[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

That is probably a conservative figure which doesn't take into account natural losses, such as what happened in Loiusiana after Katrina.

I think its a conservative figure without adding in natural losses.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Good question! The corps has a term for it called "in-kind mitigation" which means that credits must be purchased from a mitigation bank in the same watershed in order to prevent what you talked about. Unfortunately credits are not always available for that watershed. In this case you have to choose a bank in an adjacent watershed and usually pay A LOT more for each credit. This is an incentive for purchasers to exhaust all of their local options before looking outside their project's watershed. If there are no credits in adjacent watersheds, then you may purchase from what is known as "in-lieu fee" banking. With in-lieu fee banking, you purchase credits from a statewide bank that is a catchall for areas with little or no mitigation credits. In order to purchase from an in-lieu fee bank, you must thoroughly demonstrate to the corps that you have exhausted all of your options and only then will they allow in-lieu banking. It's not a perfect system, but it does encourage credit purchasers to give back to the watershed their project is helping to destroy.

I need some clarification here. The examples I used include the Mississippi watershed and the St. Croix river watersheds, both of which are large rivers in MN and converge right on the edge of the heavily populated area of this state, with its associated loss of wetlands as development increases. Ramsey county is primarily located in the Mississippi watershed ( I am not sure about the NE corner of that county and if it is St. Croix watershed). How does this work when Ramsey county cannot replace a development, and upstream the Mississippi runs thru Hennepin county *with even less potenital replacement area*, but to the east of Ramsey county, the st. croix watershed (washington county) exists as does Dakota county, (n.border= Mississippi River and Minnesota river convergence). Dakota county has 3 major rivers along its borders, and the merging of the Minnesota River and the St. Croix river into the Mississippi all within approx 20 miles.
Map with counties marked:
MCBS status map - Division of Ecological Services: Minnesota DNR

What I am asking I is, what is the limitations/parameters for how far a "loss" can be relocated from its loss point/watershed?

*for those reading this thread, the twin cities metro area was originally a wetland of the proportions of the Louisiana bayous.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I need some clarification here. The examples I used include the Mississippi watershed and the St. Croix river watersheds, both of which are large rivers in MN and converge right on the edge of the heavily populated area of this state, with its associated loss of wetlands as development increases. Ramsey county is primarily located in the Mississippi watershed ( I am not sure about the NE corner of that county and if it is St. Croix watershed). How does this work when Ramsey county cannot replace a development, and upstream the Mississippi runs thru Hennepin county *with even less potenital replacement area*, but to the east of Ramsey county, the st. croix watershed (washington county) exists as does Dakota county, (n.border= Mississippi River and Minnesota river convergence). Dakota county has 3 major rivers along its borders, and the merging of the Minnesota River and the St. Croix river into the Mississippi all within approx 20 miles.
Map with counties marked:
MCBS status map - Division of Ecological Services: Minnesota DNR

What I am asking I is, what is the limitations/parameters for how far a "loss" can be relocated from its loss point/watershed?

*for those reading this thread, the twin cities metro area was originally a wetland of the proportions of the Louisiana bayous.

There are no specific limitations/parameters besides federal compliance such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or The Endangered Species Act. The Corps is given authority by district.
St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
From the "permit" section of that site I found the following under the July release, Final Action LOP-05-MN, section 3:

Mitigation sequencing (avoidance, minimization and compensation) is required for projects authorized by a LOP under Section 404. The threshold for requiring compensation varies by county depending on the percentage of wetland lost since the time of pre-settlement land surveys. The Corps may deviate from these general guideline on a case-by-case basis when it determines that it is appropriate to do so.

http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/r...825LOP05mn.pdf

I'd say this is good news as they are taking into account the massive loss of wetlands as you pointed out in your last post, last sentence.

And there's this:

Key elements of the draft policy include a standard ratio of 1:0:1.0 for compensation that is in-place, in-kind and in-advance. Basically, these terms mean compensation that is the same type of wetland, in the same subwatershed as the impacted wetland and is established in advance of those impacts (e.g., banking credits). The compensation ratio would increase in increments for each factor that is not met.

The district�s policy proposes special consideration for counties in northeast and northcentral Minnesota. These counties have fewer options for compensatory mitigation than the rest of Minnesota. Smaller ratios, smaller incremental increases, expanded bank service areas, more flexibility, etc., are proposed.
The district has worked closely with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and Interagency Wetlands Group to develop a memorandum of understanding on mitigation policies to resolve differences between the Corps Section 10/404 mitigation requirements and those of the State�s Wetland Conservation Act. A solution to 9 out of 10 issues has been reached.

