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
