St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch program: an overview. Presented by Rebecca Gruber, Corps Regulatory Biologist, Waukesha.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Regulatory Program.
Advertisements

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Restoration and Regulation Discussion Joseph P. DaVia US Army Corps of Engineers-Baltimore Chief, Maryland.
Coal Mining Activities Mark A. Taylor Huntington District Corps of Engineers.
401 Water Quality Certification South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Galveston District Interim Stream Tool Lessons Learned a Year Later.
NEPA Environmental Procedure Pam Truitt, Grants Management Consultant  September 4, 2014.
BUILDING STRONG ® Mitigation in a Modern World or 33 CFR 332 and You Presented by Jayson M Hudson To the Texas Association of Environmental Professionals.
Bill Orme, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Board Liz Haven, Asst. Deputy Director, Surface Water Regulatory Branch, State Water Board Dyan.
Utah Watershed Coordinating Council Conservation Planning Workshop Navigating the Corps’ Permitting Process July 20, 2011 Jason Gipson Chief, Utah/Nevada.
Deborah M. Smith United States Magistrate Judge District of Alaska LAWS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED TO FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Second Asian Judges Symposium.
US Army Corps of Engineers One Corps Serving The Army and the Nation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program.
What is an In Lieu Fee Program ? Clean Water Act - Section 404 : “no overall net loss” of wetland acreage and functions. One mechanism for providing Compensatory.
Clean Water Act Section 404: An O&G Perspective Andrew D. Smith SWCA Environmental Consultants.
Environmental Consultants BMI Environmental Services, LLC AN OVERVIEW OF THE WETLANDS REGULATORY PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED OCEAN SPRINGS HIGH.
1 Massachusetts Wetlands Regulations and the MCP Rachel Freed Mass. Department of Environmental Protection Wetlands and Waterways Program Northeast Regional.
1 Wetland Regulatory Programs Department of Natural Resources Legislative Audit Bureau July 2007.
Clean Water Act Section 404 Basics Clean Water Act Section 404  Regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including.
Protecting Wetlands Expanding the Clean Water Act Environme1tal Politics & Policy 1.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Coordinating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Permits with Species Conservation Plans November 16,
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Regulatory Program Glen Justis Chief, Policy & Administration Regulatory Division Alaska District 2010 Building.
Compensatory Mitigation in Coastal Louisiana Keith Lovell, Administrator Office of Coastal Management Department of Natural Resources 10/03/121.
California Wetlands: Update on new state definition and policy development California Native Plant Society Fall Conservation Symposium September 10, 2011.
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
WETLANDS and ODOT Environmental Services Oregon Department of Transportation.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Guidelines Field Exercise
WETLANDS and LOCAL PROGRAMS Environmental Services Oregon Department of Transportation.
Page CDBG Recipients' Workshop Community Finance Division NEPA Environmental Procedures.
Constitutional Limits to Wetlands Regulation By: Chris Smith.
Carrin Williams.  Purity of Waters Act  To assure supplies of clean drinking water  Clean Streams Law  To protect the streams from pollution.
Chapter 45 Environmental Protection and Global Warming.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Administrative Penalty Program SB Regulatory Item California Air Resources Board Enforcement Division Public Hearing December 12, 2002 Sacramento,
Clean Water Act Section 404 How it affects your airport during project implementation.
ARE 309Ted Feitshans020-1 Unit 20 Regulation of Wetlands Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1890 and 1899.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 404 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT EVALUATION PROCESS July 22, 2005.
Inland Waterways: The National Perspective Amy Larson Executive Director National Waterways Conference, Inc PNWA Annual Meeting.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers REGULATORY PROGRAM WILMINGTON DISTRICT March 13, 2008.
INTRODUCTION TO SECTION 4(f) Presented by Ian Chidister Environmental Program Manager FHWA – Wisconsin Division December 4, 2013.
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
Overview of Civil Judicial Enforcement. Civil Judicial Enforcement  Who may file civil judicial environmental enforcement actions in U.S.? Federal Government.
Number of Copies Agency Submissions & Comments. Coordination ESRs are reviewed by OES and coordinated with resource agencies as part of the NEPA review.
OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT Karl Morgan JUNE 2013 Karl Morgan JUNE 2013.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
The Clean Water Act © Dr. B. C. Paul (Jan. 2000).
APPLICATIONS OF WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS Module 22, part c – Applications.
WATER QUALITY TOPICS ENFORCEMENT – ARE FINES BECOMING A WAY OF LIFE AT THE DEQ By:Donald D. Maisch Supervising Attorney, Water Quality Division Office.
Overview of the 401 WQC Process. Main Topics Relationship between Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401 State permitting processes Specifics of Kentucky’s.
1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 24 Environmental Law.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inter-Agency Coordination BLM PILOT VERNAL & GLENWOOD SPRINGS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & U.S. Bureau of Land.
1 CDBG and Environmental Review For Local Officials.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY PROGRAM PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW (33 CFR Part 320) August 12, 2005.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Document Preparation WETLANDS BEST PRACTICES 33 rd Annual Airports Conference Marie.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Lisa Mangione Regulatory Division Los Angeles District January 14, 2016 USACE Regulatory Program Emergency.
After-the-Fact Conservation Area Impact Permit Request* Keene’s Pointe Community Association, Inc. District 1 November 1, 2011 *Postponed from the December.
The Jordan Cove Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline and Terminal.
 What is EWP & How Does the Program Work? Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
AGENCY ROLES Level 1B: Advanced Fundamentals July 2016 LOCAL, STATE, FEDERAL 1.
Legislative History. First enacted in 1934  Enacted due to concerns over the loss of commercial and sport fisheries from water resource developments.
Coal Mining Activities
THE CORPS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Coal Mining Activities
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division
Environmental Law Fall 2018
Joint Army-EPA Mitigation Rule
Waters of the U.S. Updates and Changes
Level 1B: Advanced Fundamentals Effective August 2018
Pipeline Planning and Construction: Environmental Considerations
Proposed Mitigation Rule Amendment Rulemaking Pre-Proposal State and Local Government Outreach June 20, 2019.
Presentation transcript:

