Event ID: 3165709
Event Started: 1/19/2017 11:05:20 AM ET
[Please stand by for realtime captions.]
Hello and welcome to today's conservation webinar I will be the moderator.. Hello and welcome to today's conservation webinar I will be the moderator my name is Matthew and senior ecologist at the Central national technology support Center in Fort Worth Texas. Today's webinar entitled planning for wetlands and Clean Water Act special environmental concerns in the fourth in the environmental evaluation series. This webinar will assist NCRS conservation planners partners and technical service providers to understand the ecological importance of wetlands and water in the United States to properly analyze and document existing conditions and the effects of planned commerce conservation practices and also to comply with environmental requirements. Primary topics include the leading foundations, information data sources, tools, mitigation measures, and documentation requirements including examples. We have several examples that we will go through towards the end of the presentation. Your presenters today are just -- Jason Outlaw copies the national acting wetland and compliance specialist. David Heffington, is the national water center and David also serves as the national liaison to the Army Corps of Engineers. And then myself, I'm with the Central national tech support Center.
Has Emily said we encourage you to ask questions by typing them into the notes box in the upper right-hand corner here at the AT&T screen and again, if you would, be sure to select all moderators and in addressing those notes so we can capture all the questions and Emily will be recording your questions and she will be reading those into the presentation.
The next slide up is topics, general topics that will be addressed. We're going to talk about the definition, we are going to define the requirements and key terms included in the NCRS wetland protection policy and Clean Water Act. We will discuss the purposes of the act and the policies what authorities apply to those how we will go to NCRS procedures, present information , data sources and tools for your use and evaluating these special inviting environmental concerns and we will talk about some of the there is mitigation measures that might be employed to minimize and reduce and avoid impacts and then we will end up with evaluation and have a document impact of plant conservation activities including examples. With that I would like to get started with part one and introduce to you Jason Outlaw.
Thank you Matthew. I'm going to be talking about wetlands and special environmental concerns. The national environmental policy act requires federal agencies to integrate environmental considerations as are making and specifically mentions wetland as a required consideration. Consideration of wetlands is required as part of the NRCS process and applies to all programs. This policy evaluates impact on the wetlands through consideration of NEPA requirements, Executive Order 11 990, the Clean Water Act and other federal, state, and tribal laws which may also provide protection of wetlands.
Executive Order 11 990 signed by former President Jimmy Carter directed federal agencies to minimize negative effects and preserve or enhance a beneficial functions of wetlands.
Other federal laws that apply are the Clean Water Act, which is covered as a separate environmental concern, in addition to this wetland protection policy and the wetland conservation provision of 1985 probably referred to as [Indiscernible].
The provision of the food security act it's important to understand that these provisions including exemptions such as converted cropland, apply to USDA program participants and their actions that do not apply to other federal plans. For example exemptions again part of converted cropland, artificial wetlands, converted wetland third-party, and manipulated wetlands such as form wetland and farm wetland pastures are exemptions of the defeat security act as they may retain some characteristics they are subject to this wetland protection policy.
In summary and additional examples the provision applies to a person's actions protection policy applies to federal agencies, under swap Buster wetlands are not exempt but the wetland protection policy applies to some artificial wetlands and we have to manipulated wetlands which are not exempt under the wetland protection policy and the Corps permit may be accepted as an exams exemption for swamp led by not automatically sufficient for wetland protection policy.
A note on artificial wetlands. Artificial wetlands are subject to this policy unless the hydrology is present through irrigation or leakage from storage structures. And it's important to remember that artificial wetlands by definition exist where there were no natural wetlands previously.
So what is a wetland? It this it's defined by this policy as an area that has hydric soil, hydrophilic vegetation and indicators of wetland hydrology. Appropriate wetland identification methods should be used based on the scope and intensity of proposed actions. For example wetland for areawide planning for projects could be different than smaller project scopes.
The approved method by policy are the wetland of the United States circular 39, the classification of wetlands, the Corps of engineer wetland delineation manual and the food security act wetland identification procedures circular sick.
What is it that were actually doing? The general manual policy is that we will consider protection of wetland functions to the maximum extent practicable when implementing planning and program activities, including when providing technical and financial assistance.
And we do this by conducting an environmental evaluation. Environmental evaluation finds that wetlands will be affected, as an overview of the following mitigation sequencing is followed. Avoidance, minimum minimize nation and compensation. Again the nuts and bolts of this process is really completion of the wetlands guide sheet and documentation of findings on the national environmental evaluation CPA-52 form.
