Permit Streamlining Work Plan
Attachment A
Compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act , Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
and Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code are the main components of the permit
streamlining process, and measures for protection of resources regulated under Section 404 and
Section 1601 need to be included in the Planning Document. In addition, all projects will need to
comply with local (city and county) grading, drainage, and creek protection codes and ordinances.
In order to issue a permit, the Corps must weigh the need to protect aquatic resources against the
benefits of the proposed project. Adopted Corps policy requires applicants to avoid impacts to
wetlands and other U. S. waters to the maximum extent practicable, then minimize the remaining
impacts, and finally take measures to compensate or mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Formal
consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act will also be required (Note: a key to the
acronyms used in this attachment are presented at the end).
Section 404 Compliance
There are four main approaches available to integrating Section 404 compliance with the project:
1) a Long-Term Individual Permit, 2) Regional General Permit (RGP), 3) Programmatic General
Permit (PGP), and 4) an Expedited Nationwide Permit.
Individual Permits. Activities in jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. that involve or
create more than “ minimal impacts” require an Individual Corps permit. Most Individual Permits
are issued through a process that begins with a permit application to a Corps office. Once a permit
application is submitted, the Corps must notify the applicant of any deficiencies in the application
within 15 days. After the applicant has supplied all required information the Corps will determine
if the application is complete. Within 15 days of that determination, the Corps is required to issue
a public notice of the application for posting at governmental offices, facilities near the proposed
project site, and other appropriate sites. In the public notice, the Corps requires that any
comments be provided within a specified period of time, usually 30 days. The Corps receives
comments from other state and federal agencies during this review period, and may consider this
coordination and consultation process in issuing a permit, and any conditions of approval.
Typically an Individual Corps permit is issued when a project and set of actions can be well
defined (project dimensions, including footprint of structures, cubic yards of fill, materials to be
used, etc.) within a specific area and within a specific time period.
Individual Permits can be time consuming to obtain and may require more construction details
than are currently known about all possible projects that might be a part of the Permit
Streamlining Plan. However, an Individual Permit can be authorized for longer than a five-year
time period, which is the allowable limit of General Permits.
General Permits. Some types of activities have been authorized by nationwide, regional, or
programmatic permits, called "General Permits." They authorize specified activities and contain
conditions to ensure individual and cumulative environmental impacts are minimal. Many such
activities do not require an application; however, a separate notification may sometimes be
required to determine if the activity will have minimal impacts. General Permits help the
regulated public by simplifying and expediting the permitting process. They also provide
Attachment A, page 1
additional environmental protection because many project applicants reduce a project's
environmental impacts to meet the minimal impact level needed for issuance of General Permit.
There are two types of §404 General Permits, Regional Permits and Nationwide Permits. In both
cases, these types of permits are issued when the proposed activities are minor in scope with
minimal projected impacts that have been adequately mitigated. General Permits reduce the
amount of paperwork and time required to approve a project. General Permits are valid only if the
conditions applicable to the permits are met. If the conditions cannot be met, an Individual Permit
will be required.
Regional General Permit. An RGP is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
district and authorizes a class of activities within a geographic region that are similar in nature
and have minimal individual or cumulative environmental effects. The RGP serves to streamline
the permitting process within the boundaries designated for its use, avoiding the more complex
and extended process of issuing Individual Permits on a project-by-project basis. An RGP is
usually more locally effective than and supplements the Nationwide Permit (NWP) process and
contains more project- and location-specific conditions. All projects must meet Special and
General Conditions included in the RGP in order for the project to qualify for authorization under
the RGP. The TCFT can coordinate with the LA District Corps to develop appropriate RGP
conditions, building on prior work. Once issued by the Corps, the RGP is a standing permit that
all agencies/individuals can use if all stated conditions are met. In contrast with a PGP, permitting
control under an RGP is not delegated to a local entity but remains the responsibility of the Corps.
As with all General Permits, the RGP is issued for a five-year period, subject to expiration,
modification, or renewal.
Programmatic General Permit. A PGP is issued by the district where a local, state, or other
federal program provides protections for wetlands and other waters that achieve (or exceed) the
objectives of the Section 404 permit program. Participating parties (counties) can assume portions
of Corps responsibility, as defined in the PGP, within its jurisdiction.
The PGP offers a streamlined regulatory procedure under Section 404, because the local agency
holding the permit becomes the permitting authority and the Corps of Engineers is no longer
involved in approval of each use of the permit. As with all General Permits, a PGP is reviewed
every five years; at that point it may lapse or be reauthorized with or without modification.
