Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2, A Guidebook for Airports (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 Concerns about the ongoing loss of wetlands and other water resources throughout the United States led to the enactment of numerous federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and executive orders that sought to avoid or minimize adverse impacts and provide compensation for unavoidable losses. The passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 laid the foundation for subsequent water protection programs nationwide. The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) was milestone legislation that significantly reorganized the programs and regulations that were developed following the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. Section 404 of the CWA established programs “to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.” In 1977, President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 121), the goal of which was to “avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.” In 1989, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the United States Department of the Army released a memorandum of agreement (MOA), the goal of which was to “implement the objective of the CWA to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters, including wetlands.” Federal policy regarding impacts to wetlands was further articulated in 2008, when the USEPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued the “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule” (the “2008 Rule”). The goals of the regulations were to “improve the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation, to replace lost aquatic resource functions and area, expand public participation in compensatory mitigation decision making, and increase the efficiency and predictability of the mitigation project review process.” 1.1 Airport Development, Wetlands, and Compensatory Mitigation Proposed aviation improvements, such as the construction or expansion of existing facili- ties, have the potential to affect on-site or nearby jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. In some cases, proposed airport facilities are fixed by function or their relationship to other facilities such as runways and taxiways. If wetlands are present in these areas, potential impacts may be unavoidable. The USACE, which is the federal agency responsible for wetlands and waters of the U.S., sup- ports the national goal of “no overall net loss” of wetlands. For proposed activities that result in unavoidable losses, the USACE requires project sponsors, such as airport operators, to replace C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

6 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports wetlands through the creation of new wetlands, enhancement or preservation of existing wetlands, wetland banking, or in-lieu-fee payments that contribute to the development of other wetland mitigation sites. (Chapter 4 provides a detailed description of potential mitigation opportunities.) However, not all forms of mitigation are appropriate in the aviation environment. 1.1.1 Wetlands, Wildlife, and Aviation Safety Wetlands are attractive to many species of birds and mammals because they often provide lush vegetation that offers food and shelter and an available source of drinking water. Many species—especially waterfowl, shorebirds, and flocking birds—have the potential to pose haz- ards to aircraft operations (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2), and thousands of wildlife strikes with these species are documented in FAA’s wildlife strike database. The risk associated with potentially hazardous wildlife increases when wetlands and open water sources are located near aircraft movement areas. FAA warns airport operators against the creation of wetlands and open water within 5,000 feet of aircraft movement areas at airports that support piston-powered aircraft, within 10,000 feet of aircraft movement areas at airports that support turbine-powered aircraft (jets), and within 5 miles of approach and departure surfaces. Most general aviation (GA) airports do not have sufficient property to provide on-site mitigation in accordance with FAA’s separation cri- teria. Because safety is paramount, most airport operators must provide off-site mitigation in the form of off-site wetland creation, preservation or enhancement, wetland banking, or in-lieu-fee payment. 1.1.2 Mitigation Cost Although there are many acceptable forms of compensatory wetland mitigation, the availability of suitable mitigation sites and funding mechanisms varies regionally. Off-site mitigation costs can be high, based on the need to purchase land and on wetland design, construction, planting, Figure 1-1. Gulls on airfield. Photo courtesy of Bird Strike Committee USA. For more information on aviation and wildlife hazards, refer to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150, 5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, available at: https://www.faa.gov/ documentLibrary/media/advisory_ circular/150-5200-33B/150_5200_33b.pdf.

Introduction 7 monitoring, and ongoing maintenance. Depending on the location of the airport, the availability of land, and the size of the wetland required, off-site mitigation costs can well exceed available budgets. When estimating mitigation costs for grant applications or other funding sources, it is important to consider ancillary costs associated with the evaluation of environmental impacts and other potential studies (see Chapter 2). Although mitigation banking may offer a more convenient and affordable option for mitiga- tion, the cost of mitigation credits varies considerably based on availability, type of credit needed (by wetland type), and number of credits required to fulfill permit requirements. In many areas of the U.S., the cost of mitigation credits exceeds $100,000/acre. 1.1.3 Inter-agency Coordination, Permitting, and Authorizations Wetlands and waters of the U.S. are regulated by the USACE, but other federal agencies may be associated with projects affecting wetlands. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries are involved with the protection of federally listed species and their criti- cal habitats, and these agencies may be involved when project-related impacts to wetland or waters have the potential to affect listed species or their critical habitats. State resource man- agement agencies frequently have jurisdiction over state wetlands and waters that may not be eligible for federal protection and for the protection of state-listed species and their habitats. Airport operators are often challenged by the numerous agencies that may be involved with wetland permitting and mitigation, the competing goals of some agencies, and the lack of agency understanding about airport operations and safety. Not every cited regulation or every strategy will apply to every wetland mitigation project, but a better understanding of wetland resources, mitigation strategies, and the regulatory environment can help airport operators address the challenges associated with airport wetlands and project-related wetland mitigation in a timely and cost-effective manner. In recent years, the FAA worked with other federal agencies to develop an interagency MOA to address aircraft–wildlife strikes and resource management. Through the MOA, the signatory Figure 1-2. Aftermath of bird strike. Substantial aircraft damage resulted from this strike involving a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Photo courtesy of USDA.