Step one in the guide sheet is determining if there are wetlands present in or near the planning area. How do we complete step one? For step one a wetland inventory should be sufficient.
A wetland inventory primarily uses off-site tools to identify areas that potentially could be wetlands. This is an example that's more of a formal wetland inventory, there may be other things including hands-on maps or notes on USDA GS topo maps that could also be sufficient. As a reminder we should not be putting the food security act labels such as converted cropland or farmed wetland on these maps as they don't apply to our wetland protection policy and may cause confusion to a land owner.
Some of the wetland inventory tools that we use our soil mapping, national wetland inventory maps, various soil survey reports, USDA topo quads as well as other solar survey such as ecological sites descriptions, aerial imagery interpretation and there can always be field invest cash investigation.
Just to go through some of the tools of course we have the soil survey mapping of hydric maps. The soil survey and the hydric soils list that now can be accessed which includes all components of both hydric and non-hydric. Hydrology or saturation long enough of to develop an anaerobic conditions, tools include soil surveys, photo interpretation, land owner knowledge etc. and wetlands do not always look wet, that's important to know.
An example of a water features reports that gives water depth by month as well as ponding and frequency. And USGS topo maps. There used to evaluate landscape editions of sober looking for things like water receiving landscape positions or if it is colored blue on the topo map.
And of course areal photo imagery which may show saturation and aerial that are formed around at the time of planting. And also the national wetland inventory maps they give an indication of vegetation.
So a soil survey report such as ecological sites for plant community makeup and again of course in some cases a field investigation or a verification may be needed. Again we take all of these data and together create a wetland inventory. Primarily this is used by the use of off-site tools. Tech notes could also be sufficient especially if there is no wetlands located in the project area and again by hand-drawn map could be sufficient with wetlands or potential wetlands identified.
Once you have identified the wetlands or potential wetlands, we begin to go through the guide sheet. Which asks in step two will the actions impact any wetland areas? So we come here already identifying that there are wetland areas near the project area. If yes, to step two we assessed wetland functions, describe the effects on the CPA-52 , and if the effects are solely beneficial we continue with the planning process. If we say yes to step two a more detailed web wetland identification and functions will be required. If there are adverse effects identified we go to step three which is avoidance. Basically avoidance the first step in a mitigation sequencing process says that if practicable alternatives exist that avoid adverse impacts, the client must choose the alternative or NRCS will terminate all assistance. If there are no practical alternatives, we continue to step four which is minimization. The minimization steps said that if measures exist that minimize adverse effects to wetlands, the client must choose to implement those measures or NRCS will terminate assistance. If no minimization measures or opportunities exist we continue to step five. Which is compensation. Compensation says that if the client wishes to pursue an option that will result in adverse impacts, compensation for those wetland acres and functions is required. We may assist the client in the development of a mitigation plan and as a note the willingness to provide compensation does not relieve the avoidance or minimization requirements.
Is important to note that we can't basically just skip down to compensation.
Again in review, a mitigation sequencing if the evaluation finds that wetlands will be affected, the sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation follows. In review our wetland protection policy directs us to protect and promote wetland functions and values in all technical and financial assistance. The wetland conservation provisions do not apply to agency actions. And a wetland inventory is usually sufficient for identifying wetland subject to the protection policy.
This is David Heffington and I'm going to cover Clean Water Act special environmental concerns. We are going to try to provide an overview that the Clean Water Act requirements and helping our NRCS personnel know when they need a Clean Water Act permit and we also encourage in close and early coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies in your area.
The Clean Water Act started off as the Federal water pollution control act in 1972. The purpose of the act are to restore and contain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Our related policy one is the department regulation 9500 007 in which states were to ensure the actions and programs conform with state nonpoint source water quality plans. We also have general manual for 60 part 401 that says that we will direct assistance towards prevention and correction of agricultural or nonpoint source water quality problems and that we will develop conservation plans that minimize pollution problems.
And of course Jason also talked about the wetland protection policy which is also related. There are several different sections to the Clean Water Act. Our focus today's going to be primarily on these that affect NRCS section 404, Clean Water Act, for dredge and fill permits. This is administered by the core in order to give a full permit it has to be some type of section 401 certification from the state. That goes along with that permit, section 303 is where we get our total maximum daily load and water discussion and requirements and then 402 of course is the national pollutant discharge elimination system., NPDES And that's administered by the state as well. The primary focus is going to be on section 404 the Clean Water Act because it's the one that affects us the most and affects our clients and basically it talks about the discharge dredge or fill materials into water of the United States all the sections have to do with different types of pollutants and this one focuses on the discharge of dredged or fill material. The first thing we're going to talk about is what is the water in United States.