The counties would need to develop specific ordinances that regulate wetlands and other waters at
least as stringently as Section 404 requirements, and any conditions imposed by USFWS and
NMFS for Endangered Species, and apply to USACE for a PGP based on these ordinances.
Section 404 permitting could then be conducted by the counties in conjunction with the standard
development approval processes. The stream management and protection/wetland ordinance(s)
would be developed from BMPs and other conditions of approval.
RGP versus PGP: Pros and Cons. The following are the benefits of a RGP over a PGP:
 An RGP is more easily developed than a PGP. Because it does not require writing
and approval of local ordinances, a RGP can be developed, reviewed, and authorized
more quickly than a PGP. The PGP would be more time consuming to develop and
approve (needing County Board of Supervisors/City Council and USACE, USFWS,
DFG, and Coastal Commission approval).
 Los Angeles District Corps is probably more experienced with RGP issuance than
with PGP issuance. They would likely be able to consider and issue an RGP more
Attachment A, page 2
expeditiously, perhaps building on the RGP completed by the San Francisco District
Corps for DFG-funded projects.
The following are the benefits of a PGP over a RGP:
 A PGP may address a wider range of covered activities than a RGP if projects other
than fish passage barrier removal are to be included. Because the RGP must be
written for a specific class of covered activities that are similar in nature and have
minimum impacts, its use may be more limited than a PGP (However, should
USACE require a narrowly defined use for the RGP, the TCFT could propose the
development of several RGPs to cover a broader range of activities, such as
vegetation management and streambank stabilization).
 A PGP provides more local control than a RGP. The PGP authorizes a program run
by the counties and cities (or a Joint Powers Agreement); and USACE involvement
in each future project is more limited. With a PGP, project applicants get a true “onestop-shop” with the counties empowered to provide development approval, Section
404 approval, and federal/California Endangered Species Acts approval.
Nationwide Permits The purpose of the Nationwide Permit Program (NWP) is to streamline the
evaluation and approval process throughout the nation for certain types of activities that have
only minimal impacts to the aquatic environment. NWPs authorize specific types of activity,
including construction activities. Permit applications may not be required for some kinds of
activities authorized by a General Permit (the rules vary from permit to permit. To be eligible for
a Nationwide Permit, a project cannot result in the fill of more than ½ acre of wetlands. A preconstruction notification must be filed with the Corps if the project will result in the fill of more
than 1/10 acre of wetlands. Nationwide Permits (NWPs) and their conditions were reissued and
published in the Federal register on January 15, 2002, and became effective on March 18, 2002.
They will be valid for 5 years (until March 18, 2007). Please note that NWPs are valid only if all
the applicable conditions, including applicable regional conditions developed by the Los Angeles
District of the Corps, are met.
NWPs are available for all of the activities included in the Draft Work Plan. Many of the NWPs
require notification to the Corps. Irrespective of whether notification is required or not, please
keep in mind that if there are Federal listed threatened or endangered species or their designated
critical habitat that might be affected (there are in almost all cases), you must notify the Corps.
NO WORK can begin until the Corps is notified and the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act are satisfied. This condition applies to all activities permitted by Nationwide Permit.
Section 401 CWA Compliance under the Section 404 Process. Issuance of either a RGP or
PGP Individual or Nationwide Permits also requires certification of compliance with State water
quality standards by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Section 401 certification of the RGP/PGP would provide
another level of project permit streamlining. If the RGP or PGP is not certified under Section
401, then each project would be required to obtain separate Section 401 certification from
RWQCB before the RGP or PGP could be used.
Section 1601 Compliance
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) may develop a Master Streambed Alteration
Agreement (MSAA) with the counties under Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Best Management Practices and other stipulated Conditions of Approval for streams and riparian
Attachment A, page 3
habitat would be used as the basis for the MSAA. DFG is currently developing several MSAAs in
Southern California. The MSAA would allow the counties to provide Section 1601 compliance in
conjunction with the development approval process.
Parallel Section 404 and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance Processes
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
USACE administer separate regulatory programs under Sections 7/10 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and Section 404 of the CWA, respectively, that follow different permitting processes.
NMFS/USFWS and USACE generally cannot combine their separate permit processing
procedures. However, the separation of permit processing by these agencies does not mean that
the project must prepare separate documents/plans for endangered species and USACE
jurisdictional waters. Because many of the covered species in the three counties use wetlands,
ponds, and streams as habitat (e.g., California red-legged frog and southern steelhead), preparing
a single conservation plan as an element of the Permit Streamlining Process that addresses both
species and jurisdictional waters is more efficient and effective than separate planning efforts.
