Appendix C to Part 651 - Mitigation and Monitoring
32:4.1.1.3.6.10.1.1.5 : Appendix C
Appendix C to Part 651 - Mitigation and Monitoring
(a) The CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) recognize the
following five means of mitigating an environmental impact. These
five approaches to mitigation are presented in order of
desirability.
(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain
action or parts of an action. This method avoids environmental
impact by eliminating certain activities in certain areas. As an
example, the Army's Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM)
program accounts for training requirements and activities while
considering natural and cultural resource conditions on ranges and
training land. This program allows informed management decisions
associated with the use of these lands, and has mitigated potential
impacts by limiting activities to areas that are compatible with
Army training needs. Sensitive habitats and other resources are
thus protected, while the mission requirements are still met.
(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
the action and its implementation. Limiting the degree or magnitude
of the action can reduce the extent of an impact. For example,
changing the firing time or the number of rounds fired on artillery
ranges will reduce the noise impact on nearby residents. Using the
previous ITAM example, the conditions of ranges can be monitored,
and, when the conditions on the land warrant, the intensity or
magnitude of the training on that parcel can be modified through a
variety of decisions.
(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the effect on the environment. This method restores the
environment to its previous condition or better. Movement of troops
and vehicles across vegetated areas often destroys vegetation.
Either reseeding or replanting the areas with native plants after
the exercise can mitigate this impact.
(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action. This
method designs the action so as to reduce adverse environmental
effects. Examples include maintaining erosion control structures,
using air pollution control devices, and encouraging car pools in
order to reduce transportation effects such as air pollution,
energy consumption, and traffic congestion.
(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20). This method
replaces the resource or environment that will be impacted by the
action. Replacement can occur in-kind or otherwise; for example,
deer habitat in the project area can be replaced with deer habitat
in another area; an in-kind replacement at a different location.
This replacement can occur either on the impact site or at another
location. This type of mitigation is often used in water resources
projects.
(b) The identification and evaluation of mitigations involves
the use of experts familiar with the predicted environmental
impacts. Many potential sources of information are available for
assistance. These include sources within the Army such as the
USACHPPM, the USAEC, the MACOM environmental office, the ODEP, COE
research laboratories, COE districts and divisions, and DoD
Regional Support Centers. State agencies are another potential
source of information, and the appropriate POC within these
agencies may be obtained from the installation environmental
office. Local interest groups may also be able to help identify
potential mitigation measures. Other suggested sources of
assistance include:
(1) Aesthetics:
(i) Installation Landscape Architect.
(ii) COE District Landscape Architects.
(2) Air Quality:
(i) Installation Environmental Specialist.
(ii) Installation Preventive Medicine Officer.
(3) Airspace:
(i) Installation Air Traffic and Airspace Officers.
(ii) DA Regional Representative to the FAA.
(iii) DA Aeronautical Services.
(iv) Military Airspace Management System Office.
(v) Installation Range Control Officer.
(4) Earth Science:
(i) Installation Environmental Specialist.
(ii) USACE District Geotechnical Staff.
(5) Ecology:
(i) Installation Environmental Specialist.
(ii) Installation Wildlife Officer.
(iii) Installation Forester.
(iv) Installation Natural Resource Committee.
(v) USACE District Environmental Staff.
(6) Energy/Resource Conservation: Installation Environmental
Specialist.
(7) Health and Safety:
(i) Installation Preventive Medicine Officer.
(ii) Installation Safety Officer.
(iii) Installation Hospital.
(iv) Installation Mental Hygiene or Psychiatry Officer.
(v) Chaplain's Office.
(8) Historic/Archaeological Resources:
(i) Installation Environmental Specialist.
(ii) Installation Historian or Architect.
(iii) USACE District Archaeologist.
(9) Land Use Impacts: (i) Installation Master Planner.
(ii) USACE District Community Planners.
(10) Socioeconomics:
(i) Personnel Office.
(ii) Public Information Officer.
(iii) USACE District Economic Planning Staff.
(11) Water Quality:
(i) Installation Environmental Specialist.
(ii) Installation Preventive Medicine Officer.
(iii) USACE District Environmental Staff.
(12) Noise:
(i) Preventive Medicine Officer.
(ii) Directorate of Public Works.
(iii) Installation Master Planner.
(13) Training Impacts:
Installation Director of Plans, Training, and Mobilization
(c) Several different mitigation techniques have been used on
military installations for a number of years. The following
examples illustrate the variety of possible measures:
(1) There are maneuver restrictions in areas used extensively
for tracked vehicle training. These restrictions are not designed
to infringe on the military mission, but rather to reduce the
amount of damage to the training area.
(2) Aerial seeding has been done on some installations to reduce
erosion problems.
(3) Changing the time and/or frequency of operations has been
used. This may involve changing the season of the year, the time of
day, or even day of the week for various activities. These changes
avoid noise impacts as well as aesthetic, transportation, and some
ecological problems.
(4) Reducing the effects of construction has involved using
techniques that keep heavy equipment away from protected trees and
quickly re-seeding areas after construction.