This is really simple. This is much litigated and has been from the very beginning and very difficult thing to describe. The Clean Water Act uses the terms waters and what is in United States and navigable waters and when they got to the program they were basically looking at those traditionally navigable waters and then the court case and that's how most of these things came about is through court cases saying you need to regulate more, you need to regulate less and so the jurisdictions have expanded and pulled back several times through numerous court cases. The ones that you guys are going to primarily be concerned about are the ones in red, it's all interested waters, this includes lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, Playas, mud flats, that could affect this interstate commerce and tributaries for those jurisdictions that were described and impoundments of jurisdictional waters. And then wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters. That sounds pretty broad and it is. As I said this has been litigated quite a bit. Two recent items that have been or court cases that affected jurisdictions is the SWANCC decision in 2001 that affected isolated waters probably most know now that there are some waters that are isolated or just not take jurisdiction over and that was because of the decision that talked about the migratory bird and that migratory bird is not sufficient to claim interstate commerce through the commerce clause so they pulled that back a little bit and now they have to show a better connections. And the other one that you will hear about often is Rapanos and that was in 2006 and this was quite interesting court case and the Supreme Court justices agreed in principle but they had three different opinions so that's why the guidance in 2000 weight 2008 is so complicated because there were three differing opinions, they agreed but they didn't agree on why they agreed if that makes sense pick
Waters in the United States come in different shapes and sizes and some of them we can look at and see and it's sometimes easier to define what is not a water in United States. So what we have wastewater treatment systems are not water in the United States and prior converted crop land it's not are not waters in United States if they are not abandoned or there is a change in use that made take jurisdiction over and is no longer an agricultural use. The discharges from waste treatment systems are usually regulated under section 402.
Geographic features generally not considered jurisdictional waters are swales, erosional features such as gullies and small washes characterized by low-volume infrequent and a short duration flow and farm ponds that are dug in opulence that don't have a water in United States coming into not considered waters in United States. Ditches and we have to be really careful here because what we call a ditch in NRCS is sometimes a channelized stream or replaces a stream, those areas are not eras that the core is talking about when we say they're not waters. They're talking about those roadside ditches or bitches that are excavated entirely in opulence and draining upwards and they don't carry permanent flow.
Uplands are not waters and this last one where were saying waters lacking a significant nexus where one is required and core EPA to guidance and that is the core determination they determine whether or not there is a significant nexus. So we have some examples here of things that are not waters in the United States.
Here is a drainage and the question is this a water of the United States? Is this a waters of the United States? This looks like pretty much and erosional feature but one thing at the core we are looking at in both of these streams they will be looking to see if they if there was a high water mark and that's defined as a mark on the sure that where you can see the structure of the water and so forth. The answers to both of these questions is that only the core or EPA can make those determinations. We don't make those determinations. We would encourage them to work very closely with your local core district and to get them out of the field and have them look at some of these areas and go from there. But that is a determination made by the Corps of Engineers.
This brings us to the second part of the question. Let's say you do have a waters of the United States on the properties or possibly waters of the United States, is there going to be a discharge dredge or fill material that C4 04 trigger we talked about earlier so we need to define what a discharge is? So bank stabilization, this is considered discharge dredge material and that's occurring these -- below the high water mark and there would be a discharge into the waters of the United States. Recognized land clearing, they're moving dirt around, I would say this is a wetland area and this involves a discharge and a permit. Land clearing, I would say this is farmland on the left and that will be a discharge as well and or control structures even though it's not rock or dirt or things that you would normally associate with being fill material, anything that takes the place of fill materials, like a water control structure, a stop log structure, that's considered fill and would require a permanent.
