Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272171(2)
A8 Wednesday,December 17,1997 SOUTH COUNTY Kent investigating a wetland bank ► Southcenter Mall h y g d your Favorite Things for t City would set aside The second thin the city ' would need is land.Wolinski said land to offset wetlands the city would prefer to buy and lost to development develop the bank piece by piece along the banks of Mill,Garrison /7 or Springbrook creeks. and well wrap your ori By Jacqueline Reis But even land cannot ensure a Journal reporter bank's success.The Glacier Park Company gave Renton 45 acres KENT—What's several acres of land for its bank in 1992,but long,fits neatly along a river and lack of staff time and other fac- goes squish? tors have kept the project in the The city's next safe deposit planning stages, according to box. Scott Woodbury,project manag- City water specialists are er for the Renton bank. meeting with consultants about The cost to turn the 45 acres, creating a wetlands mitigation now in the young forest stage, bank, a large wetland area that into a wetland bank would be would offset future construction approximately$3 million. i on other wetlands.When an indi- The city could avoid the start- vidual or company wants to build up costs by forgoing a formal j on a wetland,they would be able, mitigation bank and creating the in essence,to buy a piece of the wetlands near Oaksdale Avenue city-created wetland for the piece Southwest and Southwest 34th they are destroying. Street as developers pay for it, A 1993 City Wetland Woodbury said. Management Ordinance requires The state Department of the city to investigate such an Transportation has made more option, although there was no progress on its wetland bank and time requirement listed in the completed an agreement with the law,said Engineering Supervisor Corps of Engineers that would Bill Wolinski. permit the DOT to use one. Wetland banks can host more There's just one problem: The types of plants and animals than DOT road projects run through a smaller on-site wetlands and may variety of land forms and water- simplify the permitting process sheds,which limits its ability to for development. mitigate loss of wetlands with a No wetland mitigation banks central bank. currently exist in South County, "Banking for us is not as easy and those who are working on as it would be for, say, Kent," efforts to create banks in Renton, said Ben Brown,a DOT environ- Enumclaw and elsewhere say mental coordinator. that paperwork headaches can To further complicate matters, make the banks unworkable. the Corps of Engineers can still The first thing the city would deny a permit to a particular pro- need is money,although that does ject if it feels the wetland loss not guarantee a bank will be cre- would be better mitigated some- ated.The Helac Corporation paid where other than the bank, Enumclaw $120,000 for its wet- Brown said. lands bank in February, and the "There's no guarantees," he city is currently using$60,000 of that for a wetlands inventory, said. expected to be completed next Kent's bank is still in the October.At that point,it must be investigating stages,said Richard reviewed by the Army Corps of Chase,a Kent water quality engi- Engineers,the state Department neer. "You know, it's a great of Ecology and federal idea, but there's all kinds of Environmental Protection Agency. things that play into it." Driver, 89, has heart attack, hits wall in parking garage By Laurie Kraus ed and decorated to match the Journal Reporter originals. A collection of arrowheads he BELLEWE — An 89-year-old and his family found along the -Bellevue man suffered a heart Columbia River before the dams ,3 attack and slammed his car into a were built is displayed in the din- wall in the Bellevue Square park- ing room. ing garage yesterday.He died later Henry's daughters, Jeanne at Overlake Hospital. Chauhan of Bellevue, and John Frazier Henry,a published Elizabeth Henry of Seattle,said author and noted art collector, he was always active in civic was dropping his wife off at the affairs and loved his volunteer second-floor entrance to J.C. work a.c hPnd nf nhnrn 11— ODOT compensates for wetland impacts As one of the state's largest land land must be monitored by the has created wetland banks in Ohio. developers, the Ohio Depart- developer for Five years to make sure Developers �tre allowed to buy sec- ment of Transportation (ODOT) it is self-sustaining or "viable."This tions of these banks as credits for uses large amounts of land for can create problems if there is not wetlands losses. statewide transportation system that enough additional land to compen- Currently, ODOT has mitigated serves the needs of Ohio's citizens. sate. And, there may be other rea- three acres of loss by buying credits And like all responsible land„level- sons that mitigation along the pro from a bank and has recently made opers, ODOT seeks to perform that ject may not be workable. the necessary arrangements to mots duty while at the same time recog- For ODOT, wetland mitigation gate a portion of 38.25 acres of loss ni=ing and respecting nature and the can be awkward and expensive. on another project. environment. ODOT currently has nearly, 100 "The cost of buying into dw miti- ODOT members have begun projects that will require filling in gation bank is only 25 per-nt