A public notice of the District�s mitigation policy for Minnesota is planned to be released in March 2007.

http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regula...sp?pageid=1245

So it seems like Minnesota has a stricter system in place than in Georgia as they require sub-watershed banking. My big problem is with regulatory inspections (lack thereof). I wonder how much regulatory enforcement happens in Minnesota. It is close to zero here from what I've seen.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/GAO05898.pdf

But to get at the heart of your question, mitigation banking complies with the laws of supply and demand. If there are multiple banks (with available credits) set up within the watershed of the project, then the net loss should be zero, ideally, within that watershed. If there are no banks set up in that watershed (or no credits available), then it is impossible to provide zero net-loss for projects in that watershed. To that end, establishing a mitigation bank is becoming a very profitable way for a landowner to turn unused marshes into money, and is increasingly sought by huge project-generators such as the Dept. of Transportation. In Georgia, the DOT has purchased many tracts of privately owned land to use as mitigation banks for their projects. It is a smart practice and seems to be gaining acceptance in other states.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Basically, these terms mean compensation that is the same type of wetland, in the same subwatershed as the impacted wetland and is established in advance of those impacts (e.g., banking credits).

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, the watershed is broken down into the smaller watersheds for my example (such as battle creek; ramsey county and its source, battle creek lake; washington county) in terms of wetland replacement rather than being able to bounce around the counties entire Mississippi watershed for re-creating/banking the wetland.

But this is the loophole used

The Corps may deviate from these general guideline on a case-by-case basis when it determines that it is appropriate to do so.

Originally Posted by freeztar

To that end, establishing a mitigation bank is becoming a very profitable way for a landowner to turn unused marshes into money, and is increasingly sought by huge project-generators such as the Dept. of Transportation.

Is this a side aspect of the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) and RIM-Reserve (Reinvest in MN) type programs that the state uses to create this wetland bank for their projects?

One fact sheet related to above programs:
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

and, as a follow-up to this question:

Does this imply that when the state of MN creates a park, scientific area, WMA, etc, the wetland acreage within the boundry is potentially counted within the banking system of that particular sub-watershed or county (for their road development banks), and is this possibly where developers go to purchace units when they want to fill in a small wetland but dont want to replace it within that plot?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, the watershed is broken down into the smaller watersheds for my example (such as battle creek; ramsey county and its source, battle creek lake; washington county) in terms of wetland replacement rather than being able to bounce around the counties entire Mississippi watershed for re-creating/banking the wetland.

Here's a link to how the watersheds are broken up in MN:
EPA: Surf Your Watershed > Minnesota

I'm not sure how they are broken down into"sub-watersheds".

Is this a side aspect of the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) and RIM-Reserve (Reinvest in MN) type programs that the state uses to create this wetland bank for their projects?

One fact sheet related to above programs:
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

It appears that this is the equivalent to our state mitigation (in-lieu fee) landtrust bank.
Georgia Environmental Policy Institute | Welcome

and, as a follow-up to this question:

Does this imply that when the state of MN creates a park, scientific area, WMA, etc, the wetland acreage within the boundry is potentially counted within the banking system of that particular sub-watershed or county (for their road development banks), and is this possibly where developers go to purchace units when they want to fill in a small wetland but dont want to replace it within that plot?

No, a mitigation bank must follow certain procedures set in place by the USACoE. A restrictive covenant is usually put in place to restrict the land from any other use. They do this so people don't create a wetland bank and then turn it into a duck hunting property. This way the land is truly reserved as wetlands only and the goal of 1:1 wetland compensation is maintained.

[Cedars]

heres a few links to identify watersheds and associated documented issues regarding water quaility (stuff they find in it).

This one was easy to use to find my local watersheds:

State TMDL Lists

This one gave some really good detail once you located an area via zip code:
EPA > Water > Regional and State Links

Playing around a bit with zooms and checkboxes, here is a map of my favorite birding area. The big lake in the center is called Phantom lake.

EnviroMapper for Water

[Cedars]

I did find a MN wetland banking fact sheet (sheesh, they have a Board of Everything Here!):

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Wetland Banking Fact Sheet

Depending on the conditions your trying to set aside or restore, it seems there are a few programs out there that might aid someone.

F&WS Document

Excavated ponds for wildlife: Minnesota DNR

With enough time and effort, one could potentially get any improvements paid for, and possibly return a small profit on these lands, depending on the location.

