Offsetting Impacts to Wetlands and Waters in the United States Palmer Hough U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 2013 1
Problem: Wetlands Loss Approximately 221 million acres in 1700 (lower 48) 110.1 million acres today (~size of CA) 1950-1970 was a time of major losses Rate of loss has decreased over last 40 years 2
Part of the Solution: Regulate Clean Water Act of 1972 Section 404 requires a permit to discharge dredged or fill materials into waters of the US Includes lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands Primary agencies involved: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National goal of No Net Loss of wetlands established in 1989* 3
Mitigation Sequence* 1. Avoid 2. Minimize Evaluate alternative project locations and designs Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative 3. Compensate offset unavoidable wetland losses through wetland: 1. Restoration 2. Establishment 3. Enhancement 4. Preservation 4
What is Good Compensation? Ecological replacement Appropriate location in landscape Cumulative impacts Margin of safety to reflect the expected degree of success Temporal loss of functions Success measures/monitoring plan 5
Providing Compensation/Offsets 1. Mitigation Banks (Preferred): Initiated in advance of impacts* All credit release tied to performance Sponsors: private, government, non-profit 2. In-Lieu Fee (ILF) programs: Generally, initiated after impacts Sponsors: government or non-profit 3. Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (PRM): Generally initiated concurrent/after impacts Permittee retains responsibility
Bank Example: Virginia* 7
Bank Credit Ledger 8
Approval of Bank Sites 140 120 Number of Banks 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990 1995 2000 2006 2008 2012 Single Client Commercial Steve Martin - USACE/IWR, 2013 9
Status and Distribution of Bank & ILF sites Banks 1,839 Bank sites loaded: 66% operational 15% pending 12% sold out 1% suspended 6% terminated or withdrawn ILF 33 Approved programs 32 Pending programs 301 ILF program sites loaded Steve Martin - USACE/IWR, 2013
Compensation (Offset) Mechanism, 2011-2012 Compensation for Impacted Acres (as a % of Impacted Acres Requiring Compensation) Compensation for Impacted Linear Feet (as a % of Impacted Linear Feet Requiring Compensation) 100% 100% 90% 26% 90% 80% 42% 80% 42% 70% 60% 22% 70% 60% 63% 50% 40% 21% 10% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7% 42% 29% 2011 2012 30% 20% 10% 0% 18% 10% 6% 19% 13% 2011 2012 Key Permittee Responsible Offsite Permittee Responsible Onsite In Lieu Fee Mitigation Bank Katherine Birnie - Ecosystem Investment Partners, 2013
2008 Federal Regulations Mitigation Plan Components (33 CFR 332.4(c)) 1. Objectives 2. Site protection instrument 3. Baseline information 4. Work plan 5. Maintenance plan 6. Performance standards 7. Monitoring requirements 8. Financial assurances 9. Site selection factors 10. Credit determination 11. Long-term management plan 12. Adaptive management plan
Additionality Baseline Information requirements May occur on private or public lands Public lands: no credit for work that is already planned or in place No double-dipping Limits on preservation as offset 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Wetland Stream Species 0 1995 2000 2002 2005 2008 2012 Number of bank credit withdrawal transactions 1995 to 2012 Steve Martin - USACE/IWR, 2013 13
Credit determination rationale Amount of compensation Should use assessment methods If not available, minimum 1:1 ratio* Mitigation type Equivalency In-kind preferred over outof-kind 14
Performance and Monitoring Ecological performance standards Monitoring Requirements: Parameters to be monitored Length of monitoring period Party responsible Content of monitoring reports Frequency of report submittal 15
Permanence Site protection instrument Goal permanent protection Conservation easement, title transfer, restrictive covenant Long-term management Identify responsible party Describe necessary tasks and funding arrangements 16
Agriculture and Wetland Offset Program Can a farmer provide Section 404 wetland compensation/offset credits? Are there wetland restoration, establishment, enhancement and/or preservation opportunities on the property? Will the property be retired from crop production and restored wetland functions and values permanently protected? Was any of the work paid for with federal funds? 17
Regular Program Evaluation Self audits Independent audits: Government Oversight Agencies Academic institutions Non-profits Highlight strengths and weaknesses Prompt and direct reform 18
Clear Market Drivers 35,000 30,000 # of Permits 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 25,152 23,122 25,757 28,693 Acres of Fill 5,000-50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000-3,000 5,397 4,877 3,633 3,564 2009 2010 2011 2012 5,835 34,962 13,645 9,142 25,033 10,224 13,291 8,699 2009 2010 2011 2012 Compensation (Offset) Required 2,500 Miles of Fill 2,000 1,500 1,000 500-1,523 1,852 1,046 774 320 369 483 529 2009 2010 2011 2012 Katherine Birnie - Ecosystem Investment Partners, 2013
Questions epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation geo.usace.army.mil/ribits 20