Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

WETLAND AND CONSERVATION BANKING IN DETAILThe value of a bank is defined by the number of compensatorymitigation credits available for use or sale.A credit is a “unit of measure representing the accrualor attainment of aquatic functions” at the bank. 20 Abank’s instrument identifies the number and type ofcredits that will likely be available for sale. Before acredit can be sold, however, it must be certified by theMitigation Bank Review Team. The instrument specifiesthe method(s) that will be used to certify credits.Credits are generally defined by a functional measure,acres, or some combination thereof.20 Banking Guidance (1995), § III. F.21 Banking Guidance (1995), § II.B.4.22 Banking Guidance (1995), § II.B.4. “…the preservation of existingwetlands and/or other aquatic resources in perpetuity may be authorizedas the sole basis for generating credits in mitigation banks onlyin exceptional circumstances…” In addition, “Determining whetherpreservation is appropriate as the sole basis for generating creditsat a mitigation bank requires careful judgment regarding…whetherwetlands and/or other aquatic resources proposed for preservation(1) perform physical or biological functions, the preservation ofwhich is important to the region in which the aquatic resources arelocated, and (2) are under demonstrable threat of loss or substantialdegradation due to human activities that might not otherwise beMitigation MethodWetland compensatory mitigation can be accomplishedthrough different means, or “methods”: creation, restoration,enhancement, or preservation (see Table 1 fordefinitions). The agencies recognize that these variouscompensation methods differ in their ability to replacewetlands acres and functions and, therefore, contributeto the no net loss goal. The agencies address thesedisparities by favoring wetland restoration over theother compensation methods and using compensationratios which give more compensation credit to methodsthat provide greater assurances of replacing lostaquatic resource functions. The rationale the agenciesuse to evaluate the different mitigation methods areoutlined in Table 1.Existing policy states that preservation of wetlandacres may generate compensation credits if it is usedin conjunction with the other compensation methodsor when it will “augment the functions of the restored,created or enhanced aquatic resource.” 21 The federalwetland agencies generally only support the use ofpreservation as the sole method of compensation in“exceptional circumstances.” 22 In the eyes of the regulatoryagencies, preserving wetland acreage, even highquality wetland acreage, as compensation for permittedimpacts to wetland habitat leads to a net loss ofwetland acres and functions.Most compensatory mitigation projects include amix of mitigation methods. A project may restore adegraded wetland, preserve existing wetland acreage,and enhance the functions of an existing wetland allwithin the boundaries of a single compensatory mitigationproject. However, on a cumulative basis, the Corpsstrives to meet the no net loss goal and therefore discouragespreservation as the sole form of compensationin a given project. 23In 2002, the Corps released guidance to the field reiteratingthese views. 24 The 2006 proposed compensatorymitigation rule indicated that the definition ofcompensatory mitigation might be changed to includethe preservation of aquatic resources in “certain circumstances;”25 presumably leading to greater leewayin utilizing preservation than the current policy, whichemphasizes the use of preservation only in “exceptionalcircumstances.” It remains to be seen whether thisdefinition will stand when the mitigation regulationsare finalized.Ratios are the second approach the agencies use toaddress the different contributions the four compensationmethods make toward meeting the no netloss goal. The Corps takes compensation method intoaccount when determining how much compensatorymitigation credit to assign to a project. For example,since restoration contributes to a net gain in wetlandfunctions and/or acres, permittees generally areexpected to be restricted. The existence of a demonstrable threatwill be based on clear evidence of destructive land use changeswhich are consistent with local and regional land use trends andare not the consequence of actions under the control of the banksponsor.”23 RGL-02-2 (2002), § 2.c. “There may be instances where permitdecisions do not meet the “no overall net loss of wetlands” goalbecause compensatory mitigation would be impracticable, or wouldonly achieve inconsequential reductions in impacts. Consequently,the “no overall net loss of wetlands goal” may not be achieved foreach and every permit action, although all Districts will strive toachieve this goal on a cumulative basis, and the Corps will achievethe goal programmatically.”24 RGL 02-2 (2002), § 2.f.25 Proposed Compensatory Mitigation Rule (2006), § 332.2.10 Environmental Law Institute