This is what your CPA 52 clean water guide sheet looks like an section 1 is basically asking you these two questions that we just covered. Potential waters of the United States and if so could the proposed work involved discharge or dredged or fill materials? If were not doing anything in the waters of the United States, your clients does not need a permit to do that but if you are going to discharge materials they would. Step one asks that very question. If you can answer no to either one of those, there is not any waters or there is not any discharge, just mark no and proceed. Or section the state implemented parts of the Clean Water Act. If you click yes, you go to step two. And step two is going to ask you if the activities are possibly exempt from the Clean Water Act and there is certain agricultural activities that by law have been exempted from the Clean Water Act and that's for ongoing agricultural and ranching activities. There is exemptions for farm ponds, stock ponds, irrigation ditches, and the maintenance of drainage ditches and the exemptions also apply to construction are farm roads forest and temporary mining roads. That sounds real promising until you read a little further in the law and we come to the recapture clause. Which basically says if you're going to bring the water of the United States you're going to change the use or and you're going to impair the flow and circulation and reduce the reach of those waters, you are not exempt. So that kind of impact many things that might have been exempted because there recaptured by this provision. In section 404 F2 of the law.
For example the permit may be required for a discharge of dredged materials related to construction of a farm pond, we just that farm ponds are exempt. Well, if you're building them on the waters of the United States this going to impact the flow and it's going to change the use, many districts are going to tell you that that is not exempt. Also if you are converting a wetland from one used to another there is a change in use and in this example we're going firm silvicultural to agricultural and most likely changing the flow, that would also be recaptured and require a permit. And then irrigation ditch which is exempt normally if the cuts through or across as a natural or man altered water body that would also be recaptured by this provision. When we talk about man altered water body that could be let's say years ago there was a small stream that went through the middle of a farmer's property and alluded to the edge of the property even though he's digging a ditch basically, what we would call a ditch, he's actually replacing it with the waters of the United States and that replacement becomes waters of the United States so it exempt activities often recaptured include stock ponds, farm, farm roads, sediment control structures. Some districts and states have agreements and we encourage this in fact, we are working on a memorandum of addendum to encourage state district level agreements to identify when these activities are going to or can possibly be exempted under what conditions they are exempt for instance I know one district has an agreement on stock ponds, and the agreement says if it's less than this size and on this type of water, they would consider that exempt.
Back to our clean water guide sheet. The question on step two is the activity at exempt? And number three can the discharges into waters be avoided? A note there says is the activity exempt from section 404 regulation. If you do believe that you have an exemption call you should get that verified with your local core district. Like I said that's not our determination, that Steve Corps of Engineers. If you say no, it's going to take you to permit section where we are going to get a permit, if you click yes you're done with that particular section. Step three is can the action be modified to avoid the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States? Can you avoid the discharge or can you avoid the waters? If you can, you would need a permit. You wouldn't need a permit pic if no, you're going to go to step four. Step four is actually going to take you to the permit. Let's say we click or remark no we're going to need a permit. So there is basically three types of permits nationwide permits, regional general permits and standard permits. Nationwide permits and general permits are lumped under general permits but usually he just here does to terms and general permits. Nationwide permits are really nice in that they they are quick, well, sometimes they take longer but most of them even if they require notification, which we will talk about in a minute, it can be done within 45 days. We will go through some of these in a minute but basically there is 50 but these are a few that apply mostly for to our agricultural areas and we will go through these. Always read the fine print. As we go through these cover member that districts may have special conditions that's different from the district next to it. There is water quality certification, which you mentioned earlier, conditions that are [Indiscernible] sometimes so we can't just look at the nationwide permit in the federal registry and say okay, I can say I can do this. You need to be familiar with your local districts and local special conditions that might be added. There is also preconstruction notifications on many of these nationwide permits and that is where the client has to submit the location sometimes a location and a wetland determination and discussion of what the impact will be and then may have the ones that require reporting. Reporting just means that you basically they send in a notice that their operating under one of these nationwide permits. Three is maintenance of the structure, this is really handy and it's used pretty broadly. It covers repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of previous he authorized and currently serviceable structures or sales. There are limits to how much you can impact and PCN is required for sediment removal. But it's not required for these other actions. Nationwide permit 13 bank stabilization projects that again need to check with your local core district but here are the requirements on that. If it's limited to 500 linear feet but you cannot get permission to go further than that other does nationwide and you do that by preconstruction certification.
This is permit number 23 which we are currently working with the Corps headquarters to get the NRCS categorical excluded other NEPA be issued a few years ago 21 new categorical exclusions that we don't have to do further NEPA compliance on . This nationwide permit once we get it approved it will also cover off for the Clean Water Act permit or the Clean Water Act permit. We're not getting these permits, if the responsibility of the client and the way it's proposed right now is that there will be a 30 day which is 15 days better than the PCN but we would submit or declined with submit to the core project plan the location map and the CPA 52. Remember we are not allowed to give that type of information out without permission from the landowner. You can give it to the land owner and he can send it in or you can get permission from the land owner to send it to the core. Nationwide permit number 27 this is the one that most of our WRT projects are covered under their specifically mentioned in this nationwide permit NRCS project there is a written agreement with the land owner and its pretty handy. Again, not all districts apply this particular nationwide permit so again check with your local corps district .