of exploring the uses of a concept wetlands. While most will destroy our least expensive mitigation t.) called "Wetland Banking," a means only small areas, about 28 projects date," says`Tom Linkous, an cm i- bv which the department can easily will require permits and compen- ronmental manager with ODOT and cost effectively compensate for satory mitigation. and a supporter of the Ohio Wet- wetland impacts caused by highway Mitigation on site or adjacent to land Foundation Bank. construction projects. ` "the site' can be difficult to plan "The sections will niorr than While ODOT must contend with when there are already develop- likely be successful because the :ire regulations that limit the use of ments all around a project. Mitiga- was chosen for its ability to sustain banking, there is real hope that it tion on a landscape not meant to wetlands. This represents a rrspoiisi- %vill be an increasingly valuable tool sustain a wetland can fail. The cost ble use of resources,"he says. 1 for future use. of these efforts can range anywhere Wetland banking, however, is Wetlands are defined as land from $66,000 to $306,000 per.acre, only"employed as an alternative ,, -„ areas that are saturated either,with and some of these costs are fixed no choice. Under the rules of the ground or surface water for such a matter how big or small the area of CWA, banking is only enipioyed to duration and frequency that they compensation is. the extent that mitigation cannot can, and usually do, support "hyrdo- Wetland mitigation banking be effectively employed on site or s plZyric vegetation," or plants that offers a solution of sorts to this prob- adjacent to the site. 3 grow in wet soil. lem. The concept is similar to a "ODOT is responsible for replac- Wetlands generally include financial bank. A developer can ing wetlands `in kind,"' say kdin swampy. bugs and marshes. They work on creating an area of wet Baird, anen nun virontal specialist I ria� also include area: not typically lands independent of the project with ODOT. "That is, on the pro- thought of as wetlands, such as sea- site. The developer receives credits jeer site and of the same il} lrologi- rk that is done. Those cal and biological type as t'.1 �xer- sor,aliv wet forests. for the woThe Clean Water Act (CWA) of credits:are rlien applied or sold to lands destroyed. As necessary, w, - 191 i pieces stringent controls on another developer for any later pro- can replace wetlands `out of kind. these areas to prevent destruction ject where wetlands are destroyed That is, on site but with different that could affect water supply or and cannot be mitigated on site. physical characteristics it its nor aquatic life. Any developer seeking ODOT'believes that this system viable It is only when these tt to construct a project that may has several significant benefits. possibilities are exhausted 1u WWI- require the loss of an acre or more of Using,a banking system, mitigation able that we can go off site Lo a �et- i wetlands must notify —or apply for for several projects can be combined land mitigation bank." a permit from— the U.S. Army in one area. This means that the Fred Steck, an environmental Corps of Engineers. effortof designing several areas can supervisor with ODOT, adds that Under the CWA, the developer be replaced with one design. Since there is a very good reason t rr this must first seek to avoid wetlands. If the area is selected for its suitability preference. "There is a real urea to —� this cannot be done, the developer instead of its location, 'success is replace wetlands on or near their hAl should then use design and/or con- much more certain. original site to maintain the ecologi srruction methods to minimize By grouping mitigation wetlands cal balance of the area, he �ays. impacts on werlands. into a selecte&area, they can�be There is no guarantee though, that a \nv remaining wetland impacts managed and monitored effectively wetland created un site will he salt # can then be mitigated by creation of for the five .cars required by law. sustaining. new wetlands or restoration of for- A non-profit organization known "This is still a new science. I is mer wetlands. Once built, the wet- as the Ohio Wetlands Foundation still evolving,"he says. i 38 August 1996 AMLRiCAN CIT% &Z Cot�,'l 00004NO ..000', W A T E R Win-Win Water Solutions Wetlands can be a other wildlife,unlike smaller- Sufficient "Market" In Washington state,local contentious land use issue. scale projects scattered on and "Product" governments,Department of ",Vhen developers wantto various individual sites.A Transportation,and the evelop land with wetlands bank's environmental A large site is needed for Legislature are exploring cesignated to be preserved, professionals can provide the the required economies of scale wetlands mitigation banking.A .:iey have to mitigate forthe experience and resources and viability of a functioning Senate Ecology&Parks rvetlands loss by replacing the needed to create a healthy ecosystem.Adequate demand Committee recentlyfocused on .vetiand on site or on another natural preserve.A larger site is needed to coverthe costs of wetlands mitigation banking. property.Replacing the wetland offers economies of scale in developing and maintaining a on-site reduces the the application of professional large wetland.Demand can be development