Habitat Conservation Plan
A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a federally approved strategy for conducting land use
activities, while minimizing and/or offsetting harm to impacted species and complying with the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
It is not clear if an HCP would be required as part of the preparation of an RGP or PGP. This
issue should be cleared up through discussions with NMFS and USFWS.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 mandates protection of threatened and endangered species
and their habitat by prohibiting “take” of listed species. “Take” is defined as harm to the species
and/or their habitat.
A 1982 amendment to the ESA, Section 10 (a) (1) (B), addressed the need to balance
development and species protection by allowing non-federal private and public parties to apply
for an incidental take permit. The permit would allow these parties to conduct otherwise lawful
land use activities that may harm listed species or their habitats, in exchange for developing an
HCP that outlines an approved method for minimizing and mitigating the long term impact of the
permitted take.
An advantage of HCP preparation for the streams in the Tri-County area is that rather than
complying with federal and state environmental regulations through a fragmented approach on a
project-by-project basis, the HCP could serve as a framework for compliance and resource
conservation.
Benefits to the counties and citizens of an HCP include:
 Reliable Regulatory Compliance: The HCP and associated Incidental Take Permits could
allow TCFT partners to conduct construction and maintenance activities near protected
species habitat, and meet the regulatory requirements of ESA over a 20-year time frame.
The EIS being prepared for the HCP and Incidental Take Permit also contributes to future
project review under NEPA and CEQA (by incorporating information gathered through
environmental review in subsequent NEPA and CEQA documents).
Attachment A, page 4



The HCP could allow the issuance of a Section 10 incidental take permit from each of the
Services. It will also allow the review of Section 7 projects (projects with ties to federal
agencies) to take place on a faster track, reducing the cost in time and money as
compared to a project-by-project approach.
The HCP could allow the TCFT to follow a watershed-scale approach to mitigation
activities and conservation measures for steelhead recovery, targeting critical habitat and
addressing known limiting factors for target species.
An HCP will allow greater flexibility for maintaining and protecting natural systems in
urban areas. It will save time and money for capital projects by allowing a flexible
approach to mitigation of impacts.
The Section 10 compliance process requires preparation of the following major components:
 Preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP?
 Section 10 permit application
 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Section 10 permit issuance with NMFS as
lead agency (or a joint EIS/EIR)
 Internal NMFS/USFWS Section 7 consultation and Biological Opinion (BO) on the
issuance of the Section 10 permit
The Section 404 compliance process requires preparation of the following major components:
 Section 404 permit application (in our case a proposed RGP or PGP)
 Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS on the Section 404 permit issuance with USACE
as lead agency -- can be a combined EIR/EIS that also meets California CEQA needs
 Section 7 consultation between USACE, NMFS, and USFWS on the issuance of the
Section 404 permit (RGP or PGP)
 Section 401 certification of RGP or PGP by the RWQCB
Note that the formal process initiates with submittal of a permit application that contains all of the
conservation measures necessary for covered species and for wetlands and streams, although
informal consultation would begin with an Inter-agency Permit Streamlining meeting. Wetlands
and streams are addressed as covered natural communities under the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) and as jurisdictional waters of the US. Once there is
agreement from NMFS, USFWS, DFG, and USACE on the overall approach to permit
streamlining, then conservation and resource protection measures for wetlands, streams, and other
waters can be extracted from the BMPs to develop the RGP or PGP.
Attachment A, page 5
Acronym Key
BO ................... Biological Opinion
CESA ............... California Endangered Species Act
CWA................ Clean Water Act
DFG ................. California Department of Fish and Game
EA.................... Environmental Assessment
EIR .................. Environmental Impact Report
EIS ................... Environmental Impact Statement
EPA ................. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA ................. Endangered Species Act
HCP ................. Habitat Conservation Plan
TCFT ............... Habitat Conservation Plan Association
MSAA ............. Master Streambed Alteration Agreement
NCCP............... National Community Conservation Plan
NCCPA............ National Community Conservation Planning Act
NEPA............... National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS .............. National Marine Fisheries Service
NWP ................ Nationwide Permit
PGP.................. Programmatic General Permit
RGP ................. Regional General Permit
RWQCB .......... Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWRCB ........... State Water Resources Control Board
USACE ............ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS............ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attachment A, page 6