Source: http://register.dls.virginia.gov/details.aspx?id=7646
Timestamp: 2019-08-22 00:39:03
Document Index: 736792075

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 62', '§ 401', '§ 1251', '§ 62', '§ 303', 'art 332', 'art 332']

Vol. 35 Iss. 25 (Final Regulation) 9VAC25-210, Virginia Water Protection Permit Program Regulation August 05, 2019
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The State Water Control Board is claiming an exemption from Article 2 of the Administrative Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4006 A 4 a of the Code of Virginia, which excludes regulations that are necessary to conform to changes in Virginia statutory law or the appropriation act where no agency discretion is involved. The State Water Control Board will receive, consider, and respond to petitions by any interested person at any time with respect to reconsideration or revision.
Title of Regulation: 9VAC25-210. Virginia Water Protection Permit Program Regulation (amending 9VAC25-210-10, 9VAC25-210-116).
Statutory Authority: §§ 62.1-44.15 of the Code of Virginia; § 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251 et seq.).
To conform the regulation to Chapter 545 of the 2019 Acts of Assembly, the amendments incorporate changes to § 62.1-44.15:21 B of the Code of Virginia to (i) clarify the State Water Control Board's evaluation of compensatory mitigation proposals, (ii) modify the term "ecologically preferable" but not that term's definition, and (iii) add a definition for the term "temporal loss."
"Water quality standards" means water quality standards adopted by the board and approved by the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under § 303 of the Clean Water Act as defined in 9VAC25-260-10 9VAC25-260-5.
1. An analysis shall be required to justify that permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation is ecologically and environmentally preferable to the purchase of mitigation bank credits or in-lieu fee program credits, if such credits are available in sufficient quantity for the project at the projected time of need. The analysis shall address the ability of the permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation site or sites to replace lost wetland acreage and functions or lost stream functions and water quality benefits. The analysis comparing the impacted and compensation site or sites may use a method that assesses water quality or habitat metrics, such as that required by 9VAC25-210-80 C, or a method that assesses such criteria as water quality benefits, distance from impacts, hydrologic source and regime, watershed, vegetation type, soils, constructability, timing of compensation versus impact, property acquisition, and cost.
2. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts may be met through the following options, which are preferred in the following sequence: mitigation banking, in-lieu fee program, and permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation. However, the appropriate compensatory mitigation option for project impacts shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in terms of replacement of wetland acreage and functions and the greatest likelihood of success the board shall evaluate the appropriate compensatory mitigation option on a case-by-case basis with consideration for which option is practicable and ecologically and environmentally preferable, including, in terms of replacement of acreage and functions, which option offers the greatest likelihood of success and avoidance of temporal loss of acreage and function. This evaluation shall be consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources as provided in 33 CFR Part 332. When considering options for providing the required compensatory mitigation, DEQ shall consider the type and location options in the following order:
3. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts may be met through the following options, which are preferred in the following sequence: mitigation banking, in-lieu fee program, and permittee-responsible mitigation. However, the appropriate compensatory mitigation option for project impacts shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in terms of replacement of stream functions and water quality benefits and the greatest likelihood of success the board shall evaluate the appropriate compensatory mitigation option on a case-by-case basis with consideration for which option is practicable and ecologically and environmentally preferable, including, in terms of replacement of acreage and functions, which option offers the greatest likelihood of success and avoidance of temporal loss of acreage and function. This evaluation shall be consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources as provided in 33 CFR Part 332. One factor in determining the required compensation shall be an analysis of stream impacts utilizing a stream impact assessment methodology approved by the board. When considering options for providing the required compensatory mitigation, DEQ shall consider the type and location options in the following order:
VA.R. Doc. No. R19-6014; Filed July 3, 2019, 12:25 p.m.