(d) Monitoring and enforcement programs are applicable (40 CFR
1505.2(c)) and the specific adopted action is an important case (40
CFR 1505.3) if:
(1) There is a change in environmental conditions or project
activities that were assumed in the EIS, such that original
predictions of the extent of adverse environmental impacts may be
too limited.
(2) The outcome of the mitigation measure is uncertain, such as
in the case of the application of new technology.
(3) Major environmental controversy remains associated with the
selected alternative.
(4) Failure of a mitigation measure, or other unforeseen
circumstances, could result in serious harm to federal-or
state-listed endangered or threatened species; important historic
or archaeological sites that are either on, or meet eligibility
requirements for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places; wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, or other public
or private protected resources. Evaluation and determination of
what constitutes serious harm must be made in coordination with the
appropriate federal, state, or local agency responsible for each
particular program.
(e) Five basic considerations affect the establishment of
monitoring programs:
(1) Legal requirements. Permits for some actions will
require that a monitoring system be established (for example,
dredge and fill permits from the USACE). These permits will
generally require both enforcement and effectiveness monitoring
programs.
(2) Protected resources. These include federal-or
state-listed endangered or threatened species, important historic
or archaeological sites (whether or not these are listed or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places),
wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other public or
private protected resources. Private protected resources include
areas such as Audubon Society Refuges, Nature Conservancy lands, or
any other land that would be protected by law if it were under
government ownership, but is privately owned. If any of these
resources are affected, an effectiveness and enforcement-monitoring
program must be undertaken in conjunction with the federal, state,
or local agency that manages the type of resource.
(3) Major environmental controversy. If a controversy
remains regarding the effect of an action or the effectiveness of a
mitigation, an enforcement and effectiveness monitoring program
must be undertaken. Controversy includes not only scientific
disagreement about the mitigation's effectiveness, but also public
interest or debate.
(4) Mitigation outcome. The probability of the
mitigation's success must be carefully considered. The proponent
must know if the mitigation has been successful elsewhere. The
validity of the outcome should be confirmed by expert opinion.
However, the proponent should note that a certain technique, such
as artificial seeding with the natural vegetation, which may have
worked successfully in one area, may not work in another.
(5) Changed conditions. The final consideration is
whether any condition, such as the environmental setting, has
changed (for example, a change in local land use around the area,
or a change in project activities, such as increased amount of
acreage being used or an increased movement of troops). Such
changes will require preparation of a supplemental document (see §§
651.5(g) and 651.24) and additional monitoring. If none of these
conditions are met (that is, requirement by law, protected
resources, no major controversy is involved, effectiveness of the
mitigation is known, and the environmental or project conditions
have not changed), then only an enforcement monitoring program is
needed. Otherwise, both an enforcement and effectiveness monitoring
program will be required.
(f) Enforcement monitoring program. The development of an
enforcement monitoring program is governed by who will actually
perform the mitigation; a contractor, a cooperating agency, or an
in-house (Army) lead agency. The lead agency is ultimately
responsible for performing any mitigation activities.
(1) Contract performance. Several provisions must be made
in work to be performed by contract. The lead agency must ensure
that contract provisions include the performance of the mitigation
activity and that penalty clauses are written into the contracts.
It must provide for timely inspection of the mitigation measures
and is responsible for enforcing all contract provision.
(2) Cooperating agency performance. The lead agency must
ensure that, if a cooperating agency performs the work, it
understands its role in the mitigation. The lead agency must
determine and agree upon how the mitigation measures will be
funded. It must also ensure that any necessary formal paperwork
such as cooperating agreements is complete.
(3) Lead agency performance. If the lead agency performs
the mitigation, the proponent must ensure that needed tasks are
performed, provide appropriate funding in the project budget,
arrange for necessary manpower allocations, and make any necessary
changes in the agency (installation) regulations (such as
environmental or range regulations).
(g) Effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring is often
difficult to establish. The first step is to determine what must be
monitored, based on criteria discussed during the establishment of
the system; for example, the legal requirements, protected
resources, area of controversy, known effectiveness, or changed
conditions. Initially, this can be a very broad statement, such as
reduction of impacts on a particular stream by a combination of
replanting, erosion control devices, and range regulations. The
next step is finding the expertise necessary to establish the
monitoring system. The expertise may be available on-post or may be
obtained from an outside source. After a source of expertise is
located, the program can be established using the following
criteria:
(1) Any technical parameters used must be measurable; for
example, the monitoring program must be quantitative and
statistically sound.
(2) A baseline study must be completed before the monitoring
begins in order to identify the actual state of the system prior to
any disturbance.
(3) The monitoring system must have a control, so that it can
isolate the effects of the mitigation procedures from effects
originating outside the action.
(4) The system's parameters and means of measuring them must be
replicable.
(5) Parameter results must be available in a timely manner so
that the decision maker can take any necessary corrective action
before the effects are irreversible.
(6) Not every mitigation has to be monitored separately. The
effectiveness of several mitigation actions can be determined by
one measurable parameter. For example, the turbidity measurement
from a stream can include the combined effectiveness of mitigation
actions such as reseeding, maneuver restrictions, and erosion
control devices. However, if a method combines several parameters
and a critical change is noted, each mitigation measurement must be
examined to determine the problem.