The Evolution of Virginia’s Nontidal Wetlands Program National Governor’s Association State Wetlands Workshop October 21-22, 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Siskiyou County Land Development Manual 2006 Update Planning Commission Hearing Land Development Manual Update.
Advertisements

Legislative / Regulatory Update Jason D. Bostic West Virginia Coal Association March 30, 2010.
Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2009 H.R Becky Hammer – Associate Advocate, Water Program – Natural Resources Defense Council.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Regulatory Program.
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.
Planning for Our Future:
401 Water Quality Certification South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Shoreline Master Program Update. Shoreline Management Act approved by voters in the early 1970’s to: – Encourage water-dependent uses – Protect shoreline.
David K. Paylor Director, Department of Environmental Quality May 27, 2014 VEDP Lunch & Learn Environmental Permitting 101.
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.
THE PROPOSED WOUS DETAIL DEFINITION “A PRACTITIONER’S VIEW” Presented by: Richard W. Whiteside, PhD, CWB, CSE Corblu Ecology Group, LLC.
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.
Alachua County Wetland Protection Regulations Alachua County Board of County Commissioners October 22, 2013.
“Insert” then choose “Picture” – select your picture. Right click your picture and “Send to back”. The world’s leading sustainability consultancy Legislation.
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,
Compensatory Mitigation in Coastal Louisiana Keith Lovell, Administrator Office of Coastal Management Department of Natural Resources 10/03/121.
District Council Workshop
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
Module 15 Environmental Considerations Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
Sector Planning Process Alachua County Commission July 8 th,
BUILDING STRONG ® 1 Regional General Permit (RGP) 31 Interagency Meeting June 11, 2015.
SKAGIT COUNTY SHORELINE REGULATIONS Planning Commission Workshop April 3, 2012.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
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.
August 2,  404 Assumption Review  Project Schedule Review  Summary of Stakeholder Outreach Meetings  Status of Assumption Effort  Statutory.
1 Prepared by Les Knapp, Associate Director, MACo and Amanda Stakem Conn, Principal Counsel to MDP* for the Maryland State Bar Association,
Watercourse DPA District of North Vancouver Streamside DPA Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment: Streamside Areas Public.
1 CEQA and CEQA-Plus Presented by Cookie Hirn, Lisa Lee, and Michelle Jones Regional Programs Unit July 2008.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
APPLICATIONS OF WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS Module 22, part c – Applications.
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.
CHALLENGES TO AG LAW OUTREACH IN MARYLAND Paul Goeringer, Extension Legal Specialist & Economist Southern Ag. Economics Association Annual Meeting, Feb.
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.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
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.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY PROGRAM PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW (33 CFR Part 320) August 12, 2005.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service “Helping people help the land"
Is the Mid-Atlantic Region Water Rich? Presentation to 5 th Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Roundtable November 7, 2008 Joseph Hoffman, Executive Director.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Lisa Mangione Regulatory Division Los Angeles District January 14, 2016 USACE Regulatory Program Emergency.
PROJECT PLAN: The Nature Conservancy Corps of Engineers ICPRB Presentation Potomac Watershed Roundtable January 9, 2009.
Draft Stormwater Proposal Home Builders Association of Virginia Richmond, Virginia June 29, 2009.
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Presentation John M. Carlock, AICP Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning Hampton Roads.
Department of Environmental Quality Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) 2 Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Management Commission.
County-Wide Act 167 Plan “County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan for Chester County, PA” was prepared by: Chester County Water Resources Authority.
The Jordan Cove Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline and Terminal.
CALIFORNIA WATER ISSUES Survey of Wine Institute Advocacy Efforts Wine Institute Board of Directors Meeting – March 8, 2016 Tim Schmelzer, Director of.
The SWANCC Decision and 2001 WI Act 6 NGA State Wetland’s Workshop October 21, 2002 Michael Cain Staff Attorney- WI DNR.
GBLWMP-SLUP Integration Meeting February 4-5, 2010 Sahtu Land Use Planning Board.
State of Alaska Assumption of Section 404 program Michelle Bonnet Hale, Director, Division of Water Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Steven.
Chapter 15, Amended Article X Wetland Conservation Areas Presented by the Orange County Environmental Protection Division February 5, 2008 Presented by.
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
9th ANNUAL WETLANDS & WATERSHED WORKSHOP
Coal Mining Activities
Hudson Wetlands Protection Bylaw
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.
Wetland Mitigation.
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
9th ANNUAL WETLANDS & WATERSHED WORKSHOP
City of Lake Forest Park Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update
Presentation transcript:

The Evolution of Virginia’s Nontidal Wetlands Program National Governor’s Association State Wetlands Workshop October 21-22, 2002

IN THE BEGINNING………… …. THERE WAS CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION OF SECTION 404 PERMITS

PROGRESS IS MADE………….. §State Water Control Law in 1992 established Virginia Water Protection Permit Program §Still served only as Section 401 Program, so DEQ could issue permits only when the Corps took permit action §DEQ exercised ability to waive the requirement for a permit for many activities

Then Problems Arose…….. § Federal court decisions had created loopholes in federal jurisdiction, and hence Virginia’s jurisdiction l Tulloch l Wilson case (4th Circuit only-VA, NC, SC, WV) l SWANCC