potential of that expertise and resources. created and by setting the fees site.Replacing the wetland off- Concentrating wetlands at incentive levels(i.e.,lower site involves purchasing resources in larger sites allows than the costto replace COIhe another site and preserving it for the best use of developable wetlands onsite)and,perhaps, T?, re4c nlyforwetlands. land resulting in increased partnering with other rYetl", a 0.4 property values. jurisdictions to ensure a Urb • �•S Wetlands mitigation largerdemand. al*at1O tanking offers a third option by Sept, 1) allowing developers to mitigate Regulatory Approval mber26 'or wetland loss by paying into Maintenance eke was 11996 Developing a large wetland rechni hin9ton a fund thatwill pay for wetland cad sites.This option removes the site can require federal permits. A critical long term irk/and Co/%gee The City of Renton's wetland issue is maintenance. ceveloperfrom having to mitigation bank site triggered Florida Wetlandsbank,a C,a 20, constructorfind replacement issues thatthey've been private wetlands 9�stratio 6-3900f ; eetlands. working out with the Corps of mitigation bank,has a ,packets,or Engineers. trust-fund arrangement based Benefits on a per-acre fee,which is essential to assure taxpayers A wetlands mitigation bank thatthe wetlands site will not s a site of substantial acreage. become a maintenance burden. nis allows forthe creation of a diverse,integrated habitat .or a variety of birds,fish and ,�• �: Z � `� �r �1� ,�! �� raj {Td i ��� 1� � i iWE �rINVI \ • i s x r 1{ 8 • a s i G'1 @,y�.may � � � y •C 055 4-1 PIN AIX Not long ago, swamps ways, only hardened the views of were considered waste- both sides in the debate about lands—breeding grounds property rights on the one hand, f $ �,• - `.:� for disease and pests. and reasonable regulation on the Even the pioneering con- other. servationist Marshall While that debate goes on, R•_ }►' i Leighton wrote in 1912, property-owners wrestle with the ' "We cannot feel that our uncertainty that surrounds this � + full duty has been per- unresolved issue. City govern- formed until we have made ments have been doubtly im- �' these swamp lands centers pacted. In the first place, they of prosperity for ourselves and must cope with uncertainty con- those who shall come after." cerning how some parcels within A lot has changed since then. their boundaries will be classi- In 1977, federal agencies were fied—decisions that will have a ordered to minimize damage to dramatic effect on city tax rev- wetlands, by Executive Order enues, housing patterns and from former President Jimmy long-term growth plans. In addi- ��V Carter. A dozen years later, tion, however, they also are af- the Environmental Protection fected directly because many Agency formally adopted the goal local governments themselves of"no net loss" of wetlands—a own degraded or deteriorating goal that has been reaffirmed by wetlands. They must decide how both Republican and Democratic to preserve them, while still pro- administrations. tecting the taxpayers' interest. Though in recent years, the In the midst of this confusion, issue of wetlands preservation an innovative "win-win" solution and restoration has become in- has emerged: private wetlands by Lein Lautin creasingly controversial. High- mitigation banking. This solu- profile court cases and lengthy tion provides local governments legislative battles have, in many with an attractive alternative to FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES 18 r . .1 ' ganizations can become allies, HOW Wetlands rather than antagonists, cooper Mitigation Banking ating in their pursuit of common -�-' goals. m _ Works From the beginning, it has t 1 :.r been our contention that this Wetlands mitigation banking is concept could be made to work ` �, �I� _ designed to protect wetlands re- effectively.What's more, we be- ��r t r' g lieved it could be made to work sources while allowing for reason- for-profit enterprise, with able growth and development. as a �1 1 Property-owners whose develop- the city as a partner in the eco act de- nomic benefits. ment plans would imp► ti graded wetlands can purchase - A h credits in te wetlands mitigation Point: bank.These credits shift respon- Case in sibility for wetlands impact from Pembroke Pines, the property-owner's site to the Florida t + mitigation bank site. Owners who s 1 would otherwise be required to restore small, scattered ho might r jeorida ct is a 350 adcre s first ems. on their properties—or w g P �1t 1 Of P be prohibited from using their can Browardin thetCounty broke Pines, F' property most effectively now develop their Adjacent to a re properties with sidential com no net loss to the nation's wet- the site was to the city by a developedr ed intthe is t t lands. f In our experience at Florida 1980s. Unfortunately, the city Wetlandsbank, we found the lacked the resources to maintain most effective approach to wet- the parcel, which was covered a lands mitigation banking was a with melaleuca trees. In addition `i public/private partnership involy- to this invasive, exotic species, P man and the City of the property also had begun to ing our.co P Y artner- deteriorate in other ways, be- Pembroke Pines. Such a p g a weekend haven for all- ship approach, focusing on a osiz- leorrann vehicles and a convenient