Our and WP NWP program there is one specific and also the requirements are different and what you want to do is [Indiscernible] check with your local district. Nationwide permit number 40 is for agricultural activities in size impacted and are up to 300 linear feet of streamed bed. We are showing a picture of levee construction and great control, free construction notification is required for this nationwide permit. Before you can proceed you have to before the client can proceed he has to get that PCNN and the corps has 45 days to respond.
Nationwide permit number 41 covers reshaping existing drainage ditches. If it's over 500 feet, linear feet, it is a PCN required. Not all the nationwide permits are valid in all districts and state as a reminder and they have special conditions that reduce the up likability. One thing we have talked about his mitigation can be required associate it with the nationwide permits. NRCS does not make the Clean Water Act determinations. The land owner is responsible.
That brings us to regional general permits and these are developed by the core district and many districts have general permits that are specifically for agricultural activities. Here is an example of in Iowa the regional general permit 34 covers CREP, WREP AND CRP structures.
If your activity will not support a client activity will not fit in one of the nationwide permit or under the regional general permit, the individual permit is required and takes substantially longer and there is a public notice involved and they're going to contact all the agencies and give the public a chance to comment on it. And it does take it says up to 120 days, he tends it takes longer than that.
Getting back to the Clean Water Act guide sheet, the question here is has the client obtained a 404 permit or does he have an exemption determination from the corps? If he does not have an exemption for the permit, he will need to do that and we will continue planning but the permit is required prior to implementation. If he does have the permit are ready, our final plan should not be contrary to the provisions of the permit authorization or exemption. Changes made during the planning process that may impact the up likability of the permit should be coordinated with the corps. And that kind of concludes our four sections. I'm sure there will be plenty of questions on that. But we want to move on to the Clean Water Act section 303 d and basically this is your total maximum daily load section of the Clean Water Act, it authorizes tribes and states there actually required to develop a list of impaired waters that do not meet water quality standards. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop total maximum daily load for these waters. So how do you know whether a stream is TMDL? The TMDL data should be located in section 3 of your field office technical guide, here is an example from Oklahoma. You can see the stream here, this section of the stream is a 303 d stream and here is the information on that stream. Right here it says that the cold Springs Creek there is 33 miles that are impaired and then we have the key you guys cannot see the key but it's impaired, 322 is dissolved options so there is a deal problem and that stream and potential sources 140, and 156. 140 is unknown, 156 is agriculture.
On your Clean Water Act guide sheet for the question is is a project near a 303 d listed impaired water? If no, you documents that and if yes, you need to ensure consistency with the existing water quality or associated watershed action plans that have been established by the state for that stream segment. If the TMDL have not been established by the state for that stream segment, ensure that the action will not contribute to further degradation of that stream segment and then we document that.
That brings us to section 4042 402 the NPD process and that controls the water pollution by regulating current sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States. These sources can include wastewater discharges, and all the things that we have listed here highlighted in red, those are the ones that apply to us and of course we have construction related storm water runoff, we also have concentrated animal feeding operations. Those require a NPDES permit.
On the guide sheet the question is could there be a NPDES discharge? Will the proposed action alternative likely result in point source discharges from developments, construction sites, or other areas of soil disturbance including concentrated animal feeding operations for which a conference of nutrient management plan has been developed? If no, you're pretty much done and you can documents that. If yes, you go to step three. Step three the question is has the client obtained the NPDES permit? If no, then you need to get one or continued planning process in consultation with the client and it has to be reflected in the final plan. If yes, you document that in the plan should not be contrary to the provisions of the permit authorization.
To wrap up only be Corps and EPA can make waters of the United States determination pick we try to give you some information today to help you know when to contact them the Corps makes the final determination on whether an activity is exempt from 404 or whatever those exemptions and the possibility of exemptions also the national general permits. NRCS technical and financial systems shall conform to the TMDL.
With that, I will gladly pass control back to Matthew.
And you should now be able to view part three documenting the CPA-52 environmental evaluation worksheet.
