Transcript Joint Army-EPA Mitigation Rule

Regulatory Program Updates





7/16/2015
Mitigation – Federal requirements increased
WRDA 214 – permanent authority remains our
common goal
Appeals – DE’s decisions under review
Regional Interagency agreement
Marci Cook will address sediment (SEF/RSET)
issues
1
New Mitigation Rule

Why it was Developed?




Mitigation practices varied among Districts
Interagency teams were not always decisive
Existing guidance was non-binding
What does it do?





Consolidates and clarifies prior ‘guidance’
Provides more mitigation opportunities for permittees
Levels the playing field among mitigation providers
Retains sequencing – avoid, minimize, compensate
Promotes consistency, predictability & accountability
7/16/2015
2
General Principles





Does not change when mitigation is required
Does change where and how
Self-sustaining aquatic resources to replace lost
functions in the watershed are achieved
Responsibility for mitigation transferred from
permittee to sponsors (banks/ILF)
Corps has the final decision on all:


7/16/2015
Approval of banks or ILF programs
Mitigation for Dept of Army permits
3
Mitigation Process

To create a new bank or In-Lieu Fee program





Sponsor submits prospectus to the Corps for
approval
Public Notice and comment process
Interagency review, w/dispute resolution process if
needed
Instrument is vetted and approved
Rule establishes timeframes for DE’s decisions
to approve mitigation sponsor Extensions to
timeframes may occur (e.g., ESA or Tribal
consultations)
7/16/2015
4
Mitigation Process…



Mitigation instruments in process today must be
approved by a Commander by July 9th or
sponsor needs to start over adhering to new
process
Corps approval is needed to release credits to
sponsors
Corps approval is needed to utilize credits for
meeting compensation requirements of DA
permits
7/16/2015
5
Benefits of the Mitigation Rule





Improved mitigation performance
Increased efficiency in instrument approval
process
Streamlines permit process thru preference for
existing approved mitigation sources
Strongly encourages watershed approach
Formalizes procedures and Federal policy for
mitigation (may differ from States)
7/16/2015
6
WRDA 214




Section 214 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 allows non-Federal
public entities to provide funds to expedite
permit processing
WRDA 2007 extended expiration to Dec 2009
Nationally 37 entities fund 48 positions in 15
Districts
Allows districts to be more responsive to all
customers
7/16/2015
7
WRDA 214

DEs are authorized to accept & expend funds
contributed by non-Federal public entities





Public Notice & comment process used
DE’s basis is compliant with the Act
Accountability of usage of these funds is tracked up to
the Army level
Several Ports have such agreements (Seattle,
Tacoma and Vancouver)
Permanent authority being sought by Army
7/16/2015
8
Port Issues


Administrative Appeals – 5 now in NWD
Port of Arlington has appealed permit denial by
Portland District




7/16/2015
NWD reviewing 14 reasons presented in the Request
For Appeal
Planning on conference this month
NWD Commander is decision-maker
Options are to remand to district or uphold
9
Interagency issues

Corps, EPA, Fish & Wildlife & NOAA Fisheries
met with PNWA in Oct 2007





Renewed commitment made verbally
Improving Sediment review process a priority
Making the new Mitigation and Jurisdictional
processes efficient and effective also a priority
Elevation of issues to region always an option
Next Steps



7/16/2015
Finalize revised agreement by July 2008
Organize working session on improving SEF
Continue the dialogue
10
Questions?



Regulatory Program Regional POC is Karen
Kochenbach, 503-808-3888 or
[email protected]
Mitigation - Regional Subject Matter Expert is
Ms. Corrie Veenstra at Portland District, 503808-4378
Check the Web for details at
www.nwd.usace.army.mil/et/reg/home
7/16/2015
11