traditional methods of dealing able wetlands site, offers imp g le round for trash. with wetlands issues. An excel- tant advantages over the tradi- illegal dumpi a solution to the ng g lent example can be found in the tional method of restoring large In challenge ofgrestoring and main- City of Pembroke Pines, where numbers of widely scattered gg parcel, the Aiayor Alex Fekete, the city com- "postage stamp" sized parcels: mayor, the degraded mission, and City Manger . Self-sustaining ecosys- mayor, city commission and city Charles Dodge are showing that terns:The wetlands mitigation manager worked with Florida N,:etlands mitigation can be an bank is, by definition, a site of Wetland sbank d the first of its elective way to restore wetlands substantial acreage.This allows venture approach without threatening property- for the creation of a diverse, inte- kind. Under the agreement, owners' rights. grated habitat for a wide variety Florida Wetlandsbandesignk agreed to construct a new This first-of-its-kind joint ven- of birds, fish and other wildlife, system ford the property, e adi o Lure between a city government unlike smaller-scale projects and a private wetlands mitiga- scattered on various individual cate the exotic species, and re- tion bank is already producing place them with a mixture of 10 sites. ertise:The typical Everglades habitats in - important benefits: . Professional exp g cypress stands, emer- • First, it enables the city to bank's environmental profession- gentclud restore a badly degraded city- als have the experience and re- saw asssprairiee In addition nto owned wetland. sources needed to cmar reate a g • Second, it provides for pub- healthy natural preserve. Once restoring the site, Florida Iic enjoyment of an otherwise again, the size of the site is an Wetlandsbank would be respon- �vasted resource• advantage, enabling economies - sible for maintaining and moni- • It does these g scale in the application of profes toying the new wetlands for five risk or cost to the city or its tax- sional expertise and resources. years, after which t to he he city. payers. • Everybody wins: Perhaps biliAtysW nificant return milestone oc- What's more, it provides appealing advantage g . the most app g g additional revenue to the city. from a public policy standpoint is curred in October 1992 when the agreement between Florida the "win-win" a local f the on Wetlandsbank and he City of cept. Property-owners, ernments and environmental or- Pembroke Pines was finalize . QUALITY CITIES—JUNE/JULY 1996 19 Under the contract, Florida Who buys these credits?Cli- Wetlandsbank pays the city a ents have included private devel- returning, and populations g fis franchise fee of$7,000 per acre opers as well as public entities, and other wildlife are growing. for the first 75 acres of credit among them the Brolic e Count In 1996, another 135 acres will sales. After this, the fee increases School District and the nearbyY be completed, with the remaining to $8,500 per acre. The city gets, City of Plantation. B 199 acres slated for completion in paid only after credits are sold, credits in the wetlands mitigation entire 350-a re site tol for be cohm- A construction bond ensures bank, these local governments that restoration work will be com- pletely restored in a three-year can use their own properties to period, at no cost to taxpayers, no pleted as approved. In addition, Florida Wetlandsbank pays a their highest and best degree, risk to the city and no net loss of P Y help ensure there is no net loss of wetlands—a true "win-win" ar- S 1,000 per acre fee, which is the nation's wetlands, and protect rangement. placed in escrow to provide for P their own taxpayers' interests as Reactions have been favorable. Perpetual maintenance of the site well. after the company's initial five- One developer was recently year responsibility has been met. tiont with egulators15 sbefo of ne eg q y the toted s saying, "Florida In early 1994, Florida Wet- first transfer could be made and, Wetlandbank deals with all the landsbank achieved another mile- as we will see shortly, there were headaches of constructing and stone by completing the nation's many more regulatory hurdles to maintaining wetlands. We've first transfer of wetlands mitiga- clear before actual restoration made three transfers for residen- tion credits by a private, entre- could begin. But about 115 acres bank is p oviding a mitigation ser- ve mitigation bank. Since have now been restored, which then, a total of 120 acres of cred- vice." its in the site have been trans- means exotic species have been ferred, an additional 30 to 40 completely removed, no more And Dr. Frank Midlife i, fe - than 5 percent have returned, versity of Florida wildlife profes- acres are under contract and and 80 to 90 percent of the native ng seems to bea`much betbrnk- negotiations are underway for the plant species are health and balance of the credits. Y approach than most on-site miti- thriving. In addition, birds are gation. It certainly looks as if this project is taking off." For choosing OMI as uOur outsourcing partner. Congratulations.You just made a most difficult decision for your organization. And certainly one of the best,since you decided to team with OMI. "; , By partnering with OMI you're getting dedication, experience, and award-winning solutions. These values have attracted the ;• attention of the hundred plus water and waste- water operations we currently handle. And the attention of the regional and national environ- `�''` ' mental groups who have honored us with twelve major awards in the last three years. ., TO learn more about the finance, design, i 1 construction, and operations services OMI A, `` can provide, please call our headquarters in Denver at 1-800-831-3243. 