BUILDING STRONG ® 1 Regional General Permit (RGP) 31 Interagency Meeting June 11, 2015.

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.
Ecological Survey Reports The level of ESR Report is determined by the type of project and its probable level of impacts.
NEW PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION AGREEMENT A WORK IN PROGRESS… ODOT—Office of Environmental Services Environmental Update Meeting20 November 2014.
Environmental Project Commitments The Alberta Experience
Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
Department of Army Permitting Process: Dredging
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.
ODOT Programmatic ESA Consultation on the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) User’s Guide Training, June-July 2013 Oregon’s Federal Aid Highway Programmatic.
Utah Watershed Coordinating Council Conservation Planning Workshop Navigating the Corps’ Permitting Process July 20, 2011 Jason Gipson Chief, Utah/Nevada.
US Army Corps of Engineers One Corps Serving The Army and the Nation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program.
Army Corps permitting of shellfish culture, harvest and restoration Bill Dewey, Taylor Shellfish Company Shelton, Washington
CHARACTERISTICS OF RUNOFF
Wetlands and Waterways Permits Patti Caswell Statewide Wetlands/Permits Program Coordinator Geo-Environmental, ODOT.
EPA’s Proposed Rule on Waters of the United States February 27, 2014.
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.
Natural Resource Reviews Threatened or Endangered Species Natural AreasWetlands.
“Insert” then choose “Picture” – select your picture. Right click your picture and “Send to back”. The world’s leading sustainability consultancy Legislation.
Spectra Energy Partners Texas Eastern Transmission, LP Ohio Pipeline Energy Network Project (OPEN) Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
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.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Coordinating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Permits with Species Conservation Plans November 16,
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
WETLANDS and ODOT Environmental Services Oregon Department of Transportation.
Storm Water Discharges from Oil and Gas Related Construction Activities EPA Public Meeting Dallas, Texas May 10, 2005.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Guidelines Field Exercise
Connecticut Department of Transportation: Office of Environmental Planning (OEP) Statewide Drainage Maintenance Activities State owned Rail Facilities.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Completing the NEPA Process for CatEx Projects: Part 3 to CE Closeout.
Clean Water Act Section 404 How it affects your airport during project implementation.
“Waters of the U.S.” in New York Farmland Maps by Geosyntec Analysis by American Farm Bureau Federation.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 404 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT EVALUATION PROCESS July 22, 2005.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 “ Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking”
ODOT Programmatic ESA Consultation on the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) User’s Guide Training, June-July 2013 Welcome to Oregon’s Programmatic ESA.
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
“Waters of the U.S.” in Oklahoma Farmland Maps by Geosyntec Analysis by American Farm Bureau Federation.
APPLICATIONS OF WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS Module 22, part c – Applications.
Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority June 8, 2007 Presentation to the State Reclamation Board Proposed Feather River Setback Levee.
Overview of the 401 WQC Process. Main Topics Relationship between Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401 State permitting processes Specifics of Kentucky’s.
Wetlands and Waterways Permits Ken Franklin Statewide Permits Program Coordinator Geo-Environmental, ODOT.
Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting in Pennsylvania Mr. Andrew Paterson VP of Technical and Regulatory, Marcellus Shale Coalition August 1, | MARCELLUS.
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.
© 2009 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
Secondary & Cumulative Effects Analysis Training Program Module 4: How to Develop SCEA Land Use Information How to Develop Land Use Information.
Flood Risk Management Cosgrove Creek Section 205 Planning Basics.
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 ® U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District Nationwide Permit Overview Cindy House-Pearson Chief, Inland.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Lisa Mangione Regulatory Division Los Angeles District January 14, 2016 USACE Regulatory Program Emergency.
Department of Army Permitting Process: Dredging
FTA Real Estate March 26, 2014 Christopher S. Van Wyk Director FTA Environmental Office.
State Route 28/U.S. Highway Route 127 Improvements Project Fentress County, Tennessee Public Hearing March 15, 2011 South Fentress Elementary School 5018.
 What is EWP & How Does the Program Work? Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
Environmental Planning in the Army Corps of Engineers Relationship of the NEPA to Principles & Guidelines 1 Ch 2 Mod 5
Wetland Restoration Planning considerations New Forest Consultative Panel – 3 Sept 2015.
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
Coal Mining Activities
THE CORPS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Continuing Authorities Program
Overview of the Reissuance of 401 Water Quality General Certifications
Coal Mining Activities
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division
Regulation Amendment AM April 3, 2018.
Army Corps permitting of shellfish culture, harvest and restoration
Pipeline Planning and Construction: Environmental Considerations
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
Stream Crossing Replacement Policy
Presentation transcript:

BUILDING STRONG ® 1 Regional General Permit (RGP) 31 Interagency Meeting June 11, 2015

BUILDING STRONG ® 2 What Kind of Projects/Activities Can be Authorized by General Permits? Activities that are substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts. The Corps determines if impacts are minimal.

BUILDING STRONG ® 3 Why Did the Corps Revise RGP 31?  Experience with NCDOT projects has demonstrated that many similar projects have no more than minimal environmental impacts, both individually and cumulatively.  RGP 31 will allow: efficient evaluation of similar projects that have only minimal environmental impacts the Corps and review agencies to direct limited resources toward reviewing projects that have greater environmental consequences, and construction of vital infrastructure projects in the State of North Carolina to proceed without unnecessary delays.

