Clean Water Act Mitigation Jan Goldman-Carter

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Department for Environment Role in Implementing Bush Forever Bush Forever Stakeholder Meeting June 2006.
Advertisements

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS for ANTIDEGRADATION
401 Water Quality Certification South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Overview of Mitigation Banking Program December 10, 2009 Robert M. Brown, Director Environmental Resource Regulation Department Robert M. Brown, Director.
Meadowbank Gold Project Cumberland Resources Ltd. Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut March 30, 2006.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Galveston District Interim Stream Tool Lessons Learned a Year Later.
Sections 10 and 404: NMFS’ Oversight, Concerns and Actions
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.
Modified Charleston Method (MCM)
Introduction to the Birds and Habitats Directives David Harrison – Senior Specialist, Site Protection.
Bill Orme, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Board Liz Haven, Asst. Deputy Director, Surface Water Regulatory Branch, State Water Board Dyan.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources Briefing on Proposed Amendments to Endangered Species Regulations.
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.
Wetland Assessment Methods FHWA Needs. Laws and Regulations National Environmental Policy Act Section 404 CWA Regulatory Program Executive Order 11990,
Wetland Banking Basics Doug Van Werden. Definition Wetlands Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table.
KEY CONCEPTS OF MITIGATION BANKING March 27, 2003 US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District.
Environmental Consultants BMI Environmental Services, LLC AN OVERVIEW OF THE WETLANDS REGULATORY PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED OCEAN SPRINGS HIGH.
Northeast Corridor Greenway Acquisition – Mitigation Feasibility Study Results City Council Workshop June 24, 2014.
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.
Habitat Banking: compliance markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services Ian Dickie, eftec Policy Mechanisms for Ecosystem.
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.
NFIP ESA ComplianceImplementing a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative – FEMA Region 10 ESA and the National Flood Insurance Program Implementing a salmon.
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.
LEGAL RESOURCES CENTRE SUBMISSION NEMA SECOND AMENDMENT BILL B36B 2007.
Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Overview
Rule 62-40, F.A.C. – What is it? The Water Resource Implementation Rule (State Water Policy). Required by Sec , F.S. Goals, objectives and guidance.
Summit #1 San Juan County Shoreline Master Program Update March 1 st, 2 nd, and 3 rd
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Compensating Encroachments on Nature and Aquatic Environment The Example of the German Mitigation and Offset Regime Dr. Moritz Reese, Helmholtz Centre.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 404 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT EVALUATION PROCESS July 22, 2005.
Watercourse DPA District of North Vancouver Streamside DPA Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment: Streamside Areas Public.
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord The Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord (the Accord) has been developed under the oversight of the Dairy Environment.
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).
Rulemaking for Central Florida Coordination Area Coordinated Rulemaking by the South Florida, St. Johns River and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts.
Solano Habitat Conservation Plan 580,000 Acres 36 Covered Species; 4 Natural Communities 17,500 acres of Urban Development; 1,280 acres of other New Facilities.
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.
ODFW Habitat Mitigation Policy and Energy Facility Siting.
JWMP Update Draft Report Bosworth Botanical Consulting Team.
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.
Rookery South Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) Evolving List of Documents being prepared for submission to the Infrastructure Planning Commission Administration.
Proposition 1 Workshop: the Grant Application Process July 2015.
Setting Goals for Stream “Health:” The Next Generation of Watershed Plans? The Waterlands Group San Francisco Estuary Institute Aquatic Science Center.
After-the-Fact Conservation Area Impact Permit Request* Keene’s Pointe Community Association, Inc. District 1 November 1, 2011 *Postponed from the December.
Wildlife Program Amendments Joint Technical Committees and Members Advisory Group Amendment Strategy Workshop.
Water.europa.eu 3) a. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Water Directors’ meeting Budapest, 26 & 27 May 2011 Nicolas ROUYER European Commission.
GBLWMP-SLUP Integration February 5, 2010 Deline. Ecological Integrity Policy GBLWMPSLUP (a): All activities in the GBLW must be consistent with.
The State of the Science on Compensation Performance Trends, knowledge gaps, and directions for future study Joe Morgan, ORISE Participant
1 “Fair Argument” Test Triggering EIR: Friends of “B” Street v City of Hayward Facts & Issue Trial court: city abused discretion in adopting negative declaration.
Overview of Everything You Need to Know About Mitigation.
THE CORPS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
One Perspective on an effort to improve the implementation of the Endangered Species Act David Bernhardt.
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division
Planning Mitigation February 24, 2016
PROVISIONS OF H.R
Joint Army-EPA Mitigation Rule
Mitigation.
DG Environment, Nature Protection Unit (D3)
When and how to best consider the provision of the Habitats directive
Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures
Proposed Mitigation Rule Amendment Rulemaking Pre-Proposal State and Local Government Outreach June 20, 2019.
Presentation transcript:

Clean Water Act Mitigation Jan Goldman-Carter

Compensatory Mitigation in the Real World Limited Science + Economic Cost Considerations + Agency Discretion + Limited Resources + Limited Information + Limited Public Involvement = Net Loss Of Aquatic Resource Quality & Quantity ______________________________ Impact Avoidance + Critical Thinking + Scientifically Credible Functional Assessment + Watershed-based Impact Assessment and Site Selection + Ecological Performance Standards + Diligent Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement + Long-term Site Protection and Management + Public Involvement = Maintenance/Improvement of Aquatic Resources

404(b)(1) Guidelines PROHIBIT permit issuance if: There exists an environmentally preferable practicable alternative; An endangered species would be jeopardized; The discharge will cause or contribute to significant degradation; Impact minimization and mitigation are insufficient; The Corps fails to make specified factual determinations; OR The Corps lacks sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment of compliance with the Guidelines.