4 { is Y OMI A G L O B A L PRIVATIZATION COMPANY FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES 20 Dr. Mazzotti added, "The real a regular basis. The corps re- payers that the wetlands site will proof will come after the final cently issued a mitigation bank- not become a maintenance bur- acre is restored. It's important to ing guidance that appears flex- den someday, forcing them to monitor the area's progress." ible enough to allow for the eco- choose between raising their His caution is understandable nomic variables encountered in taxes or losing wetlands. and prudent. That is why the individual markets. It does not, ✓ Something extra for the :one-term maintenance arrange- however, prevent duplication in future.This is not an absolute ments are so important. Once all the review process, which can requirement, but adding a recre- our mitigation credits are com- lead to unnecessary project de- ational element or other use of mitred and the last acre is re- lays. the land can help build future stored, we still have a five-year public support. In our project, maintenance and monitoring Checklist for a the City Pembroke Pines plans commitment for the final parcel. to offer passive recreation on a Successful Wetlands limited portion of the preserve, At the end of that period, the with canoe trails, picnic areas maintenance trust fund takes Mitigation Bank over. having grown to as much and nature trails. Such addi- j 5500,000 to $600,000 by tional uses must be consistent as There's no such thing as a with the site's wetlands status, then. "guaranteed success" when deal- of course. ing with such a complex con- Above all, of course, cities will Making a Good Thing cept. But there are some impor- want to be sure of the experience Even Better tant elements that cities can and credibility of those with watch for to ensure that a pri- whom they are dealing.Wetlands vate wetlands mitigation bank mitigation banking involves a Despite our success with has the greatest possible chance long-term commitment; it's im- Florida Wetlandsbank, there are for success: portant that your private sector many ways in which the concept V Sufficient "product." Be partner has the technical exper- can be enhanced to make it sure there is a large enough de- tise and financial wherewithal to easier for cities to realize the graded wetlands site, allowing see the project through. benefits. Perhaps the greatest of for the required economies of Wetlands mitigation banking these involves clearing the regu- scale and the viability of a fully provides the most viable solution latory hurdles. functioning ecosystem. How In our case, we often faced much is enough will vary, of to the "no net loss" commitment, duplication and even contradic- protecting the public while also course, depending on climate enabling property-owners to tort- requirements from the van- and other environmental factors, pursue their development rights. ous agencies involved in regulat- but 250 acres is a reasonable No other approach appears to in= the nation's 100 million minimum in many areas. resolve the debate as well. acres of wetlands. The licensing V Sufficient "market." Be If the regulatory hurdles can and permitting requirements sure there's adequate demand be overcome, there is a bright bean with the U.S. Army Corps for the bank's services.These future for the concept. It serves of Engineers in June 1993, and clients are not just developers the public, serves the environ- eventually expanded to include and private land-owners, how- mental community and serves the South Florida Management ever. As we have seen, public developers. But most impor- District, as well as the Broward agencies and local governments tantly, it leaves a lasting legacy County Department of Natural can realize significant long-term for our children and grandchil- Resource Protection. advantages as clients of the wet- A fundamental regulatory lands mitigation bank. dren. issue was the question of "credit V Taxpayer protection in Lew Lautin, CEO and partner ratios"—how many acres of bank the short term.This is impor- in Florida Wetlandsbank, is a Wetlands would be required to tant in any enterprise where nationally recognized leader in compensate for an acre of client- public agencies are involved. wetlands mitigation banking. ov,-ned wetlands. If the ratios Construction bonds and careful, were too high, the mitigation complete accounting of all funds bank would not be a cost-effec- are essential in order to ensure tive alternative. In our case, the that the enterprise will be car- final ratios we negotiated with ried out with no risk of taxpayer the various agencies ranged from money. 