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