mary pakenham-walsh project manager, regulatory division
DESCRIPTION
Mary Pakenham-Walsh Project Manager, Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Coordinating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Permits with Species Conservation Plans November 16, 2010. Objectives. Corps’ Role Mission & primary authorities Types of permits - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
US Army Corps of Engineers
BUILDING STRONG®
Coordinating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Permits with Species Conservation Plans November 16, 2010
Mary Pakenham-Walsh
Project Manager, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
BUILDING STRONG®
Objectives
Corps’ Role► Mission & primary authorities► Types of permits► Regional and Programmatic Permits (RGPs and PGPs)
Application: East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP ► HCP Overview► Approved HCPs - regulatory efficiencies ► Advantages of regional permitting ► Meeting regulatory criteria for an RGP► Architecture of ECCHCP/NCCP RGP► Challenges► Commitment
BUILDING STRONG®
3
Regulatory Mission
To protect the Nation’s aquatic resources, while allowing reasonable development through
fair, flexible and balanced permit decisions.
Goal: “No Net Loss of Wetlands”
BUILDING STRONG®
BUILDING STRONG®
5
Primary Authorities Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
► Discharge of dredged or fill material
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
► Work or structures in or affecting navigable waters
Regulations: 33 CFR 320-332
► Part 332: “New” (2008) Federal Mitigation Rule
BUILDING STRONG®
Types of Permits Standard / Individual
► More than minimal impact ► Individual & letters of permission (LOP)► > 0.5 acre► Public notice (*not for LOP)► Offsite alternatives analysis
General Permits – 3 Types► Similar in nature & minimal individual
and cumulative environmental impacts► Nationwide Permits (NWP) ► Regional general permits (RGP)► Programmatic General Permits (PGP)
BUILDING STRONG®
7
RGPs and PGPs
PGPs:► Issued by Division► Corps can delegate parts of
administrative authority► Founded on an existing state,
local or other federal agency program
► Designed to avoid duplication
RGPs:► Issued by District or
Division► Corps retains administrative
authority► Class of activities in the
region► Examples in our District:
► RGP No. 16 (Tahoe Basin)
► RGP No. 40 (Utah – stream alteration permits & Corps permits)
BUILDING STRONG®
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP: Strong Connection With Wetlands and Waters
Aquatic Resources Inventory/Assessment
Initial Permit Area for Urban Development.
Restrictions on permit area flexibility: acreage limit and no conflict with conservation strategy
Max = approx 12,000 acres of future impact
Initial = approx 9,000 acres of future impact
Acquisition Priorities For Maximum Urban Development Area
30,300 acres is estimate of required acquisitions
Development Fee Amounts
Zone II (natural lands) $21,116 per acre
Zone I (ag lands) $10,558 per acre
Zone III (Infill<10 acres) $5,279 per acre
HCP also includes wetlands fee. It is a surcharge on wetted area.
Wetland and Stream Conservation
Land CoverPreservation
RatioRestoration
RatioTotal
Compensation
Est. Acres Preserved/Restored*
Riparian woodland 2:1 1:1 3:1 70/55
Perennial wetlands 1:1 1:1 2:1 75/85
Seasonal wetland complex
3:1 2:1 5:1 168/163
Alkali wetland complex
3:1 2:1 5:1 93/67
Ponds 2:1 1:1 3:1 16/16
Perennial streams 2:1 1:1 3:1 0.8/0.4 mi.
Intermittent or ephemeral streams
1:1 1:1 2:1 5.4/5.4 mi.
* Includes preservation/restoration above and beyond mitigation.
BUILDING STRONG®
ACQUISITION SUMMARY
Pre-HCP: 1,270 acres
Acquisition complete: 4,653 acres
Purchase agreements: 1,587 acres
TOTAL: 7,510 acres
Funds spent or committed: $34.2M
BUILDING STRONG®
2009Souza II—Before Restoration
BUILDING STRONG®
Souza II—Just After Restoration 2010
Four wetland restoration/creation projects constructed so far resulting in approximately 10 acres of restored/created
wetlands and 4000 feet of stream restoration.
To help coordinate implementation of the HCP/NCCP, local agencies are seeking:
Regional General Permit (RGP): applicants would apply to Corps but mitigation would coordinate with HCP
401 Certification of RGP (programmatic)
In Lieu Fee Instrument
BUILDING STRONG®
19
Advantages of Regional Permitting (Relative to Business as Usual)
Regional Permitting:► Proactive► Relative functional
assessments► Mitigation► Regulated community:
• More predictability
► Corps:• More efficient use of
resources
• Use of “programmatics”
Project-by-project:► Reactive► Limited functional
assessments► Mitigation case-by-case
Less assurances► Regulated community:
► Less predictability
► Corps:► Business as usual
BUILDING STRONG®
20
Efficiencies Gained by Approved HCPs
Section 404 Authorizations:► Section 106 National Historic
Preservation Act► Section 7 Endangered
Species Act► Section 401 Water Quality
Certification
With Approved HCP:► Enhances Section 7 timeline► Opportunity for coordinated
mitigation approach
BUILDING STRONG®
Two Key Determinations for RGP
Similar in nature
Minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts
BUILDING STRONG®
Application to ECCHCP RGP
Similar in Nature► Specific categories of activities as
defined in the HCP as “covered activities”
Minimal Impacts► “Focusing on the good stuff”► Comprehensive mitigation strategy► Acreage threshold► General conditions► Discretionary authority► Cumulative impacts
BUILDING STRONG®
Example – Comprehensive Avoidance, Minimization & Mitigation
HCP requires stream setbacks
Construction Best Management Practices
Mitigation is mandatory (unlike NWPs for impacts < 0.10 acre)
Proposed In-lieu Fee (ILF) Program
BUILDING STRONG®
Basic Architecture of ECCHCP RGP
Proposed Regional General Permit
(Section 404)
Programmatic Sec. 7 Consultation (USFWS)
Programmatic 401 Water Quality Certification
Independent Coordination:
•Sec. 7 NMFS
•Section 106 NHPAHCP’s Aquatic Mitigation Strategy
Proposed In-lieu Fee Program
BUILDING STRONG®
Challenges in Developing Regional Permitting Approaches
Baseline inventory and assessment needed
Consistency with Clean Water Act Section 404:► Avoidance and Minimization at larger landscape scales
► 2008 federal mitigation rule
Substantial up-front time investment needs to be worthwhile
Coordinating regulatory mandates and procedures
Coordination – generally speaking
BUILDING STRONG®
One-stop Shopping?
BUILDING STRONG®
Summary Corps’ role
General Permits and LOPs
Advantages of regional permitting
Efficiencies of approved HCPs
Architecture of ECCHCP’s RGP
Challenges & commitment
*Public Notice - draft RGP
Souza II Wetland Restoration Project
BUILDING STRONG®
Thank You
Web Site: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk-co/regulatory/index.html