On the worksheet on page 3 you can see we have environmental concerns listed, I'm not sure that the print this big enough for those of you that aren't familiar with the form to read it that I have circled but I have circled the second from the top one and the second from the bottom are the two of today's -- subject of today's webinar. We also review for coastal zone management, there's a whole list of other concerns required by law and regulation and policy. These are two of those that get specific attention on our CPA-52 evaluation form. The first example that we're going to look at is have to do with artificial wetland in this particular example is a farm pond that is built on a upland non-hydric soil. We are going to go through each one of these and where we are going to indicate under which provisions that action is required. For artificial wetlands build on a non-hydric soil we determined that slump Buster does not apply. We have determined that the Clean Water Act or waters of the US are not present or nor do they apply. But the wetland protection policy in the Corps wetland protection policy does apply to artificial wetlands that are built on non-hydric soils. How do we address this in our CPA 52? This form for those of you that are not familiar, I have chopped and combined the appropriate pieces of the form for instance you can see that each of these blocks is alphabetically coded and there are several and we jump from E to H and H to I we are leaving out consideration of all the other environmental concerns plus the soil water air plant and animal concerns that we normally address through our conservation front office. You folks attending from the Corps today, may want to refer back to our CPA-52 that's available from the national website if you're interested in that we can make that available to you. For this scenario we are dealing with the client Bill Smith and you can see the plant ID information is reported on the CPA-52. As part of the planning process we established a client objectives and in this case it must establish a cow calf grazing operation on the side where this artificial wetland exists. And the need for action identified was the need to provide a liable supply of quality water so he can water is livestock. The next step in this process is to do our resources assessment which includes again the soil water air plant animal and human and energy resource concerns as well as a special environmental concerns. For this example we have determined that there are no waters of the US present and that was a concurred determination with the local Corps district and we also determined that we got .6 acres of artificial wetlands with a functioning condition of 0.4. Now each state develops their own functional assessment methods and it's up to the state conservationist to the side how in-depth that is. In some places it's a full-blown HDMI in other places it's an abbreviation or more shortcut it methodology. This is how we rate the functionality of that wetland in terms of physical chemical biological hydrologic functions etc. If you can see once we determined that waters of the US are not present, we basically have completed our scoping for that special environmental concern and we address all of the special environmental concerns indicating whether they are present or not present. If they are present we indicate the extent. In this case we're just looking at the Clean Water Act and wetlands and want to have scoped this out of our range of relevancy for the planning effort than we are basically done with it at that point. We have established it doesn't exist or there's no reason to analyze it further. In this case we have identified wetlands, these artificial wetlands that we are required to advance our stash under our wetland protection policy. The next step in the process would be to identify alternatives that would be considered by the landowner to implement to number one, objectives, identified needs and to conform with NRCS environmental policy requirements. In this case we have the no action which typically how we arrive at the no action is to simply ask the producer what course of action would you take without NRCS assistance. In this example the client recognized that he would just try to water the livestock from the existing pond in the existing conditions. So then we work with him to develop some reasonable alternatives, alternative one was to renovate existing pond by applying practice code 758 inches structure sediment removal so basically would go into that structure either pump it down and get equipment in their and remove completely remove the sediment. And then the third alternative identified in this example was to install a livestock pipeline potentially through an embankment that would be a watering facility for those cows so it would be off-site so to speak watering. When we evaluate the impacts on the special environmental concerns we see here that watering livestock from existing pond what ad to the degradation of the existing conditions of the wetland and drive it down to functioning conditions of 0.2 so we are making it worse by watering those livestock in the existing pond. Under the alternative one where we are totally removing all sediments and renovating the structure we would take the wetland function down to zero. In that case as Jason mentioned through the mitigation sequencing problems to avoid minimized and [Indiscernible] mitigation Center going from a 0.4 functioning condition to a zero functioning condition mitigation would be required to carry out that alternative. That's indicated by the red x and it needs further action so that would have to be identified and plan for it as well. In the alternative number two to install the pipeline in the watering facility we basically would have a minimal effect on the existing wetland and mainly through temporary construction and placement of pipes and it was determined that the functioning conditions of that wetland would remain at its present level.
