Mary Pakenham-Walsh Project Manager, Regulatory Division

1. 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 PlansNovember 16, 2010

2. 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

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”

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

6. 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)

7. 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 and PGPs 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)

8. East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP: Strong Connection With Wetlands and Waters

9. Aquatic Resources Inventory/Assessment

10. Initial Permit Area for Urban Development. Initial = approx 9,000 acres of future impact Max = approx 12,000 acres of future impact Restrictions on permit area flexibility: acreage limit and no conflict with conservation strategy

11. Acquisition Priorities For Maximum Urban Development Area 30,300 acres is estimate of required acquisitions

12. Development Fee Amounts Zone III (Infill<10 acres) $5,279 per acre Zone I (ag lands) $10,558 per acre Zone II (natural lands) $21,116 per acre HCP also includes wetlands fee. It is a surcharge on wetted area.

13. Wetland and Stream Conservation * Includes preservation/restoration above and beyond mitigation.

15. 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

16. 2009 Souza II—Before Restoration

17. 2010 Souza II—Just After Restoration Four wetland restoration/creation projects constructed so far resulting in approximately 10 acres of restored/created wetlands and 4000 feet of stream restoration.

18. 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

19. Regional Permitting: Proactive Relative functional assessments Mitigation Regulated community: More predictability Corps: More efficient use of resources Use of “programmatics” Advantages of Regional Permitting (Relative to Business as Usual) Project-by-project: • Reactive • Limited functional assessments • Mitigation case-by-case • Less assurances • Regulated community: • Less predictability • Corps: • Business as usual

20. 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 Efficiencies Gained by Approved HCPs

21. Two Key Determinations for RGP • Similar in nature • Minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts

22. 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

23. 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

24. Basic Architecture of ECCHCP RGP Programmatic Sec. 7 Consultation (USFWS) Programmatic 401 Water Quality Certification Proposed Regional General Permit (Section 404) • Independent Coordination: • Sec. 7 NMFS • Section 106 NHPA Proposed In-lieu Fee Program HCP’s Aquatic Mitigation Strategy

25. 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

26. One-stop Shopping?

27. 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

28. Thank You Web Site: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk-co/regulatory/index.html