ARCHIVED REPORTS_1993_1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 ultimate success of the project should be judged according to these same measurements at the mitigation site. Criteria should be developed for assessing the progress of the project during its developmental stages as well. Assessment criteria should include rates of plant growth, plant health, and evidence of natural reproduction. Success criteria should be geared toward equaling or exceeding the quality of the highest quality habitat to be affected. In other words, the mitigation effort would be deemed a success in relation to this goal if the mitigation site met or exceeded habitat measurements at a "model" site (plant cover, density, species diversity, etc. ) . The plan should present the proposed ground elevations at the mitigation site, along with elevations in the adjacent areas. A comparison of the soils of the proposed mitigation and adjacent areas should also be included in the plan, and a determination made as to the suitability of the soils to support habitats consistent with the mitigation goals. Because" wetland ecosystems are driven by suitable hydrological conditions, additional information must be developed on the predicted hydrology of the mitigation site; The plan should describe the depth of the water table, and the frequency, duration, areal extent, and depth of flooding which would occur on the site. The hydrologic information should include an analysis of extreme conditions (drought, flooding) as well as typical conditions. The plan must include a time frame for implementing the mitigation in relation to the proposed project. We recommend that mitigation be initiated prior to the onset of construction. If there will be a substantial net lag between project construction and completion of the mitigation, a net loss of habitat values would result, and more mitigation would be required to offset this loss. Generally, monitoring of the mitigation site should occur annually for at least the first five years, semi-annually for years 6 through 11, and every five years thereafter until the mitigation has met all success criteria. The monitoring period should begin again if success criteria are not met during the first five years. Some projects will require monitoring throughout the life of the project. Reports should be -prepared after each monitoring session. The plan should require the preparation of "as-built" plans. Such plans provide valuable information, especially if the mitigation effort fails. Similarly, a "time-zero" report should be mandated. This report would describe exactly what was done during the construction of the mitigation project, what problems were encountered, and what corrections or modifications . to the plans were undertaken. The plan should detail how the site is to be maintained during the mitigation establishment period, and how long the establishment period will be. It will also be important to note what entity will perform the maintenance activities, and what entity will untimately own and manage the site. In addition, a mechanism to fund the maintenance and management of the site should be established and identified. A permanent easement should be placed on the property used for the mitigation that would preclude incompatible activities on the site in perpetuity. Finally, in some cases, a performance bond may be required as part of the mitigation plan. The amount of the bond should be sufficient to cover the costs of designing and implementing an adequate mitigation plan (and purchasing land if needed) should the proposed plan not succeed. C-42