0.75 to 1.25 acres in the bank V Taxpayer protection in for every acre of client-owned the long term.The critical long- wetlands impact. term issue is maintenance. A Clearlv, streamlining the regu- trust-fund arrangement such as latory process is a critical re- ours, based on a per-acre fee, is quirement in order for wetlands essential in order to assure tax- mitigation banking to succeed on QUALITY CITIES—JUNE/DULY 1996 21 Art from Waste Water t A unique new garden created from stormwater runoff was opened to the public in late June. ,` Waterworks Gardens, an eight-acre site that includes 11 s ponds, a waterfall, an enhanced -g wetland and wildlife habitat, i opened June 25 on the edge of Metros 95-acre wastewater treatment plant in Renton. k `m The gardens feature many interesting points of interest, in- cluding The Grotto, a steel- reinforced structure which incor- porates inlaid mosaic made of recycled materials, the trail through the islands and wet- lands,and the knoll from which one can overlook the site. The retaining ponds hold nearly 650,000 gallons of runoff water Photo by ERIC MUNSON plus 16,215 cubic feet of sedi- from dawn to dusk,but the trails more persons, contact Ron Post, ment. The topography of the are for pedestrian use only and Water Pollution Control Divi- site and the plants used in land- do not allow bikes or joggers. sion, King County Department scaping helps purify the treated For information on becoming a of Natural Resources, M.S. 95, water. site steward volunteer or to ar- 821 Second Ave., Seattle, WA Public access is allowed range a tour for groups of'10 or 98104-1598. 0 LETTERS -from page 4 proval of 60 percent. The meas- ure had a 59.85 "yes" vote, which still tells us that our community is deeply committed to its schools. We also want to extend a heartfelt"thank you" to the hun- dreds of volunteers throughout the community who worked long hours to inform voters of the importance of our ballot proposition. Citizen volunteers made nearly 12,000 phone calls, did numerous mailings, and on elec- tion day stood in pouring rain on street corners holding signs reminding citizens to vote.Their �.� efforts to inform the community A, I Lube, ♦ 1 were a wonderful example of the oil & Filter support and commitment you ` ♦ �'' �,� have for our Renton School Dis- Q5 trict and the 12,000 students we 14�/ Rtatien & Balance—: serve. Thank you for showing I_ 0 that same support and commit- , INCLUDES VEHICLE INSPECTIONI 99 .A- 9 ment when you voted. Drain old oil and add up to 5 Gis multigrade Gary Kohlwes, M! install new fiiterand lubricate chassis. r Superintendent Doesn't Include Environmental Waste fees P %Most cars.Not valid with any other offer 4 Renton Public Schools ♦ Expires 8/15/96. arse This coupon is not valid with any 'other r advertised special.Listed stores only. See stores for complete details. Nrivaii miarvidad Expires8/15/96. shuttle.About 33 miles of bike paths connect South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, with the bike station.According to Georgia Illinois 60603; 312-431-9985.) Problems/Benefits of A new report by the Washington, D.C.—based of downtown supermarkets is that high land Public Voice for Food and Health Policy argues costs make large parking lots too expensive. Locating Supermarkets that despite the obstacles, supermarkets can The report points out, however,that urban Downtown succeed downtown.The report, No Place to neighborhoods are more densely populated Shop:Challenges and Opportunities Facing than suburban areas and that many people the Development of Supermarkets in Urban will walk to the supermarket. In addition,the America, argues that while suburban markets report lists various tax credits and incentives are fast reaching saturation, many urban mar- and public and private sector financing pro- kets remain untapped and underserved. Some grams that can be used for supermarket devel-of the obstacles to urban development that the opment.To order a copy of the report($20), �,V`C �o ►'� report acknowledges include: land acquisition, contact Public Voice for Food and Health Policy high construction costs,and more complicated at 202-371-1840. (Downtown Idea Exchange, zoning and regulatory approval processes. Lo- April 15, 1996;Alexander Research & Commu- cal government commitment is critical,says the nications, Inc., 215 Park Avenue South, Suite report, and can help alleviate some of these 1301, New York, New York 10003; 212-228- problems by speeding permitting and provid- 0246.) ing tax incentives.Another perceived problem The Florida Wetlandsbank of Pembroke Pines, land. Responsibility for the site will revert to Commercial Wetlands in Florida, recently completed the restoration of the city of Pembroke Pines after five years and a _ Florida Demonstrating a 350-acre wetland.The site of the project is a trust fund established by the bank will fund the Demand former wetland that became farmland.The pro- maintenance.While the concept has been ap- ject is one of the country's first commercial proved by relevant government agencies as a f f. ventures to sell credits in a manmade mitiga- viable tool for balancing wetlands preservation tion wetland project to developers. Demand with development,some in the natural resource for the credits has been strong with the com- management community still express concern pany reporting it has already sold half the pro- over the long-term viability of manmade and ject's available credits and expects to sell out restored wetlands. Construction costs for the by the end of 1996.The