St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch program: an overview. Presented by Rebecca Gruber, Corps Regulatory Biologist, Waukesha Wisconsin January 2009, Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association/Wisconsin Department of Transportation Contractor Engineer Conference Disclaimer: The views contained in this presentation and handouts are the personal views of the presenter and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Defense, or the United States of America. -DoD Joint Ethics Regulation, ¶ 2-207

Regulatory Program Goals Protect the Nation’s aquatic resources Take into consideration the views of other Federal, state & local agencies, interest groups, and the general public Achieve no net loss of wetland functions & values/offset adverse impacts to the aquatic environment with mitigation Make fair, equitable & balanced permit decisions Make timely permit decisions

Regulatory Authority – 2 types Construction and dredging (in FEDERAL navigable waters only): Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Discharge of dredged and fill material into most aquatic resources (includes Federal navigable waters): Section 404 Clean Water Act, 1972 & 1977 (amended) Stress on S.404 for rest of presentation, any questions on S10 can be addressed individually or at end.

Jurisdictional aquatic resources are called Waters of the United States (WOUS), & typically include: Federally navigable waters (the Section 10 waters) Interstate waters/wetlands Navigable waters and abutting wetlands Relatively permanent tributaries to navigable waters Relatively permanent intrastate lakes, rivers and streams Intermittent streams, mudflats, wetlands, sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes where degradation could affect interstate or foreign commerce Waters with industrial or commercial purposes (this could include select isolated wetlands) -Recent Supreme Court cases (SWANCC, Rapanos, Bayview) have added “nuance” to the jurisdictional determination process… determinations may be preliminary or approved. Discuss most aquatic resources regulated, but not all… Perhaps discuss non-JD resources, but indicate authority to determine lies with COE.

Section 404 Activities ___________ Discuss what constitutes a discharge of fill regulated under Section 404… include temporary impacts (construction matting, crossings, utility trenches). Also indicate that some construction situations require amendments to permit to address circumstance.

Issues the Corps must consider during permit application review (General Public Interest Factors) Conservation Economics Aesthetics Wetlands (ADID?) Historic Properties Flood Hazards Floodplain Issues Land Use Navigation Recreation Energy Needs Prime and Unique Farmland Safety Water Quality Fish and Wildlife Values Shore Erosion and Accretion Water Supply and Conservation Food and Fiber Production Property Rights Environmental Concerns Welfare of the People Mineral Needs Endangered Species Examples of things we consider during our review of public interest (in keeping with goals stated at beginning).

COE can only authorize “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” (LEDPA) Determine the project purpose; assume non-wetland sites are available - if not water-dependent (must demonstrate avoidance of impacts to aquatic resources). Once site is selected, minimize project impacts to aquatic resources to the maximum extent practicable during design and/or construction processes. Provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts (typically over 10K square feet – at discretion of DE). Some permit types require public noticing to solicit comments from the public (typically a 30 day notice). If in public interest, must also be LEDPA. Discuss issues typically sought after to maintain LEDPA – exclusion fencing, restoration in temporary impact areas, limiting invasives, et.