What this meant for Virginia’s Wetlands § Virginia has approximately 1,044,900 acres of wetlands; 23% tidal, 77% nontidal 1 § About 58% of these wetlands are located in the Urban Crescent between D.C. to Norfolk § Of 804,573 acres of nontidal wetlands: l 750,000 acres are palustrine l 380,000 acres are headwaters l over 150,000 acres can be considered isolated 1 Based on 8/2000 data from Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Impacts from Tulloch Ditching § Estimates of greater than 588,000 acres of Virginia's nontidal wetlands were susceptible to ditching and draining § Over 2700 acres of nontidal wetlands in Virginia were actually ditched between 1997 and 2000 as a result of the Tulloch court decision

Impacts to Isolated Wetlands § Estimates of over 180,000 acres of isolated wetlands in Virginia § Over 70 acres of isolated wetlands filled without a permit or compensation between 1998 and 2000

General Assembly Takes Notice § CBF, SELC, JRA and others organized aggressive grass roots campaign and lobbying effort § Legislative committee studies the issue during the summer of 1999 § Wetland protection was the pre-eminent topic for the 2000 Session

General Assembly Takes Notice § Five bills introduced to enhance state nontidal wetlands programs to varying degrees §Some looking only for “fix” to Tulloch ditching and unpermitted impacts to isolated wetlands §Some proposed more comprehensive revisions to statute creating “nontidal wetlands law”

Bipartisan Effort § Final Bills (HB 1170 and SB648) enjoyed bipartisan support § Final Bills supported by Home Builders Association of Virginia and local development groups as well as Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other environmental groups §Bills also had public support through education and outreach efforts

2000 Legislation §Built on existing Virginia Water Protection Permit Program §Created nontidal wetlands program independent of Section 401 certification §Expedited permitting process through specific timeframes and general permits §Increased life of permits §Required DEQ by 7/1/02 to request State Programmatic General Permit from USACE

What is regulated? l All activities in surface waters/wetlands currently regulated under Section 404 Clean Water Act l Excavation in all wetlands (7/01/00) l Permanent flooding or impounding (10/01/01) l New activities to cause draining or other new activities, causing significant alteration or degradation of existing wetland acreage and function (10/01/01) l Filling or dumping (10/01/01)

What is exempt § Activities Exempt from VWP regulation: l Normal agricultural activities l Normal silvicultural activities l Normal residential lawn and yard maintenance and use activities l Isolated wetlands of minimal ecological value (<1/10 acre, not forested, no t&e or special community, not in floodplain)

FACTORS FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE §Must avoid and minimize wetland impacts to maximum extent practicable (incorporates 404(b)(1) guidelines) §Must consider cumulative impacts to water quality and fish and wildlife resources §Must compensate for wetland impacts to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage and function; stream impacts also to be compensated

Regulatory Process § Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) formed with 30 people representing varied constituencies § TAC charged with assisting DEQ staff in developing workable regulations § TAC met 8 times in 6 months § Nontidal wetland regulation and 4 general permits were developed

Compromises Made § More information required for permit applications, but as 2 stage process (for example, final mitigation plan can be approved after permit is issued based on concept plan) § Mitigation banks and in lieu fee funds are acceptable forms of compensation, but only after going through formal approval process §Easier to make minor changes after permit is issued, including small increases in impacts that are fully mitigated

General Permits for Majority of Projects §Generally cover impacts up to 2 acres of surface waters, including 500 l.f. perennial and 1500 l.f. intermittent streams §Standard conditions allow for simplified application and review §Reduced DEQ review time (max 45 days) §No public comment or hearings on projects §Certifications of Corps NWPs remain in effect to minimize program overlap

Implementation Results § Since July 2000, unpermitted Tulloch ditching has stopped in Virginia § One permit application to Tulloch ditch has been received § Since October 2001, unpermitted impacts to isolated wetlands have stopped

How We Permit Tulloch Ditching l Impact area is the ditch footprint plus adjacent area that is effectively drained l Full Compensation required for the entire impact area l This approach is an economic deterrent because fill footprint is often smaller than ditch impact footprint

How DEQ Regulates Isolated Wetlands § Part of “state waters” § Can waive requirement for permit for isolated wetlands of “minimal ecological value” (<1/10 acre, not forested, no t&e or special community, not in floodplain) §Corps will approve delineations, make isolated wetland determination, and note that for isolated wetlands applicant must seek permit from DEQ even if no Section 404 permit is required

Streamlining The State/Federal Process §Corps Norfolk District issued State Program General Permit (SPGP) for development and transportation impacts effective 11/1/02 §In Virginia, NWP 39 and nontidal portions of NWP 14 are suspended §Corps and DEQ have MOA on coordination of duties

How SPGP Works §SPGP is General Permit that feeds off of DEQ General Permits §Tiered approach to issuing permits: l Tier I: DEQ issues alone (1/2 acre and up to 300 l.f. stream bed for development projects; 1/3 acre per crossing for transportation projects) l Tier II: DEQ issues, Corps reviews and either issues or yields to DEQ permit (between 1/2 and 1 acre for development projects and up to 2,000 l.f. stream bed) l Tier III: DEQ issues GP or IP, Corps issues IP §For details go to Norfolk District website at:

Why it all worked §Successful lobbying effort and bipartisan support §Trade off between more comprehensive program and expedited permitting § Built on existing permit program to reduce “surprises” § Included requirement to work with Corps to reduce duplication of permitting efforts

Success of the Program -- Something For Everyone § Environmentalists -- protection of more wetland resources § Developers -- Quicker permitting, more certainty, less regulatory duplication § Regulators -- Clearer regulation, GPs minimize paperwork and give more time for compliance inspections and enforcement

Still Have Questions? Contact Ellen Gilinsky VWPP Program Manager or visit our website at