Drainage Permitting Challenges and Successes Mark D. Aanenson, CWD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
drainage permitting challenges and successes
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Drainage Permitting Challenges and Successes Mark D. Aanenson, CWD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 24, 2023 501 likes •898 views

Drainage Permitting Challenges and Successes Mark D. Aanenson, CWD Red River Basin Drainage Conference March 19, 2019 Permit Programs Minnesota TIMIN G USACE Section 404 Minnesota Protected Waters and Wetlands Minnesota Wetland

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Red River Basin Drainage Conference March 19, 2019

Drainage Permitting Challenges and Successes

Mark D. Aanenson, CWD

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Permit Programs

TIMIN G

Minnesota

  • USACE Section 404
  • Minnesota Protected Waters and Wetlands
  • Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
  • Watershed Districts
  • USFWS Drainage Easement Parcels
  • Calc Fens, Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, Northern Long Eared Bat
  • Cultural Resources

North Dakota

  • USACE Section 404
  • North Dakota Sovereign Lands
  • Water Boards
  • USFWS Drainage Easement Parcels
  • Northern Long Eared Bat
  • Cultural Resources
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Drainage Permitting Challenges

TIMIN G

1) Wetland delineations in the RRV 2) Lateral effect (drainage setbacks) 3) Existing ditch bottoms - wetlands? – WOUS 2015 rule 4) Cultural resources – Section 106 5) Legal ditch repairs Five Permitting Challenges

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Drainage Projects

TIMIN G

Repairs of Existing Systems

  • Generally considered exempt activities
  • There are exceptions!

New Drainage Systems and Improvements of Existing Systems

  • Not considered exempt activities
  • Impacts to waters and wetlands -

mitigation

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Delineation Concepts

TIMIN G

  • Soils, vegetation, and hydrology
  • Low topographic relief
  • Not clear upland/wetland soil boundaries (sandy – non-prairie better)
  • Lots of tilled lands – no intact vegetation
  • Lack of regular consistent hydrology
  • Lots of existing drainage
  • Different delineation methodologies

Challenges

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Delineation Concepts

TIMIN G

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Delineation Successes

TIMIN G

  • Discuss the methodology with regulatory agencies – save money
  • Don’t assume if it is tilled it is upland
  • Upland or wetlands LGUs or USACE may need data
  • Get delineation concurrence in writing – Minnesota WCA Form

Successes

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Lateral Effect Tables

  • New or drainage improvements
  • Deeper ditches or new ditches or tiles adjacent to a wetland
  • Will they “drawdown” the hydrology of an adjacent wetland

Lateral Effect of Drainage Systems

TIMIN G

Challenges

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Lateral Effect – Surface Ditches

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Lateral Effect – Surface Ditches

slide-11
SLIDE 11

County Setback Tables

TIMIN G

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Setback Distances – Surface Ditches

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Setback Distances – Surface Ditches

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Lateral Effect Successes

TIMIN G

  • Keep the decisions related to field conditions
  • There may not be an exact technical basis for impact analysis
  • There are some technical solutions - fabric barriers, clay caps
  • Mitigation of partial wetlands is not ideal

Successes

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Permitting Applications for Setback Tables

TIMIN G

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Existing Ditch Bottoms? Wetlands?

TIMIN G

slide-17
SLIDE 17

USACE

  • 2015 Rule – ditches constructed in uplands are no longer a WOUS
  • Previous Rule – regulated

WCA

  • Incidental wetlands (includes drainage ditches constructed in

uplands) – generally processed as a “no loss” determination

Existing Ditch Bottoms? Wetlands?

TIMIN G

Regulatory Programs

slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19

NATURAL WETLANDS CONNECT BY DITCH

slide-20
SLIDE 20

MN - Potentially not a WOUS, - No Loss ND – WOUS – Potentially no mitigation

TIMIN G

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Ditch Bottom Successes?

TIMIN G

  • Delineate all wetlands
  • Provide good data where permanent losses are anticipated
  • Document adjacent areas (ditches through uplands)
  • Watch for altered natural watercourses

Successes

slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • Report Completed by the Cultural Resource Professional
  • Contains a site visit, visual inspection of the project area
  • Pedestrian survey – may use transects – look for artifacts
  • Literature or Records Search of Knows Sites
  • Recommendation/conclusions – “no properties affected”
  • Different levels of surveys – (Class I, II or III)

Cultural Resource Surveys

Cultural Resource Reports

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • Requested as part of a federal permit or when federal

funds are spent on a project.

  • USACE staff will advise on the need for a Cultural

Resource Survey

  • Typically structures 50 years old may trigger a Cultural

Resource Survey

  • Work in on river banks, historic travel corridors, near

knows sites

When do You Need a Cultural Resource Survey?

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Culturally Significant Sites

TIMIN G

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Culturally Significant Sites

TIMIN G

slide-26
SLIDE 26
slide-27
SLIDE 27

Cultural Resource Approval - Successes

TIMIN G

  • Timing of the conversation regarding the need for a

Cultural Resource Survey

  • Survey Crew or Project Manager get photos of any old

bridges, structures, and buildings

  • Note riverbanks
  • Early coordination with USACE Staff – prior to permit

submittal Successes

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Repair “…to restore all or a part of a drainage system as nearly as practicable to the same hydraulic capacity as originally constructed and subsequently improved, including resloping of ditches and leveling of spoil banks if necessary to prevent further deterioration, realignment to

  • riginal construction if necessary to restore the

effectiveness of the drainage system….”

Repairs of Drainage Systems

TIMIN G

Challenge

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Repairs are generally “Exempt”

Exceptions

  • Wetland that have been in existence longer that 25 years that will be

drained (WCA) – not exempt

  • Lower the level of a public water basin or wetland – need MnDNR

approval

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Determining the “Repair Grade”

TIMIN G

  • Can be difficult for systems that have not had recent

repair work

  • Very significant for permitting
  • Petitioned and established in 1907
  • Construction completed in 1909
  • 1981 Petition to Outlet
  • No as-build plans
slide-31
SLIDE 31

1907 Plan showing the As-Designed Alignment Determination of the As-Constructed Alignment

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • Original design information
  • Survey – existing

conditions

  • Soil borings - identify the

bottom of excavated open channel ditch

Determination of the As-Constructed Grade

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Why aren’t all these data lining up? Agencies/Landowners questioning if the proposed work is a repair or improvement.

  • Original design is not “as constructed”
  • Culverts were not installed to the as constructed grade
  • Soil borings were not located over the original ditch centerline
  • Ditch banks can fail and fall into the channel

Determination of the As-Constructed Grade

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Why Are Some Culverts Higher Than Your Repair Grade?

TIMIN G

  • Most roads weren’t present in 1909
  • Over the years, sediment accumulated
  • New or replacement culvert placed on top of existing sediment
slide-35
SLIDE 35

i.e. “What is an outlier?”

Why isn’t every boring on grade?

slide-36
SLIDE 36

What May Cause a Boring/Probe to Be Above the Repair Grade

TIMIN G

  • Sloughing of channel banks
  • Deposition of coarse sediment
  • Location of boring/probe (not in channel bottom)
slide-37
SLIDE 37

SUCCESSES - TAKEAWAYS

TIMIN G

  • Requires weighting of many pieces of evidence
  • Cannot rely on a single data point
  • Provide the data to support the repair

Successes

slide-38
SLIDE 38

QUESTIONS

TIMIN G