As we go further down into the CPA-52 evaluation we have a section K that have left I have left the alternative section up your for your reference. In section K we talk about or record whether any consultation or permits or easements or anything of that nature including public reviews required. Here I just noted that we consulted with the core as to verify the status of the waters of the US and then under alternative one we did identify mitigation and on this particular example we identified that 1.2 acres of compensatory mitigation had a functioning condition level of .4 would be required. This is how we would evaluate the impact under this scenario. In the next scenario we have again an artificial wetland and this one is irrigation induced and you can see this irrigation canal on the north side of the green wetland map area and this is an image taking from somewhere around Boulder, Colorado and this is a irrigation ditch that was constructed the told slope and it delivers irrigation water to nearby croplands but you can also see that the irrigation ditch leaks fairly severely and has created wetlands down the slope of the irrigation ditch so again here we asked the question is it regulated by slump buster, in this case it is not. Is it regulated by the Clean Water Act? Well, there is a question about that so regard to visit with the Koran that and then is it regulated by NRCS water protection policy and if it's an artificial wetland solely due to irrigation leakage, we do not require consideration of that in our wetland protection policy.. Again we are filling out the CPA-52 in this case we listed with the core, it's generally not regulated, it's the water of the United States and the check at our local core district and confirm that then we also document that it's not wetlands are not present that are regulated under the wetland protection policy. Again we scoped these two concerns out of the regulation and we move on to more important concerns.
The next scenario is a prior converted crop land in this situation the trees and stump said been removed and has not been otherwise drained. And it is currently being formed. So we asked the question does this apply to slump busters? The answer is no, it's exempt from swamp but busters, exempt from the Clean Water Act and but it is subject to regulations under the wetland protection policy so how do we deal with this situation? This situation the land owner objective is to increase the crop yield and the identified need for action is to reduce the excess moisture in that particular field so the need to reduce excess moisture we identified for the Clean Water Act and it's a prior converted crop land and not jurisdictional under our wetland protection policy we identified 3 acres of wetland with a functioning condition index of 0.5. The plant alternatives the client plans to install patterns drain system in the field and the results of that would be a fully trained wetland reducing the functioning conditions index from 0.520. The NRCS plant conservation practices would include a structure for water control and drainage water management and basically what would happen here is that we would regulate the water coming off of the field and maintain a hydraulic the hydrology for at least some portion typically the land owner would hold that water on the field until before planting season and then he would pull the stop logs and let that dry out so he can get his crop in. The results of that would be a reduction in the hydrologic function by 50% to a functioning condition index of 0.3. So we are were not in the no action alternative we are losing all function and with the NRCS conservation practices we are at least maintaining some of that function so we minimize the impact. And there are no easements or permits required for this action since is not the waters of the US and the mitigation applied here was to reduce the impact of the clients proposed alternatives.
The last example I have for you today is a prior converted crop land that has been abandoned for more than five years, these are two different examples of what that might look like. If we look at the slump buster requirements it's not regulated by slump busters if it's been determined via a PC, a practical crop land. Under the Clean Water Act it is regulated because it's been abandoned for five years or more and under our wetland protection policy it is also regulated. Here we have Bill Smith's farm and his objective is to return this land to crop production. And the identified need is to remove the vegetation. We have identified 64 acres of water of the United States exist and 64 acres of wetland at a functioning condition index of .5. The alternatives evaluated here the no act alternative what with the producer do without NRCS assistance and the producer in this example indicated that he would clear the entire field and basically the effect of that would be a loss of all 65 acres of water in the US as it would be converted to crop land. We noted here that the additional action is identified in that action is that a permit would be required to conduct such an action. Under our wetland protection policy the 64 acres of wetland would be converted to crop land reducing the functioning conditions to zero. We are loosing all functionality on 30 no action alternative. Under the NRCS alternative we are implementing to practices. One is wetland restoration and the other one is wetland enhancement. So the impacts of the -- on the waters of the US would be that we have minimized the impact by only converting 44 acres of water in the US and providing restoration and enhancement on 20 acres so basically the idea is have never giving up some marginal quality waters but then we are saving some and converting those into high-quality wetlands. That's indicated here under the impacts for wetlands, we have 64 acres actually that should be 44 acres converted to crop land and then 20 acres the condition is improved from a 0.5 from a 0.52 8.5. And this exec this index is on a scale 85% functionality. We know here under the permit section of the CPA-52 that a 404 permit is required under either alternatives, either the no action alternative and alternative one and then under mitigation we are recording here that compared to the no action alternative we have reduced or minimized the impact to the existing wetlands. So just to kind of wrap all this up and I know there are several questions I want to remind everybody that if you do have a question please submitted through the notes and address it to all moderators but what we talked about today are some definitions about waters of the United States and in some of the court cases that have impact the bad and let's just leave it to say that it's a very complicated different district, will take jurisdiction over different waters so the easiest thing for NRCS is to let the court do their job and let them decide what are the waters of the United States within their district. We talked about purposes and the purpose is the primary driving purposes of the NRCS is policy or minimize adverse effects and to address nonpoint source pollution's pick and wetland and waters of the United States. We talked a little bit about authorities, Clean Water Act authority call we talked about Executive Order 11 990, policy and procedures, we talked about mitigation sequencing, the avoidance that minimization, the compensation different forms of mitigation and we also talked about permits, about nationwide permits, regional general permit an individual permit. Jason did a really nice job of providing some information and data sources and some of the tools that can be used to help identify wetlands such as soil survey, interpretation, and here with the land owner and USGS topo maps there are others we talked about mitigation measures and one of the points I really want to make is and make sure it's crystal clear is that even when there is a Corps permit required, NRCS should not necessarily rely on the requirement that permit to satisfy our own mitigation requirements. It may do that but it may not. We need to double check and make sure that our mitigation plan and our conservation plans stands on its own and meets our mitigation requirements and that we are not relying on the core to provide those mitigation requirements for us. That's our responsibility. And then the final comment I have a review here is that it's a land owner's responsibility to obtain the core permit and we can provide that information to our clientele but we cannot release personally identifiable information or information from the conservation plan to any other federal agency so that is their job and we can help them do that.
