How Do We Address Mitigation for Maintenance Dredge Permitting? A Case Study Dredging 2012, San Diego, CA October 22-25, 2012 Randi Wexler, Principal October 24, 2012

Case Study 10-year Maintenance Dredging Permit —Existing permits expired —Dredge prism unchanged —3.1 million cyd/10 years —In-water work windows —Conservation measures —Flow lane disposal 1

Questions Raised How can a conversation be initiated about science- based mitigation projects to support the permitting process? —Is there a need to decouple the permitting process from selecting and implementing mitigation projects? Can the agencies be more consistent about when and what types of mitigation will be required in a maintenance dredging context? 2

Process and Time Line Suitability Determination Completed Pre-application Meeting Submit Documents —Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application —State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Checklist —Shoreline Assessment Review —Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 3

Regional Setting Listed Species —Six salmonids —One species smelt —One species sturgeon —Steller sea lion Three other simultaneous permit processes Equipment availability Dredge window – October 1 to December 15 4

5 Dredge Window October 1 – December 15 Extended to December 31 A Race Against the Clock November 2010 Pre-application meeting February 2011 Application submittal

USACE Review and Response USACE: What mitigation is proposed for loss of benthic habitat? Client Response: Natural recovery —Recolonization expected to occur over a few to several months Consultation: Neither client nor USACE could identify a clear mitigation approach for addressing temporary benthic impacts 6

NMFS Review and Response Funding a study to determine the effectiveness of benthic invertebrate/assemblage colonization from adjacent areas that are also undergoing chronic, repetitive disturbance Funding a nearby fish recovery board project Buying equivalent discounted ecological service- acre-years (DSAYs) from Conservation Bank Removing derelict creosote-treated piles in project area 7

Mitigation Plan Proposed mitigation —Remove derelict creosote-treated piles —Remove abandoned dock structure Prepared mitigation plan 8

Process and Time Line Additional Review by USACE —Revisions to the 401 WQC —Acceptance of proposed mitigation Permit Issued —December 21, November 2010 Pre-application meeting February 2011 Application submittal June 2011 Memorandum for the Record July 2011 Public notice closes September 2011 Information request re: mitigation Early October 2011 Agencies accept mitigation plan; notification to submit written mitigation plan Late October 2011 Mitigation plan submitted December 2011 Permits issued Dredge Window October 1 – December 15 Extended to December 31

Lessons Learned Mitigation becoming common Lack of written criteria —When mitigation required —What mitigation required Lack of approach for assessment of cumulative impacts Lack of path to substantive ecological improvement Know what neighbors are proposing 10

Questions Raised How can a conversation be initiated about science- based mitigation projects to support the permitting process? —Is there a need to decouple the permitting process from selecting and implementing mitigation projects? Can the agencies be more consistent about when and what types of mitigation will be required in a maintenance dredging context? 11