Oregon Wetland Banking (cont.) DSL Review Mitigation Bank Review Team (ACOE/DSL/Others) Review Prospectus Participate in Development of Instrument Rev

Transcription

1 Compensatory Mitigation (continued) and Wetland Management Wetland Mitigation Banking Concept Wetland Acreage Savings Account of Created Wetlands Withdrawal for Mitigation Credit Advantages Implementing and functional before impact Large areas better than several small areas Usually designed by experts with incentive to perform Bring together financial resources of many Reduce uncertainty of regulatory agencies Easier for Regulatory Agencies to track Disadvantages If it fails there is a large loss Sponsors take large risk with no guarantee Issues In-kind In Watershed Agency Agreements Oregon Wetland Banking Oregon Wetland Mitigation Bank Act 1987 Bank only used when on-site is not practicable or where off-site is environmentally preferable Requirements to Establish a Bank: Meet with DSL Submit Prospectus Develop Instrument Location Need Existing Condition of Site/Adjacent Areas List of Adjacent Property Owners Ecological Goals Wetland Functions Site Plan (including buffers) Monitoring Plan Contingency Plan (flood/invasive vegetation/eat- out/etc.) Local Approval Plans for Long-term Management 1

2 Oregon Wetland Banking (cont.) DSL Review Mitigation Bank Review Team (ACOE/DSL/Others) Review Prospectus Participate in Development of Instrument Review Performance (at least annually) DSL Approval Credits Depend on Method of Mitigation Development Remaining Credits Can Increase Buffers Can Earn Credits after 5 Years Wetland Mitigation by Payment- In-Lieu This mitigation option allows payment tied to the cost to replace the functions of the affected wetland, generally based on construction costs The payment is made to the Division of State Lands for their discretionary use in wetland projects This option is only allowed for small impacts (0.2 acres), or by special authorization of the Director of the Division of State Lands Payment determined as monetary value of the lost/affected wetlands, usually by a formula based on construction costs, and reserving the money in the contract Ranked Preference for Compensatory Mitigation Options On-site, in-kind On-site, out-of-kind Off-site, in-kind (in-basin) Off-site, out-of-kind (In-basin) In-Basin Mitigation Bank In-Basin Payment-to-Provide Payment-in-Lieu 2

3 Wetland Management Manipulate wetland to perform one or more functions Examples: Flood Storage Wildlife Habitat Resource Recovery Water Quality Treatment Napa, California Flood Storage Objective: Allow bermed floodplain wetlands to function as flood storage and relieve downstream flooding Activities Remove Most Existing Dikes Buy River-Adjacent Properties Relocate 16 Households Raise Bridges Farms Remain and Will Flood $220 Million 600 Acres 20 Years Location of Project 3

4 River During Spring Flooding Wildlife Habitat Troutdale, Oregon Sandy River Delta Reed Canary Grass Dominated Objective Increase Plant Diversity Increase Ponding Increase Waterfowl Habitat Management Effort Minor Excavation Water Control Structures in Outflow Ditches $65,000 (Ducks Unlimited/USFS) 50 Acres 2 Years Ditch System at Site 4

5 Planned Ponding Resource Harvest Forest Products Palustrine Forest Wetlands Bottomland Forests Hardwoods (Shade Intolerant) Clearcut/Reforest Limit Soil Compaction Black Spruce Peatlands Miminize Surface Damage Avoid Soil Compaction Aquaculture Mangroves is Southeast Asia Net Pens in US Bottomland Hardwood Stand 5

6 Aquaculture in Mangroves Net Pen Aquaculture Water Quality Treatment 6

7 Pathways of Treatment Subsurface Treatments Systems Effect on Concentrations Nitrogen Phosphorous 7

8 Treatment (Removal) Efficiencies Fate of Phosphorous 8