8 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports agencies acknowledge the risks that wildlife poses to safe aviation and the need for the agencies to work together to establish the procedures necessary when considering projects on or near airports. Despite these efforts, however, the agency staff may not be aware of the MOA or its relationship to a proposed airport improvement project that involves wetlands. State agency representatives who are not governed by the MOA might not be aware of the issues associated with resource management in an airport environment. Chapter 8 of the guidebook focuses on agency outreach and stakeholder coordination efforts. 1.2 ACRP Research Goals A 2015 problem statement submitted to the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) identified that many airports were constructed in proximity to wetlands. As a result, wetland resources were often adversely impacted by airport facilities and their operations and, conversely, airport operations had the potential to be adversely affected by the presence of on-site or nearby wetlands. ACRP published a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a wetland mitigation guide- book for airports (ACRP Project 02-70 RFP, 2015). The objective of the research project was to “prepare a guidebook to facilitate implementation of effective wetland mitigation in support of airport expansion and development, including safety-related improvements” (ACRP 2015). 1.3 Guidebook Contents Successful airport projects that require wetland mitigation need a closely coordinated effort involving numerous agencies and stakeholders. This guidebook seeks to address the challenges and coordination required to protect both wetland resources and aviation safety. Chapter 2, Regulatory Issues presents a discussion of the complex nature of the wetland miti- gation process. The text summarizes federal, state, and local regulations and guidance associated with the wetland mitigation process and discusses coordination with agency stakeholders. A matrix identifying agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands and other stakeholders by state is included in Appendix B. Chapter 3, Wetland Identification and Impacts addresses the diverse wetland types that exist throughout the U.S. The chapter focuses on categories identified in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979) with specific attention to hydrology and dominant vegetation type. Wetlands provide various functions, some of which are beneficial to airport operations, such as ground water recharge/discharge, flood flow altera- tion, and nutrient and contaminant removal/transformation. Others may create significant hazardous wildlife attractant issues and/or unstable ground conditions within runway safety areas/protection zones. A more detailed discussion is provided for high-profile wetland types that harbor rare or endemic species, have unique geography or chemistry, or are highly protected because of historic losses. Chapter 4, Mitigation Types presents current, state-of-the-art wetland mitigation practices. The categories of mitigation types discussed in this chapter include: • On-site and off-site restoration, • Creation, • Enhancement, • Preservation, • In-lieu-fee payments, • Wetland banking opportunities, and • Combined methods.

Introduction 9 The discussion identifies the goals of each mitigation type and explores the capability of different wetland mitigation strategies to achieve mitigation goals and compatibility with airport operations. Chapter 5, Constraints addresses potential challenges that can be encountered in association with wetland mitigation and result in subsequent project delays or unforeseen costs. Potential constraints may be associated with: • The presence of federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species; • The presence of historical or cultural resources; • The presence of hazardous materials/wastes; • The cost and time associated with the acquisition of property, easements, or water rights; • The introduction of invasive species; and • Hazardous wildlife attractants. Chapter 6, Engineering and Design Issues focuses on the issues associated with on-site and off-site restoration, creation, and enhancement. The chapter also discusses site selec- tion for permittee-responsible mitigation, property acquisition, and long-term mitigation site management. Chapter 7, Costs and Funding identifies the components of mitigation project costs and the budgets associated with various mitigation strategies. The cost items addressed include: • Environmental studies and permit approvals; • Site planning and design; • Land acquisition; • Construction; and • Monitoring, long-term management, and maintenance requirements. The chapter also briefly describes a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and its usefulness when comparing project alternatives that fulfill the same performance requirements but differ with respect to initial costs and management costs in selecting the alternative that maximizes net savings. FAA funding and eligibility are discussed as well as other potential funding sources. Chapter 8, Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement identifies the numerous agencies and others who may be interested in airport improvement projects involving wetlands. Because most wetland impacts associated with airport projects must undergo evaluation pursuant to NEPA, the chapter considers stakeholder management within the context of both USACE and FAA NEPA processes. Chapter 9, Case Studies presents real-life examples of wetland mitigation projects at six diverse airports. The case studies identify: • The type(s) and size(s) of wetlands impacted; • The evaluated and selected mitigation strategies; • The associated federal, state, and local regulatory process, and how these processes affected the project timeline; • Project costs and funding source(s); and • Lessons learned. The FAA, state aviation agencies, and individual airports were asked to complete a project- related questionnaire developed and distributed by the research team. A summary of relevant wetland mitigation-related data obtained from the questionnaire responses is included in Appendix C.