With that I would like to invite Emily to read back any questions that we might have received and then this final flight is contact information for the various presenters today and we have Andre also on the line to take questions, she's our national environmental coordinator in Washington DC so if you think of questions that come up later on, feel free to contact Jason, David, myself or Andre and we will do the best to answer does. With that I will turned back over to Emily.
Once again if you would like to ask a question call you can type a note to all moderators. We have a number of questions come in. There were several questions about whether the slides will be available after the webinar.
Yes. The slides will be available on the conservation webinar.net page that contains the playback of this webinar. We generally attached PowerPoint slides to that same page. It's usually about one week before we get the recording back from AT&T and get it posted to that site so if you will give us a week or so to do that, all the materials will accompany that replay.
We have another question, does EO 1190 apply to federally owned land?
Andre, do you want to take that one?
Basically by policy I recognize that there is language in there talking about private lands but we basically adopted by policy so we are applying it to our actions on private lands.
If you are ready for the next question, is there a standard definition of types of materials which are considered to be filled by the DOE or does it very by region and we struggle with stream and wetlands enhancement project where we are installing Woody installing large wood load high watermarks or fish passage where we are installing a large [ NULL ].
I will take that question. This is David. There is a definition on dredge and fill materials you can find that in the Corps or if you just Google definition for dredge fill materials. It covers about everything. And also things that take the place of fill materials. Again, always check with your local court district Corps district and also the Woody debris that may or may not be considered fill material, it just depends but normally there's also a question about a bridge. If there is no placement of dredger fill material below the ordinary high water mark a permit is not required. Even when you're putting in a Colbert, there's usually going to be a discharge associated with that.
When the client submits a TC into the Corps today generally specify what nationwide permit they are requesting?
Yes, they should.
This is Matthew. I think I got a message from Andre is there was a gray box on the screen. So you can see the contact information.
Not anymore.
Thank you.
Here we go. Does EPA or ACOE have a timeless time limit on their jurisdictional notification?
Generally it's five years.
In the past Emily would COV in Florida we have the period of five years required to avoid exemptions for PC. If this provision being addressed in the upcoming memorandum of addendum and if so what criteria is is being used to determine abandonment?
It's my understanding that the five-year abandonment definition is still being used by the Corps. I don't know of any efforts or movement towards having that changed. I'm not aware of it. The course still is looking at if there is five years has passed than it has not been farmed, it is considered abandoned and Matthew covered that in one of his examples.
In the past sorry, that's the same question. Does the NRCS staff have any obligation to notify the COV of any potential CW a violation?
I can answer that question. I would say no, we don't have an obligation and and it's not good for business. And I'm also -- nevermind, that's the bottom line. With that question. We are not obligated to notify the Corps . We were I believe David may want to comment on this but I believe we were other previous MOA but that MOA has been vacated.
Any thoughts on that, Dave?
In 2005 they helped to vacate that if you're talking about the MOU there was a guidance in 2005 said that we work together with Corps on violations but if you're driving nine the road and you see a violation, Matthew answered that.
[Event has exceeded scheduled time. Captioner must proceed to next scheduled event. Disconnecting at 10:42 a.m. CT]
[Event concluded]