WETLAND AND CONSERVATION BANKING IN DETAILTable 1. Mitigation MethodsMitigation methodCreation(Establishment)RestorationEnhancementPreservation(Protection/Maintenance)Definition, policy, and relationship to no net loss policyDefinition: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop a wetlandon an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist.Policy: Because of the difficulty in establishing wetland hydrology, should be used only with adequate assurancesof success.No net loss role: Results in a gain in wetland acres and functions.Definition: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site, with the goal ofreturning natural or historic functions to a former wetland.Policy: Should be the first option considered when siting a bank.No net loss role: Results in a gain in wetland functions. May or may not result in a gain in wetland acres.Definition: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland (undisturbed ordegraded) site to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or compositionof the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes, such as water quality improvement,flood water retention, or wildlife habitat.Policy: Because of the tradeoff in wetland functions involved with certain enhancement activities, should be usedonly with adequate assurances of overall environmental benefit.No net loss role: Does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Results in a gain in some wetland functions, but mayresult in a loss of others.Definition: The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near awetland. This term includes the purchase of land or easements, repairing water-control structures or fences, orstructural protection such as repairing a barrier island.Policy: Should be used as the sole basis for generating credits “only in exceptional circumstances.”No net loss role: Does not result in a gain in wetland acres or functions.Definitions from RGL 02-2 (2002). Policy from Banking Guidance (1995), §II. B. 3-4.allowed to compensate one acre of wetland loss withone acre of wetland restoration. Because wetland preservationis not viewed as contributing to the overall nonet loss goal, permittees may be required to offset oneacre of wetland loss with five, ten, or more preservedacres. Regardless of the ratio, preservation alone neveraccomplishes the no net loss goal. As a result, whenpreservation is one of the methods used in a givenproject, the Corps may require that it be used in conjunctionwith other mitigation methods that do replacethe lost acres and functions.Corps District Wetland Mitigation Banking PolicyAlthough §404 of the CWA provides the Secretary ofthe Army with the authority to issue or deny permits,the responsibility for doing so has been delegatedto the Chief of Engineers. 26 Because the Corps is “ahighly decentralized organization,” most of the authorityfor administering the regulatory program has, in26 33 CFR Part 323.6 (a). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “RegulatoryProgram: Overview.” http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/oceover.htm.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 11
Page 3: Design of U.S. HabitatBanking Syste
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYExecutive SummaryA
Page 9 and 10: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYbanks or habitat b
Page 11 and 12: IntroductionIntroductionAvariety of
Page 13 and 14: WETLAND AND CONSERVATION BANKING IN
Page 15: WETLAND AND CONSERVATION BANKING IN
Page 27 and 28: State Wildlife Action Plans3. State
Page 29 and 30: STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSshed). C
Page 31 and 32: STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSPlans th
Page 33 and 34: STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSFuture i
Page 35 and 36: A DETAILED LOOK AT WETLAND AND CONS
Page 65 and 66: ConclusionsConclusionsThis report c
Page 67 and 68:
CONCLUSIONSsuch as habitat conserva
Page 69 and 70:
CONCLUSIONSthe state Attorney Gener
Page 71 and 72:
CONCLUSIONSGeneral RecommendationsF
Page 73:
AppendicesA. Federal Wetland Compen
Page 76 and 77:
APPENDIX AProjects for Aquatic Reso
Page 78 and 79:
APPENDIX Aland mitigation banks, um
Page 80 and 81:
APPENDIX BMemphis District, U.S. Ar
Page 82 and 83:
APPENDIX BJacksonville District, U.
Page 84 and 85:
Appendix CAppendix CState Wetland M
Page 86 and 87:
APPENDIX CState Statute(s) Regulati
Page 88 and 89:
Appendix DAppendix DState Conservat
Page 90 and 91:
APPENDIX Emitigation banking and ha
Page 92 and 93:
APPENDIX EDelaware (Phase IV)Delawa
Page 94 and 95:
APPENDIX Estaff intend to make the
Page 96 and 97:
APPENDIX EMitigation banking regula
Page 98 and 99:
APPENDIX EMississippi (Phase IV)The
Page 100 and 101:
APPENDIX ENew Mexico (Phase III)The
Page 102 and 103:
APPENDIX Eand mitigation banking. 1
Page 104 and 105:
APPENDIX EVirginia (Phase III)Virgi
Page 106 and 107:
APPENDIX Egation bank may be used t
Page 108 and 109:
APPENDIX FGeorgiaGeorgia Department
Page 110 and 111:
Appendix GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 112 and 113:
APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
APPENDIX GErwin, K.L. 1991. An Eval
Page 120 and 121:
APPENDIX GPorej, D. 2004. Faunal As
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix HAppendix HBibliography of
Page 124 and 125:
APPENDIX HEcosystem Marketplace, Sp
Page 126:
APPENDIX ILegal and Financial Mecha
show all

Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?