OBJECTIVE C - Management Action 4
Establish by 1995 a consistent and effective mitigation program to compensate for unavoidable permitted wetlands.
Explanation:
Mitigation compensates for the loss of smaller, fragmented wetlands with the acquisition, enhancement or restoration of larger, contiguous wetlands. A practical and coordinated system of mitigating wetlands damage, that is permitted only after all efforts to avoid and minimize alteration of wetlands have been considered, would ensure the greatest possible long-term benefit to vital habitats. Mitigation banking is a mechanism that allows land developers to alter wetlands in exchange for financial contributions toward the acquisition, enhancement, restoration, or creation of wetlands with similar value. This practice would be evaluated for expanded use in the region.
Critical Steps:
- The Division of Environmental Management (DEM), in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management (DCM), the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other involved agencies would continue to develop effective wetland mitigation procedures. State level research and development of nursery techniques for wetland tree species would be encouraged.
- New mechanisms that coordinate and consolidate wetlands mitigation efforts would be pursued.
- DEM would explore the feasibility of a mitigation bank in consultation, as appropriate, with agencies, potential mitigation bank users, wetlands restoration specialists and others. If a bank is determined to be feasible, efficient, and effective, wetlands mitigation banks would be created on a manageable scale to compensate for unavoidable losses of wetlands resulting from economic development projects. If mitigation banks are created, DEM, DCM, USACE, EPA, USFWS and other involved agencies would form an interagency team to evaluate wetlands sites and potential bank sites within each basin. Bank sites would be acquired by public or private means. The interagency team would review all proposed projects with anticipated impacts on identified wetlands for compliance and permit authorization. Mitigation of wetlands sites would be completed prior to commencement of a proposed wetlands-disturbing project. The interagency team would identify and incorporate an evaluation methodology for classifying disrupted and mitigated sites to determine mitigation credits and debits. All involved parties would agree to credit and debit procedures as well as restrictions on use of bank credits.
- Education and public awareness of new state wetland mitigation procedures would be undertaken by DEM and DCM.
Evaluation Methods
Individual projects would be evaluated through site inspections and tracked by the interagency team to insure compliance with the mitigation bank agreement. Basinwide wetlands inventories (Objective A, Management Action 2) would be updated on a regular basis to identify trends in wetland type, extent, and function.
Costs and Economic Considerations
In support of this option approximately $500,000 would be needed by DEM to establish a coordinated, statewide mitigation program. One third of this amount, $170,000, would allow the development of a well-managed mitigation program that would coordinate wetland restoration activities associated with both regulatory and non-regulatory programs as well as provide a full accounting of wetlands losses in the APES region. While wetlands regulations can have important economic impacts that should be carefully considered by policy makers, this Management Action does not change current wetlands regulations. It is instead focused on encouraging the most cost-effective use of public and private funds spent on wetlands mitigation. It would not, in and of itself, change the amount of mitigation that would be required under existing or future regulations. To the extent that consolidation and careful planning of mitigation-driven restoration efforts (such as using some form of mitigation bank) make restoration, management and monitoring more efficient, this Action would yield benefits in the form of more effective public administration and greater water quality from each restoration undertaken. For instance, enhanced water quality supports recreational and commercial activity associated with wetlands, especially recreational fishing and downstream commercial fishing.
Funding Strategy
The development of a mitigation program by DEM would require an expansion budget from the General Assembly. Once established, any mitigation program would be partially funded by entities (public or private) that are required to compensate for the development or alteration of wetlands.