Greg Sutter Craig Denisoff Vice President Vice President The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Greg Sutter Vice President Craig Denisoff Vice President

“The National Research Council”

2

“The committee concludes that the wetland remnants of the development process may not constitute the best configuration of wetland type for a watershed.”

3

“The committee learned that in some cases specified mitigation was not initiated as required... In addition, numerous studies on mitigation required by permits revealed that as much as 34% of the mitigation was never installed (p 101).”

4

The Problems

• 1. Technical Shortcomings

(e.g., Restoration Ecology Failures)

• 2. Procedural Pitfalls
• 3. Legal and Financial Gaps

The Solutions

• 1. More clear and rigorous

requirements for planning, designing, and monitoring projects.

• 2. Multi-agency review,

checks & balances in implementation, and compliance

• 3. Binding agreements &

financial guarantees

5

 30 yr credit releases  12 digit HUC Service Areas  3 yr credit releases  4 digit HUC Service Areas

6

Module 1: Site Selection Module 2: Prospectus Module 3: Restoration Design Module 4: Bank Document Module 5: Construction Module 6: Land Stewardship

7

• Where in the Rule
• Agency perspective
• Banker’s perspective
• Pitfalls, or “tripping

hazards”

• Summary slide

Module 1: Site Selection Module 2: Prospectus Module 3: Restoration Design Module 4: Bank Document Module 5: Construction Module 6: Land Stewardship

8

Module 1

Site Selection

• 332.3 (d) (1) & (3)

The compensatory mitigation project site must be ecologically suitable for providing the desired aquatic resource function. Applicants should propose compensation sites adjacent to existing aquatic resources or where aquatic resources previously existed.

Where in the Rule?

10

• 1. Watershed driven.
• 2. Defendable and
• bjective process.
• 3. Fits regional plans.

11

• 1. Financial viability.
• 2. Available for

purchase?

• 3. Watershed/market.

12

• On site was the

pre 2008 final rule preference.

• Surrounded by

development.

• Often has little or

no habitat connectivity.

• Habitat is subject

to higher levels of environmental stressors.

Preserved Habitat

13

Photo Credits : Liz Young http://www.traillink.com/trail-photos/folsom-parkway- rail-trail.aspx

The Parkway Wins National Arbor Day Foundation Award!

14

Site selection is 80% of getting the restoration right! Not just banking on your brother Rogers land!

Getting it right means:

Selecting land based on ecological and watershed suitability not just price and availability.

15

Market Demand

Restoration and Conservation Potential

Successful Bank

16

Ecology Land Use Political Regulation Real Estate Rights/ Title

Sustainable Restoration

17

Historical Ecology Investigation

18

19

20

21

Restoration vs. Reconciliation

(Realistic Adjustment Process)

22

23

24

25

— Luna Leopold

• Geomorphic

Setting

• Soils
• Hydrology

~ Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten

Work With Nature, Let Nature Do the Work

26

• Title issues such

as mineral rights

• Boundary

surveys

27

• Based on sustainable

restoration (80% of success!)

• Not price or “Uncle

Bob’s” ownership

• Match market need
• Geomorphicaly

appropriate

– Soils – Hydrology

• Title Issues

28

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” ~Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

29

Prospectus

Section 332.8 (d)(2) & (3) “The Prospectus must provide a summary of the information regarding the proposed mitigation bank, at a sufficient level of detail to support informed public and IRT comment.” Section 332.8 (d)(3) “Prior to submitting a prospectus, the sponsor may elect to submit a draft prospectus to the district engineer for comment and consultation.” “This preliminary review is optional but is strongly recommended.”

Where in the Rule?

31