The Final Mitigation Rule: Avoiding Impacts 332.1(c)(2)/230.91(c)(2): “The district engineer will issue an individual section 404 permit only upon a determination that the proposed discharge complies with applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 230, including those that require the permit applicant to take all appropriate and practicable steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to waters of the United States….” 40 CFR (a) and 1990 MOA: Prohibition against permit issuance where a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative for the proposed discharge exists. See also: 332.1(f)(2)/290.91(f)(2) (retaining avoidance aspects of 1990 MOA); 73 FR 19596,

The Final Mitigation Rule: Avoiding Impacts 40 CFR (c): Prohibition against permit issuance where activities associated with a proposed discharge will cause or contribute to significant degradation. From 1990 MOA: “It is important to recognize that there are circumstances where the impacts of the project are so significant that even if alternatives are not available, the discharge may not be permitted regardless of the compensatory mitigation proposed (40 CFR (c)).” See also: 332.1(f)(2)/290.91(f)(2) (retaining avoidance and significant degradation aspects of 1990 MOA); 73 FR 19596,

The Final Mitigation Rule: Avoiding Impacts 332.1(c)(3)/230.91(c)(3): “…During the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines compliance analysis, the district engineer may determine that a DA permit for the proposed activity cannot be issued because of the lack of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation options.” 73 FR 19618: “Effective implementation of this rule, including the ecological performance of compensatory mitigation projects, is dependent upon critical thinking by decision- makers to determine whether a particular compensatory mitigation proposal at a specific site is technically feasible and capable of providing the desired aquatic resource functions and services.”

Avoiding Impacts to “Difficult-to-Replace” Aquatic Resources 332.3(e)(3)/230.93(e)(3): “for difficult-to-replace resources (e.g., bogs, fens, springs, streams, Atlantic white cedar swamps) if further avoidance and minimization is not practicable, the required compensation should be provided, if practicable, through in-kind rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation since there is greater certainty that these methods of compensation will successfully offset permitted impacts.” 73 FR 19605: “…[S]ome types of aquatic resources are difficult to replace, such as bogs, fens, vernal pools, and streams….[W]e have added § 332.3(e)(3)[230.93(e)(3)], which emphasizes avoidance and minimization of impacts to difficult –to- replace resources….” See also 73 FR See: 73 FR (re critical thinking by decision-makers re feasibility and capability to replace functions and services).

The Mitigation Rule Watershed Approach 332.3(c)(1)/230.93(c)(1): “The district engineer must use a watershed approach to establish compensatory mitigation requirements in DA permits to the extent appropriate and practicable.” “The ultimate goal of a watershed approach is to maintain and improve the quality and quantity of aquatic resources within watersheds through strategic selection of compensatory mitigation sites.”

332.3(c)(3)/230.93(c)(3): Absent an available and appropriate watershed plan, “the district engineer will use a watershed approach based on analysis of information regarding watershed conditions and needs, including....”: -- current trends in habitat loss and conversion; -- cumulative impacts of past development activities; -- current development trends; -- presence and needs of sensitive species; -- site conditions that help/hinder mitigation success; -- flooding, poor water quality, other chronic environmental problems. The Mitigation Rule Watershed Approach

Scientifically Credible Functional Assessments 332.3(f)/230.93(f): “[T]he amount of required mitigation must be, to the extent practicable, sufficient to replace lost aquatic resource functions.” In cases where appropriate functional or condition assessment methods or other suitable metrics are available, these methods should be used where practicable to determine how much compensatory mitigation is required.” “We are moving towards greater reliance on functional and condition assessments ….We believe that more frequent use of such assessment methods will help improve the quality of aquatic resources in the United States.” 73 FR 19601,

Mandatory Ecological Performance Standards 332.4(c)(1),(9)/230.94(c)(1),(9): The final mitigation plan “must include” “ecologically- based” performance standards /230.95: “Ecological performance standards must be based on the best available science that can be measured or assessed in a practicable manner.” See also: 73 FR (mandatory ecological performance standards based on best available science); 73 FR

