicating how you would like to proceed.
If there are any questions please contact Shannon Johnson of my staff at telephone
(406) 657 -5910 and reference Corps File Number NWO- 2011 - 02145 -MTB.
Sinc ,
/ ,■4
�
Todd N. Tillinger
Montana State Program Manager
Enclosures:
Compensatory Mitigation Debit Calculation
Mitigation Plan 12 Components Checklist
Copy Furnished:
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Jeremiah Theys
Post Office Box 4817
Helena, MT 59601
Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks
Attn: Mr. Jeremiah Wood
Post Office Box 27
Fishtail, Montana 59028
Document Name: Date:
Component Page Brief Description
number
(1) Objectives.
(2) Site selection.
(3) Site protection instrument.
(4) Baseline information.
(5) Determination of credits.
(6) Mitigation work plan.
(7) Maintenance plan.
(8) Performance standards.
(9) Monitoring requirements.
(10) Long -term management
plan.
(11) Adaptive management
plan.
(12) Financial assurances.
Other information:
Document Name: Date:
(1) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) & amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i.e., restoration,
establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation
project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest.
(2) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. This should include consideration of
watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of accomplishing ecologically self - sustaining aquatic
resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation at the compensatory mitigation project site. (See § 332.3(d).)
(3) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site ownership, that will be used to
ensure the long -term protection of the compensatory mitigation project site (see § 332.7(a)).
(4) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory mitigation project site and, in
the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include descriptions of historic and existing plant communities,
historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic
coordinates for those site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation. The baseline
information should also include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed compensatory mitigation project site. A
prospective permittee planning to secure credits from an approved mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program only needs to provide
baseline information about the impact site, not the mitigation bank or in -lieu fee project site.
(5) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief explanation of the rationale for
this determination. (See § 332.3(f).) (i) For permittee- responsible mitigation, this should include an explanation of how the
compensatory mitigation project will provide the required compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources resulting from
the permitted activity. (ii) For permittees intending to secure credits from an approved mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program, it
should include the number and resource type of credits to be secured and how these were determined.
(6) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory mitigation project, including,
but not limited to, the geographic boundaries of the project; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including
connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant
species; the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and erosion control measures.
For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also include other relevant information, such as planform
geometry, channel form (e.g., typical channel cross - sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings.
(7) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once
initial construction is completed.
(8) Performance standards. Ecologically -based standards that will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project
is achieving its objectives. (See § 332.5.)
(9) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the compensatory mitigation
project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on
monitoring results to the district engineer must be included. (See § 332.6.)
(10) Long -term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance
standards have been achieved to ensure the long -term sustainability of the resource, including long -term financing mechanisms and
the party responsible for long -term management. (See § 332.7(d).)
(11) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the
compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The
adaptive management plan will guide decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address
both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See § 332.7(c).)
(12) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high
level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance
standards (see § 332.3(n)).
Document Name: Date:
Other information. The district engineer may require additional information as necessary to determine the appropriateness, feasibility,
and practicability of the compensatory mitigation project.
Debits Tables
Table 1.1 Advers Impacts (debits) Factors
FACTORS MULTIPIdFR3
Stream Ephemeral Intermittent >2' OrderPerennial I 1" or 2 " Order Perennial
Type 0.2 0.3 0.6 1 0.8
(Pg i~)
Stream I Tertiary Secondary Primary
Status 0.1 0.3 0.6
(Pg 18)
Existing j Impaired Somewhat Impaired Fully Functional
Condition 0.1 0.75 1.5
Duration Temporwy (<12 months) Short Term (12 -24 months) Permanent ( >24 months)
Cog 15) 0.0 ( 0.1 0.3
Dominant Shade Utility Bank Stab ibutton* Culvert Detention Morphalogie Irrp>!.nc I Pipe 1 Fill
Impact Clear Crossing See table I.2 below 0.3 /Weir 1 5 2 0 2.2 ( 2.5
0) 0 05 • 0:1
i
0.75 1
Collective 0.0005 � x linear feet of stream impacted by this dominant impact
Impact •
•
Table L2 Bank Stabilzation Multipliers
Multiplier Description For Bank Stabilization (Dominant Impact)
0.1 Vegetation only. (End result is a living herbaceous, woody, or mixed plant .
community, Coir logs, fabric, or other soft temporary protection is acceptable with
no additional debits needed.)
0.2 1 Vegetation combined with dead woody material. (End result is a living herbaceous,
•
• woody, or mixed plant community with a less than 50% dead wood component in the
toe and /or bank. Coir logs, fabric, or other soft temporary protection is acceptable
with no additional debits needed.)
0.3 Vegetation above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) combined with either a
rock Toe or 50° %0+ dead wood at or below OHWM. (End result is a living
herbaceous, woody, or mixed plant community above the OHWM and rock or dead
wood at or below the OIIWM. Coir logs, fabric. or other soft temporary protection is
acceptable with no additional debits needed.) _
0.4 Rock riprap above and below the OHWM, and any type of vanes /barbs/weirs /hard
points that project into the channel. (End result is little or no vegetation on bank for
rock riprap revetments, or an eroding bankline protected by one or more
vanes /barbs/weirs/hard points/etc.)
m.
0.5 Log Cribs, or combinations of bank riprap with vanes/barbs /weirs/hard points. (Log
crib structures filled with soil, plants, and/or rock extending below and/or above the
OHWM. or projects using vanes/barbs /weirs/hard points that also include a rock
riprap revetment or toe along the bank)
0.7 Retaining Walls. (Vertical or nearly vertical retaining walls constructed ofgabion
baskets, hand- placed stone, masonry, concrete, steel, wood, or other materials.)
Factor Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5
Stream Type 0.6 0 0 0 0
Stream Status 0.1 0 0 0 0
Existing Condition 0.1 0 0 0 0
Duration 0.3 0 0 0 0
Dominant Impact * 0.4 0 0 0 0
Collective Impact 0.4075 0 0 0 0
Stun of Factors.(SF 1,9075: 0, 0 ,0 0
Linear Feet Impact (LF,) 715 0 0 0 0
SF, x LF, 1,363.86. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00`
Total Debits = r(SF x'LF;) ' 113619
Debits