  |
|
|
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03 (PDF, 87kb) on October 10th, 2008. The Corps Seattle District will be incorporating the information in the RGL into their monitoring requirements for compensatory mitigation projects. This RGL replaces Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 06-03 (PDF, 52kb, also see the Special Public Notice issued on November 2, 2006). The Corps replaced RGL 06-03 with RGL 08-03 in order to complement and be consistent with the final Mitigation Rule published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2008 ("Compensating Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources: Final Rule", PDF 113 pages).
The purpose of the RGL is to provide the Corps and the regulated public guidance on minimum monitoring requirements for compensatory mitigation projects, including the required minimum content for monitoring reports. The Corps must require the submission of monitoring reports to assess the development and condition of compensatory mitigation projects, but the content and level of detail depends on scale, scope, and type of compensatory mitigation. The information in RGL 08-03 also applies to monitoring reports that are prepared for mitigation bank sites and in-lieu fee project sites.
Specifically, RGL 08-03 requires:
By incorporating the length requirement, the Corps is ensuring that only the pertinent information is submitted to expedite the agencies review and determination if the mitigation is in compliance with the mitigation performance standards and/or special conditions of the permit. Also, the length requirement is consistent with the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). And therefore, permittees are encouraged to submit monitoring reports electronically.
Successful implementation of the guidance found in the RGL will result in:
Monitoring requirements in Washington State will NOT change. RGL 08-03 is consistent with the interagency wetland mitigation guidance (Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Version 1, March 2006). Appendix M in Part 2, also provides a checklist of information to provide in a typical monitoring report. The agencies recognize that there may be cases in which all of the information is not practical (e.g., very small projects) or that providing more information might be necessary (e.g., large or complex projects). The agency staff person working with the permittee makes this decision. In the majority of cases, however, the permittee should provide all of the information in the checklist.
Permit applicants submitting monitoring reports to the agencies should follow the outline in either the RGL or Appendix M of the joint mitigation guidance. Again, it is important to keep the monitoring reports limited to the most pertinent information and in an easy to read format so that the agencies have the ability to expedite their review. Click here for a couple of example monitoring reports.
 |
Electronic Submittals of Monitoring Reports Are Now Encouraged
You can continue to send your monitoring reports through the U.S. Postal Service; however, the agencies are now encouraging electronic submittals of monitoring reports. This allows for easy distribution to the appropriate agency staff and will limit the number of paper copies needed.
When mitigation is required to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources, a monitoring plan should be included in the mitigation plan. The goals, objectives, and performance standards for a mitigation project are the basis for the monitoring plan and are the measure against which compliance and success are determined. The duration, frequency, and methods or monitoring depend on a project's goals, objectives, and performance standards.
In general, monitoring is required for at least five years. If a scrub-shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring my be required for 10 years or more. And monitoring might be extended if interim performance standards are not being met.
Monitoring ensures that a mitigation project achieves its stated purpose and complies with permit obligations. It also provides critical information about whether a site needs maintenance or whether the applicant needs to take corrective actions.
The information gathered during monitoring is documented in reports submitted to the appropriate agencies. In most cases, monitoring reports are required as a condition of those permits that authorize impacts necessitating construction of a mitigation site (e.g., grading, planting). Failure to submit completed monitoring reports in a timely manner could result in suspension of the permit and/or additional compensatory mitigation requirements.
The information collected through monitoring should address the established goals, objectives, and performance standards. This information will be used to determine if the project is achieving ecological success within the predicted timeframe. Regular monitoring reports also provide an opportunity for agency staff to help identify the extent of any problems and any necessary remedial measures.
Monitoring data is important for the permit applicant as well as the agencies because they can reveal conditions that are unfavorable for attaining final performance standards. By implementing contingency plans (e.g., replanting dead or dying vegetation or re-grading parts of the wetland) based on this information, applicants can take corrective steps to ensure that the site is a success at the end of the monitoring period.
Finally, monitoring reports need to be as objective as possible. They can be used by the agencies, as a part of the official case file, to analyze and record permit compliance and the overall success of mitigation as compensation for wetland loss and degradation. Monitoring can also serve to increase our knowledge of the effects of specific actions.
If you have any question on monitoring or report requirements you can contact:
Gail Terzi at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or Dana L. Mock at Ecology.
Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.