It just doesnt seem (via the MN sites I have been pouring over lately) that much emphasis is put on encouraging people to preserve these areas and the wildlife within as much as development is emphasised.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I did find a MN wetland banking fact sheet (sheesh, they have a Board of Everything Here!):

That's not just MN.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Wetland Banking Fact Sheet

That's quite interesting actually. In Georgia it is quite different. A citizen can not just apply for a "deposit" and create wetlands on their own. They would have to at least incorporate themselves as a business, but more typically, a specialized company agrees to perform the restoration upon request of the citizen and then they act as the liaison between the government and the citizen. This is good for a number of reasons. For credits to be sold, the wetland must meet certain criteria; namely hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic plant life. You also must produce scientific data showing the effectiveness of the restoration over a period of years (at least this is how it works for DOT, I assume it is the same for private entities). This is beyond the average citizen's ability, or desire. It can be a hellish day when you have to wade across acres of snake-infested waters measuring groundwells and doing tree counts from sun-up to sun-down!
Now I'm assuming this is different in Minnesota because the fact sheet doesn't mention it, but perhaps they go through that with you when you call and request. What would be interesting is if the gov't actually does the monitoring. That would mean that local tax dollars are being used to help mitigate wetlands.
Another interesting thing this link brings to mind is deficit. I'm quite sure that at any one time, these "banks" have a negative balance.

Depending on the conditions your trying to set aside or restore, it seems there are a few programs out there that might aid someone.

F&WS Document

Excavated ponds for wildlife: Minnesota DNR

With enough time and effort, one could potentially get any improvements paid for, and possibly return a small profit on these lands, depending on the location.

Quality links.

It just doesnt seem (via the MN sites I have been pouring over lately) that much emphasis is put on encouraging people to preserve these areas and the wildlife within as much as development is emphasized.

That's an understatement!
In the end, both are important and a balance must be found. To that end, I keep jumping on the preservation/conservation end of the scale.

[freeztar]

The Bush administration actually did something good!
Conserving America’s Wetlands 2007

[freeztar]

Here's a good article detailing the importance of wetlands. This is a good article for those uninitiated with the subject of wetlands, but also offers something for those with a bit more knowledge.
Walla Walla Union-Bulletin: Local News

This article is more technical and deals with wetland protection laws.

The new guidance requires a "fact-specific" analysis to determine whether the Corps has jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries that don't flow year-round, and wetlands that are adjacent or close to those tributaries but are not "relatively permanent."

According to an insider EPA newsletter, that agency plans to apply the test by evaluating a given wetlands flow characteristics, hydrology, ecological functions, and whether those wetlands "significantly alter the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream navigable waters."

Conservation groups unanimously panned the new regs as confusing. Limiting Corps jurisdiction will make it even harder to meet the stated no-net-loss goal across the country. The new rules constitute a far-reaching reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act with potentially dire consequences for small streams and wetlands, according to organizations like the National Wildlife Federation.

But EPA water chief Benjamin Grumbles said the guidance balances the no-net-loss goal with the Supreme Court ruling.

According to Inside EPA, Grumbles said, "This inter-agency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent and predictable jurisdictional determinations."

But other key EPA wetlands experts said the new rules add a layer of complexity to an already convoluted regulatory scheme.

Summit Daily News for Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper and Frisco Colorado - News

The laws regarding wetland protection are a mess right now. The Supreme Court made a ruling in June '06 that attempted to clarify regulatory jurisdiction. Unfortunately it seems to have muddied the waters even more. (pun intended)

[DougF]

freeztar
Anyone interested/involved in this field? I'm an ecologist/consultant working for a large, international engineering firm in Atlanta and am curious if anyone on here has a similar occupation, or at least interest. I mainly survey streams and wetlands on proposed construction sites and write technical memos. In the US, wetland determination has specific guidelines that are administered through the Army Corp of Engineers. How is wetland determination made in your part of the world? What criteria do you use and what is your permitting process, if any?
I'd also be interested in any pictures/info you have on wetlands in your part of the world.
I'm also a plant lover so I'd be interested in any endemic species and special relationships.

Wetlands are one of the most productive ecosystems in the world and are becoming increasingly important as we witness fresh water diminishing throughout the world.

Hello freeztar,
I live in Central Florida (Leesburg) I'm a Surveyor by profession (25 years), and find myself locating swamps and wetland on more then one occasion, I think I might have a pic or two of me neck deep in some of the more beautiful wetlands of Florida. I'm one of those guys thats locating all of those trees and creating the nice topographic maps.
let me gather some links to local info on Wetland Delineators, and I'll post if you would like.