Enforcement of Mitigation Conditions 332.3(k)/230.93(k): Compensatory mitigation requirements must be clearly stated in individual permit conditions and must be enforceable (k)/230.93(k): Compensatory mitigation requirements must be clearly stated in individual permit conditions and must be enforceable (l)/230.93(l): responsible party must be clearly identified (l)/230.93(l): responsible party must be clearly identified. See also: 73 FR (permittee enforcement per 33 CFR 326; 3 rd party enforcement through “appropriate actions”; 73 FR See also: 73 FR (permittee enforcement per 33 CFR 326; 3 rd party enforcement through “appropriate actions”; 73 FR

Monitoring Reports 332.6(c)/230.96(c): Monitoring report information must be sufficient to determine project progress toward meeting performance standards; monitoring requirements must be clearly stated as enforceable special permit conditions; reports must be publicly available. See also 73 FR 19597, (c)/230.96(c): Monitoring report information must be sufficient to determine project progress toward meeting performance standards; monitoring requirements must be clearly stated as enforceable special permit conditions; reports must be publicly available. See also 73 FR 19597, (b)/230.94(b)/325.1: The permit application and public notice must include statement re impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation sufficient to provide for meaningful public comment. See also 73 FR (b)/230.94(b)/325.1: The permit application and public notice must include statement re impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation sufficient to provide for meaningful public comment. See also 73 FR

332.3(a)(3)/230.93(a)(3): Compensatory mitigation projects may be sited on public lands as long as credits are based “solely on aquatic resource functions provided by the compensatory mitigation project, over and above those provided by public programs already planned or in place.” See also: 73 FR 19627, (a)(3)/230.93(a)(3): Compensatory mitigation projects may be sited on public lands as long as credits are based “solely on aquatic resource functions provided by the compensatory mitigation project, over and above those provided by public programs already planned or in place.” See also: 73 FR 19627, Cost of land acquisition, ownership, management is subsidized and therefore not incorporated into full cost of development. Cost of land acquisition, ownership, management is subsidized and therefore not incorporated into full cost of development. Public interest in public land and water conservation and recreation may be compromised. Public interest in public land and water conservation and recreation may be compromised. Mitigation on Public Lands: In the Public Interest?

Long-term Protection and Management 332.7(a)/230.97(a): The compensatory mitigation project must be provided long-term protection …as appropriate. The long-term mechanism must, to the extent appropriate and practicable, prohibit incompatible uses. See also: 73 FR (“The goal of the rule is to ensure permanent protection of all compensatory mitigation project sites.”) 332.7(d)/230.97(d)(1): “The permit conditions or instrument must identify the party responsible for ownership and all long- term management of the compensatory mitigation project.” 332.7(d)/230.97(d)(2): The long-term management plan should “identify the funding mechanism that will be used to meet those [long-term management] needs. See also: 73 FR (necessary to demonstrate adequate funds for long- term management activities).

Implementation Reality: Who’s Watching? District officials told GAO in 2005: “…because of budget constraints, little time is spent on compliance activities, including following up on the submission of monitoring reports ….” “…the low priority accorded compliance inspections in the Corps’ guidance, as well as limited resources, contribute to their low level of oversight of compensatory mitigation.” Rule puts our aquatic resource eggs in the 3 rd party basket: “As more credits are generated by third- party mitigation providers, burdens on permittees should be reduced.” 73 FR

Mitigation Southwest Florida Style acre development site acres of jurisdictional wetlands (86%) wetland acres dredged or filled wetland acres remaining on-site are “preserved” and “enhanced” through removal of exotic vegetation. -- to be turned over to public land trust to be responsible for exotics removal and management long- term wetland acres “preserved” off-site and “enhanced” through exotics removal -- payment of $1.2 million to WMD mitigation fund for purchase of 154 acres in trust area off-site. -- purchase 8.7 credits Big Cypress Mitigation Bank

Forcing Watershed Analysis Beyond Consultants’ Reports Large-scale development in Cocohatchee Slough SW Florida areawide EIS includes watershed information, including flood storage, water quality, and endangered species habitat needs. Identifies Slough as high priority for restoration. Corps accepts project consultants’ project-by-project analysis re mitigation for these project impacts without critically examining the individual and combined impacts of these projects on a watershed scale.

Watershed, ecosystem-based science, cumulative impacts information and mapping Watershed, ecosystem-based science, cumulative impacts information and mapping Strong, binding legal framework, legal claims Strong, binding legal framework, legal claims Hydrological, ecological expertise supporting permit review, litigation. Hydrological, ecological expertise supporting permit review, litigation. Solid, sustained partnerships: local expertise, media, grassroots, watch-dogging. Solid, sustained partnerships: local expertise, media, grassroots, watch-dogging. Key Ingredients

Settlement Terms Deletes 18-hole golf course Shrinks footprint by 100 acres Reduces wetland impacts by 85 acres acres of short hydroperiod wetlands on-site Adds 85 acres of new preserve Re-establishes natural flowway via added western preserve acres SHP wetlands in Corkscrew foraging area

Maintenance/Improvement of Aquatic Resources Impact Avoidance Critical Thinking Scientifically Credible Functional Assessment Watershed-based Impact Assessment and Site Selection Ecological Performance Standards Diligent Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Long-term Site Protection and Management Public Involvement