wetlands mitigation wetland are estimated at about$10,000 per concept allows property owners prohibited by acre, but the cost of obtaining permits to build law from developing existing wetlands to pur- the wetland and sell credits ran to more than chase credits in a wetlands mitigation bank, $1 million. (Civil Engineering,April 1996, enabling them to develop all of their property American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East with no loss to the nation's wetlands. In this 47th Street, New York, New York 10017-2398; way, small numbers of isolated wetlands are 212-705-7179.) replaced by one large, biologically viable wet- U.S.WATER NEWS October, 1995/Page 7 FRESHWATER FORUM Zebra mussels: How much are they costing us? By Leroy J. Hushak,Yuming Deng and Mary Bielen Editor's note:Improvements in the into their facilities. To date, three After hitching a ride to the U.S. aboard Russian ships and wreak- speed and efficiency of transportation separate requests have been sent to ing havoc to water supply systems throughout the Midwest, that and the resulting increase in world 1,500 facilities. Nearly 400 usable dreaded water invader-the Zebra mussel-apparently has crossed trade have brought mixed blessings. responses have been received, but the Mexican border into California. Zebra mussels were discovered Along with the economic benefits of few of the large water users that clinging to the hull of a 44-foot pleasure yacht by a sharp-eyed in- opening trade relations with new were heavily affected by zebra mus- spector at the state border inspection station in Truckee,Calif. Since partners across the globe has come sels responded. Efforts are underway then,other discoveries have been made of zebra mussels clinging to the risk of importing (or exporting, to obtain more responses, especially vacationers'boats on trailers at border stations. See story on Page 4. for that matter) more than just the from the large, heavily-affected fa- commodities described in the trade cilities, and to determine if the facili- agreements. We are now facing the ties that did not respond are similar physically removing mussels, 53 whether facility operators are learn- worldwide transport of non-native to those that did. reported using chemical treatment ing how to save money by monitor- species of plant and animal life that Of the facilities that have re- with oxidizing compounds, nine re- ing for zebra mussels and then by arrive as stow-aways hidden on the sponded, 28 percent are utilities, 27 ported using chemical treatment treating with the least-cost technol- bottoms of ships or in ballast water. percent are municipal water suppli- with non-oxidizing compounds, and ogy before they become a serious Without the natural controls present ers, and 45 percent are industries. eight reported other treatment problem. We were interested to learn in their native habitats, these species Thirty-six percent are located on the methods. Of the chemical treatment what sources facility operators used an proliferate prodigiously, in some Great Lakes while 45 percent are strategies in 1994, chlorine was used to gain information about zebra cases becoming not just a nuisance located on tributaries of the Great by 35, followed by 16 using potas- mussels and zebra mussel monitor- but a serious threat to native species Lakes(Table 1). sium permanganate, and eight using ing and control. The four most fre- and to the economic resources of the Zebra mussels were reported at 37 molluscicides. quently used sources of zebra mussel areas they invade. The zebra mussel percent of the responding facilities Table 3 provides average costs for information are: is one such exotic species. Its high (Table 2). While only four inland all respondents and respondents Conferences, workshops and trade densities, rapid spread, and potential water respondents out of 74 detected drawing water from a Great Lake, a show ...........................................47% ecological effects on freshwater sys- zebra mussels at their facilities, 103 Great Lake tributary, and inland Trade publications .....................44% tems have helped bring it to public out of 143 facilities(72 percent)with streams and lakes annually and Sea Grant publications...............32% attention. But the primary reason for Great Lakes water intakes have since 1989. For example, 107 respon- Media..........................................31% the zebra mussel's current high pro- zebra mussels. Four of the surveyed dents reported average expenditures The evidence for adoption of best file is its economic cost. Water users facilities are located on the Missis- of$138,100 in 1992; 84 Great Lakes practices will emerge more clearly as are expected to spend several billion sippi River in Minnesota, but none respondents reported average total the data are analyzed in more detail. dollars over the next few years just to are known to be infested. expenditures of$513,600 over the Data on monitoring and preventive clean water intakes clogged by this Of 145 respondents who have de- five-year period from 1989 to 1994. actions suggest that some facilities fast-reproducing mollusk. The fol- tected zebra mussels at their facili- lowing article explains why. ties, 44 percent had taken preven- tive actions before mussels were de- n 1989, the largest fossil-fueled