Watershed Approach to Mitigating Hydrologic Impacts of Transportation Projects: Conduct of Research Report (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 124-134
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 124... ...
124 Chapter 6. Stormwater Banking Opportunities This chapter explores opportunities that stormwater banking may offer to State DOTs in the context of a watershed approach to mitigation of transportation stormwater quantity impacts.
|
From page 125... ...
125 habitat type." However, other ecological co-benefits may occur including those listed in Table 5.3. Distinct from wetland mitigation regulations, stormwater regulations at the federal, state, and local government levels are designed to prevent adverse hydrologic and pollutant concentration impacts associated with runoff generated from development.
|
From page 126... ...
126 6.2. Compatibility of Stormwater Banking with Existing Regulations Most transportation projects undergo a range of coordinated federal reviews pursuant to the NEPA which are outlined in the FHWA 2015 Redbook.
|
From page 127... ...
127 Wetland habitat mitigation bank credits are tied to wildlife utilization and ecological functions. Qualitative and quantitative measurements that evaluate these functions usually require the collection of vegetation cover, hydroperiod, and/or wildlife utilization data.
|
From page 128... ...
128 The 2008 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (U.S. Department of Defense and USEPA 2008, at 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR Part 230)
|
From page 129... ...
129 The site selection process for a single objective stormwater mitigation bank program should be less complex than a combined approach because accomplishing an ecologically self-sustaining aquatic resource is not a critical consideration for defining success. A single objective stormwater mitigation bank program may also benefit from additional site selection flexibility if ecological criteria are not applicable.
|
From page 130... ...
130 way to address this element as part of dual-use mitigation bank scenario might be to collect additional engineering stormwater data as part of the wetland hydrology information used for habitat baseline evaluation. Currently, wetland mitigation banks, particularly at the federal level, do not routinely evaluate existing/proposed stormwater storage, treatment, or attenuation potential.
|
From page 131... ...
131 incremental credit releases which are often associated with wetland mitigation banking. From a cost and time perspective this could be beneficial if an entity such as a local government or DOT wanted to provide stormwater mitigation on a project-by-project basis.
|
From page 132... ...
132 stormwater bank success or vice versa. However, some of the wetland bank hydrologic standards could potentially be interwoven in the case of wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement.
|
From page 133... ...
133 maintenance and management requirements are likely to be minimal compared to wetland mitigation standards.
|
From page 134... ...
134 banks could potentially be implemented between the USACE and the USEPA utilizing components of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. Although not required as part of the 12 components, market research to determine the financial feasibility of a combined mitigation bank or a single objective stormwater bank, as well as the potential market for credits is generally an important step in planning a mitigation credit bank.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.