|
Greetings
Wetland Activist,
As we
announced in our December 1, 2004 Wetland Alert!, the general permit
governing the expansion of existing cranberry operations is up for renewal
and the Army Corps of Engineers is accepting comments. In part because of a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Wisconsin Wetlands
Association, the comment period for this permit was extended. Comments to
the US Army Corps of Engineers and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources on this permit are due Wednesday, January 5, 2005.
As you may know from our earlier Wetland Alerts on this issue, the general
permit governing the expansion of cranberry operations (GP-014-WI) allows
any grower to expand and impact up to 10 acres of wetlands within any given
5-year period. General permits are valid for 5 years so we will not have
another opportunity to comment on activities invoked under this permit
until 2009.
To view the general cranberry permit, visit: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/re
gulatory/standard_wi/ cemvpcor(gp014wi).pdf
As
always, thanks for weighing in on behalf of wetland protection in Wisconsin.
|
New Findings Based on FOIA Review
|
|
|
|
On November 29th, WWA submitted a FOIA request to the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) to obtain copies of records documenting the permit
compliance history of wetland mitigation activities authorized under the
general cranberry permit (GP-014-WI). As promised in previous Wetland
Alerts, this email provides additional talking points based on our
review of those records.
Mitigation
Record-Keeping Needs Improvement
The records (a 6-inch stack of documents) arrived in Wisconsin Wetlands
Association's office on December 22nd. The files were very useful for understanding
the extent of the wetland resources affected (acreage, wetland type and
location) and proposed compensatory mitigation, but shed little light on
whether these mitigation projects were actually completed, whether
subsequent monitoring requirements were met and, ultimately, whether
restoration goals (typically related to hydrology & plant community
composition) were achieved.
We did receive print-outs from the COE's Regulatory Analysis and
Management Systems II (RAMS II) tracking database where skeletal
information regarding project status could be stored, but the
inspections, mitigation and comments fields in this database were largely
unpopulated.
Because COE field staff are not required to fill in these fields, it is
unclear whether the data gaps are an indication of non-compliance or poor
record keeping. The gaps have heightened Wisconsin Wetlands Association's
concern regarding the public's ability to evaluate the effectiveness of
compensatory mitigation to offset wetland losses under this and other Wisconsin permits. The sample letter below provides
language to address these concerns.
Mitigation
Ratios, Compensation Site Plans Need More Specificity
The other big finding from the review of the FOIA documents was a need
for the general cranberry permit (GP-014-WI) to include more specificity
in terms of required mitigation ratios and the content of Compensation
Site Plans.
Since the last reissuance of the general cranberry permit (GP-014-WI) in
2000, COE signed an interagency memorandum of agreement (MOA) with WDNR,
USEPA and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. This MOA called for each
agency to follow the Guidelines for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in
Wisconsin (see link below). This document provides very specific
instructions for setting mitigation ratios, the content of compensation
site plans, site selection, mitigation banks, financial assurances,
monitoring and reporting, and long-term protection of mitigation sites
(i.e., deed restrictions). The application instructions and permit conditions
in the general cranberry permit (GP-014-WI) should be revised to be
consistent with these guidelines.
View the Guidelines for Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation in Wisconsin »
|
|
Sample Letter Text, COE Contact Info
|
|
|
|
A sample letter is posted below to help you with your
comments. If time permits, we encourage you to review all of the
information provided and to modify your comments to incorporate your own
concerns and/or experiences with this permit or the Army Corps of
Engineers wetland compensatory mitigation program in Wisconsin.
Attn:
Marita Valencia
Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul District
190 Fifth St., East
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638
Dear Ms. Valencia:
I am writing to comment on the general cranberry permit (GP-014-WI)
proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). I live in [insert
town, WI] and am concerned about potential losses of wetland acreage
and function and potential water quality degradation under this permit.
I am also concerned about the adequacy of the COE's tracking and
reporting systems for wetland compensatory mitigation activities.
COMMENTS
a. Eligibility for coverage under this permit should be narrowed.
Permit Condition B.4 lists waters of the U.S. where work is not
authorized under this general permit. Because of the potential for
cranberry operations to adversely impact the water quality of adjacent
navigable waters, additional categories of sensitive waters should be
added to the list of waters where expansions would not be authorized
under this permit. Specifically, I suggest the following changes:
- B.4(C) should be
expanded to include Outstanding Resource Waters identified in WI
Administrative Code NR 102.10 and Exceptional Resource waters
identified in NR 102.11.
- Because of their
significance to tribal communities, walleye waters and wild rice
waters should be added to the list of waters that cannot be impacted
under this general permit.
- No expansions should be
allowed that would impact waters or wetlands adjacent to waters
listed as impaired on the approved Wisconsin 303(d) list. This
request is consistent with antidegradation provisions of the federal
Clean Water Act.
b. Permit conditions for mitigation requirements
should be explicitly spelled out to be consistent with the Guidelines for
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Wisconsin.
Particular attention should be paid to required mitigation ratios for
wetland "restoration" vs. "creation" projects, and to
the content of compensation site plans.
c. Compensatory mitigation compliance and site monitoring activities
should be tracked in the Army Corps of Engineers' Ram II database.
The general public is limited in its ability to evaluate the extent to
which required mitigation projects are implemented and COE's use of the
RAMS II database system for tracking project completion and site
monitoring is negligible. Records of the receipt of project installation
reports and subsequent monitoring reports should be routinely entered
into the Army Corps of Engineers RAMS II database. This request is to
cover the St. Paul District's entire compensatory mitigation program, not
just mitigation allowed under GP-014-WI.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
[Your Name & Address]
Email Your Comments to Marita Valencia, COE
maria.t.valencia@mvp02.usace.army.mil
|
|
Copy Your Comments to the DNR
|
|
|
|
In addition to the Army Corps of
Engineers, a copy of your comments should be forwarded to:
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
c/o Dale Simon
101 S. Webster St.
Madison, WI 53703
simonb@dnr.state.wi .us
For questions on this action alert or a copy of
earlier Wetland Alerts sent on this topic, please e-mail WWA's
Wetland Policy & Conservation Specialist Erin O'Brien at erin@wiscwetlands.org.
|
|
|
Related Report: Mitigating Wetland Loss
|
|
|
|
In 2001, the
National Academy of Sciences released a report put together by the "Committee
on Mitigating Wetland Losses" titled Compensating for Wetland
Losses Under the Clean Water Act. See the whole report here:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10134.html.
Wisconsin Wetlands Association's
observation that inadequate data existed to evaluate the status of
required compensatory mitigation projects under the general cranberry
operation expansion permit (GP- 014-WI) is consistent with the findings
of this report.
Following the release of this report, an
interagency team of experts developed the National Mitigation Action
Plan, a 17 step plan to address many of the concerns identified in that
report including data collection and availability, clarifying performance
standards, improving accountability, and integrating mitigation into the
watershed approach.
The goal is for the plan to be fully
implemented by the end of 2005. As general permits come up for renewal
between now and then, and beyond, permit conditions should reflect the
goals and objectives outlined in this plan.
View The National Mitigation Action Plan Here
|
|