BUILDING STRONG ® 4 What is a Single and Complete Linear Project? Single and complete linear project: A linear project is a project constructed for the purpose of getting people, goods, or services from a point of origin to a terminal point, which often involves multiple crossings of one or more waterbodies at separate and distant locations. The term “single and complete project” is defined as that portion of the total linear project proposed or accomplished by one owner/developer or partnership or other association of owners/developers that includes all crossings of a single water of the U.S. (i.e., a single waterbody) at a specific location. For linear projects crossing a single or multiple waterbodies several times at separate and distant locations, each crossing is considered a single and complete project for purposes of this RGP. However, individual channels in a braided stream or river, or individual arms of a large, irregularly shaped wetland or lake, etc., are not separate waterbodies, and crossings of such features cannot be considered separately. Note – this is the same definition/rationale that is used for NWP 14

BUILDING STRONG ® 5 What Does the Revised and Reissued RGP 31 Authorize? a. Construction, maintenance, and repair of bridges b. Best-fit widening projects that have completed the Merger Process c. Minor widening projects, such as paving and/or widening secondary roads, or interchange improvements d. Stream relocations associated with these projects

BUILDING STRONG ® 6 What Does RGP 31 Authorize? a. Construction, maintenance, and repair of bridges, to include work on the approaches, where permanent impacts resulting in a loss of waters of the U.S. will be less than or equal to 500 linear feet (lf) of stream and/or one (1) acre of wetland/non-tidal open water for each single and complete linear project.

BUILDING STRONG ® 7 What Does RGP 31 Authorize? b. Best-fit widening projects that have undergone interagency review and completed the current interagency Merger Process, which merges the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with those found within Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). While there is no impact threshold for these widening projects, the Corps has the discretion to require an individual permit if it determines that the proposed impacts will have more than a minimal impact on the aquatic environment or on other environmental factors, or if the project would normally require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Best-fit projects may include a small amount of new location roadway for components such as interchanges or intersections, provided the new location portion has been concurred upon by the merger team.

BUILDING STRONG ® 8 What Does RGP 31 Authorize? c. Minor widening projects, such as paving and/or widening secondary roads, or interchange improvements, when permanent impacts which result in a loss of waters of the U.S. from installation and/or extension of culverts and/or pipes will be less than or equal to 500 lf of stream and/or one (1) acre of wetland/non-tidal open water for each single and complete linear project.

BUILDING STRONG ® 9 What Does RGP 31 Authorize? d. Stream relocation(s) associated with projects identified in a-c above. Stream relocation lengths are to be evaluated independently and are not included within each respective maximum limit threshold for the authorized actions stated above.

BUILDING STRONG ® 10 Discretionary Authority General Condition 2.w. - the Corps may determine that RGP 31 will not be applicable to a specific proposal; in those cases, NCDOT will need to apply for an individual permit. This case-by-case determination will be based on a number of considerations, including, but not limited to, location, scope of project, amount and type of impact to waters of the U.S. (W0US), quality of WOUS, distribution of impacts to WOUS in relation to project length, water quality issues, proposed mitigation, etc. RGP 31 contains twenty-one (21) special conditions and thirty-two (32) general conditions to avoid or limit adverse environmental impacts.

BUILDING STRONG ® 11 Q & As Q: Are bank stabilization and construction of floodplain benches temporary impacts? A: No; both are permanent “impacts,” but neither are “losses.” For RGP 31, losses of WOUS result from permanent, adverse effects from filling, flooding, excavation, or drainage caused by the regulated activity. These losses include discharges that change an aquatic area to dry land, increase the bottom elevation of a waterbody, or change the use of a waterbody. The loss of stream bed includes the linear feet of stream bed that is filled or excavated. WOUS temporarily filled, flooded, excavated, or drained, but restored to pre-construction contours and elevations after construction, are not included in the measurement of loss of WOUS.

BUILDING STRONG ® 12 Q & As Q: Since bank stabilization activities and floodplain benches are permanent impacts, do impact amounts from these activities factor into the 500’ and/or 1 acre thresholds for many of the activities authorized by RGP 31 at each single and complete project/crossing? A: No, impacts from these activities do not factor into the 500’ and/or 1 acre thresholds. The 500’ and/or 1 acre thresholds are for permanent “losses,” not permanent “impacts.” Note that in the event that the Corps determines that proposed permanent impacts (even permanent impacts that are not permanent losses, such as bank stabilization), would result in more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment, the project, as proposed, cannot be authorized by RGP 31. If this occurs, NCDOT can either revise the project (to qualify for use of RGP 31) or apply for an Individual Permit.

BUILDING STRONG ® 13 Q & As Q: Does RGP 31 authorize temporary impacts? A: Yes Q: What is the limit for temporary impacts? A: There are no stated limits for temporary impacts, but each proposed project will be reviewed by the Corps prior to authorization; in the event that the Corps determines that proposed temporary impacts would result in more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects to the environment, the project, as proposed, cannot be authorized by RGP 31. If this occurs, NCDOT can either revise the project (to qualify for use of RGP 31) or apply for an Individual Permit.

BUILDING STRONG ® 14 Q & As Q: Once NCDOT submits a PCN, is a project automatically authorized under RGP 31 if NCDOT doesn’t hear back from the Corps within a certain timeframe (e.g., 45 days, 60 days, etc.)? A: No. In accordance with special condition 1.a., NCDOT must receive written verification from the Corps that the proposed work complies with RGP 31 prior to commencing any activity authorized by RGP 31. The Corps will make every effort to issue a decision within 60 days from receipt date of PCN; however, there are situations that will require additional time, including but not limited to, resolution of outstanding issues such as incomplete consultation (e.g., Section 7 ESA, Section 106 NHPA, EFH, etc.), or if NCDOT does not provide additional information requested by the Corps.

BUILDING STRONG ® 15 Questions?