Compensatory Mitigation Options for Lost Functions and Values Mitigation can be: In-kind – on-site or off-site Out-of-Kind -on-site or off-site Mitigation banks, applicant performs Can include some upland buffer Stream/Lake mitigation now required Ratios for mitigation vary by type of basin impacted, type of compensation, typically it is expensive. Touch on this? Perhaps indicate that additional impacts requested during construction may impact this – therefore stress coordination with permittee as well as our agency

Once the Permit is Issued The Corps views the permit as a “contract” between you and us as to how the project will be constructed If design plans change between when the permit was issued and when construction begins the changes should be coordinated with the Corps The Corps is not typically involved in the final design and planning if the permit has been issued

Once the Permit is Issued If a permit modification is required Coordinate well in advance of start of construction Provide specific information and revised design plans May require a public notice if changes are significant May require additional compensatory mitigation However, most modifications can be completed efficiently with little additional coordination or analysis

Constructing a Project Our top six concerns Improperly installed culverts Introduction of non-native species Failure to implement or maintain stormwater BMPs Encroachment into wetlands and inadequate buffers around wetlands Stream bank destabilization around crossings Poorly constructed compensatory mitigation

“We don’t do enforcement for enforcement’s sake, we do it for compliance’s sake”. (J.P. Suarez, Assistant Administrator, EPA) The integrity of the Section 404 program depends on active enforcement to ensure that unauthorized activities do not occur and that permittees comply with the conditions of their permits. The “scary” part of the program. Indicate COE responsibility to determine if activity is in violation of CWA – enforcement can be non-compliance or no authorization.

Resolution of Unauthorized Activities The Corps “Toolbox” Initial Corrective Measures After-the-fact Permit Application Legal Action Voluntary Restoration Corrective Actions

Resolution of Unauthorized Activities Initial Corrective Measures Order Issued by the District Engineer Based on Jeopardy to Life, Property, or Public Resources Could Resolve the Violation Does not Require a Corps Permit

Resolution of Unauthorized Activities After-the-fact Permit Application Must be Accepted Unless One of the Exceptions at 33 C.F.R § 326.2(e) Apply Applicant Must Sign a Tolling Agreement Processed in Accordance with Applicable Procedures Denial is a Possible Outcome

Resolution of Unauthorized Activities Legal Action Used to Obtain Penalties for Violations, Compliance with Orders and Directives Issued by the DE or Other Appropriate Relief District Criteria for Referral Considers Actions that are Willful, Repeat, Flagrant, or of Substantial Impact District Can Refer Cases to Local USDOJ, USEPA, or Office of the Chief of Engineers

Environmental Protection Agency EPA has sole legal authority to pursue enforcement of unpermitted fill activities. EPA can use Section 309 Administrative Orders to require correction of the violation or to assess civil penalties up to $137,500. EPA can use Section 308, which authorizes collection of information including accessing the property, collecting samples and evidence and issuance of information requests. Clarify EPA role. Discuss how COE coordinates with EPA.

Department of Justice Cases referred to DOJ typically result in civil penalties and injunctive relief (restoration) Once referred, decisions on penalty amounts are made by the U.S. Attorney or Main Justice, not by the Corps Penalty amounts up to $32,500 per day, per violation Tim: not sure what is open for DOJ as far as sentencing (clarify)? I’d also address that we’d prefer to resolve issues w/o EPA/DOJ elevation.

Resolution of Unauthorized Activities Voluntary Restoration Not Enforceable Unless Another Mechanism is Utilized Quickest and Most Straightforward Method Corrective Actions Only Available When an After-the-fact Permit Application has been denied Enforceable through Legal Action

Resolution of Unauthorized Activities Corrective Actions Only Available When an After-the-fact Permit Application has been denied Enforceable through Legal Action Process

Permit Noncompliance The Corps does not have the resources to inspect every project Permittees are responsible for complying with all terms and conditions of Corps authorizations The Corps has the authority to issue administrative penalties for permit noncompliance

Permit Noncompliance Class I Administrative Penalties may not exceed $11,000 per violation except that the maximum amount of any Class I penalty shall not exceed $27,500 Appropriateness of penalty takes into account importance of resource affected, importance of the violation, and history of the violator Penalty amount determined by degree of environmental harm and compliance importance

How to Stay Out of Trouble If work impacts a wetland or waterway in any way, chances are a permit is required Always obtain and READ permits for work in wetlands and waterways before beginning work Even if not required by permit, have sensitive areas flagged so they are avoided during construction Ask questions before, not after you begin work.

If You Get into Trouble… Report any unauthorized discharges or non-compliance issues to agency staff immediately Implement measures to control environmental harm as soon as possible while coordinating with agency staff Review site practices to insure it doesn’t happen again

What to Take Home We prefer to talk with you before the work rather than after it has been done (permit vs. violation) Make sure everyone has read and understands the permit issued for the work The Clean Water Act is a strict liability statute, the person responsible for the work (performing or directing) is liable The Section 404 program is based on voluntary compliance We take unauthorized activities associated with permitted activities and non-compliance issues seriously

Resources for more information Our District website: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/ (info about local contacts, permit types, permit application forms, public notices of local projects and jurisdictional determinations). Our Headquarters website: http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/cecwo_reg.aspx/ (info on national incentives, regulations).