tected. Of 252 respondents who had Table 3. Average zebra mussel monitoring and control costs power plant in the world, Detroit not detected zebra mussels, nine (in thousands of dollars) for respondents reporting these costs Edison's plant in Monroe,Michigan, percent reported having taken pro- by source of water (397 total respondents) had to shut down because millions of tective actions. a pinky-sized animal - called the Monitoring determines if zebra zebra mussel-had plugged up the mussels are near a facility.A total of Total water system. Since that time,zebra 100 respondents reported monitor- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 89 94 mussels have continued to spread ing for zebra mussels during 1994, All Respondents throughout the Great Lakes, their while 86 reported monitoring expen- N 31 59 93 107 Ill Ill 125 tributaries, and many major rivers ditures,and 111 reported monitoring Costs 19.9 46.1 84.0 138.1 144.0 84.1 410.1 and inland lakes. Zebra mussels and control expenditures. Monitor- Great Lakes have reportedly infested hundreds of ing costs accounted for over 10 per- N 22 46 66 73 76 77 84 facilities that use untreated surface cent of total monitoring and control Costs 25.2 51.0 112.2 176.0 170.1 95.1 513.6 water, such as municipal drinking costs in every year except 1992. Tributaries water facilities, industries, and Of control expenditures, 34 re- N 9 14 24 30 32 30 37 power generating plants. There has ported retrofitting(redesigning in- Costs 6.7 33.2 16.2 60.9 79.8 64.3 195.2 been little systematic information to take pipes), 21 reported costs for Inland Waters N 0 1 3 4 4 4 4 Table 1. Responding facilities by type and source of water -Costs 0.0 18:0 6.6 28.6 168.8 18.8 223.E - Source of Water Great Great Lake Inland Type of Facility Lake Tributary Water Total Respondents with Great Lakes do monitor and prepare for zebra water intakes include 32 of 48 facili- mussels,but many others wait until Private Utility 19 28 14 61 ties with over 50 million gallons per the latest time possible or until they day (mgpd) of intake capacity. Re- are actually infested before taking Public Utility 30 16 5 51 ported costs range from less than action to control zebra mussels. Municipal Water Supply 61 38 9 108 $20,000 per year for smaller water However, the existence of recently Industry 33 98 46 177 intakes of 5 mgpd or fewer, to developed package treatments for Total 143 180 74 397 $350,000 or more each year for those smaller intakes may make this a in excess of 300 mgpd. viable strategy. Survey questions also asked Leroy J. Hushak, Yuming Deng, and Mary Bielen are researchers at identify the infested facilities, the Ohio Sea Grant Extension,The Ohio State University,in Columbus, Ohio. costs of monitoring, cleaning, and Table 2. Responding facilities by . zebra mussel This article originally appeared in controlling the infestations, and infestation and source of water the July, 1995 issue of Aquatic Nui- whether the best methods are being sance Species Digest, a quarterly used to minimize these costs. newsletter published by the Fresh- Ohio Sea Grant is supporting a Source of Water water Foundation in cooperation survey of facilities on the Great Gnat Great Lake Inland with the U.S. fish and Wildlife Serv- Lakes, Great Lakes tributaries, and Infestation Detected? Lake Tributary Water Total ice and the National Task Force on selected facilities on nearby streams Aquatic Nuisance Species. For addi- and lakes that draw surface water Yes 103 38 4 145 tional information about the ANS (as opposed to water from wells or No 40 142 70 252 Digest, please contact its editor,Nils from.other underground sources) Halker, at(612)471-9773. Freshwater Forum is sponsored by the Freshwater Foundation, a non-profit organization working to increase awareness of complex water issues. By pre- senting this forum, the Freshwater Foundation hopes to encourage information sharing, discussion and understanding among citizens,government agen- cies,researchers, and other stakeholders. To receive more information about the Foundation, or to suggest topics for the Freshwater Forum,please contact the Foundation at(612)471-9773. Fax: (612)471-9685;e-mail:frshwtr@freshwater.org. Page 8/0ctober, 1995 WATER QUALITY oil — — U.S.MTER M" Burial pit for WWII nerve gas is � o sso ft Alaska's newest Sup erfund site FILL HOLES FAIRBANKS,Ak.— As World War II memories have become popular with E o u i S i A N A the recent spate of 50-year anniversaries commemorating the close of the war, SINKHOLE WITH SEDIMENT t�lE it just seems reasonable that recollections of a former soldier would lead to SUSPECTED FRACTURE Newv Alaska's newest Superfund-listed environmental cleanup. Based on the for- Orleans mer GIs testimony and military waste disposal records, a World War II-era chemical burial trench is the focus of a$1 million mitigation project at Fort I e e k s Wainwright near Fairbanks. c s I a n d The cleanup involves the possibility of buried mustard gas and test-tube • bpi samples of chemical agents.The area near Fort Wainwright was designated a • • . of Mexico "waste burial site"and some cleanup was done about 30 years ago.The former soldier who operated a bulldozer during the 1966 cleanup told investigators two decades later that he recalled seeing large cylinders removed from the area, along with wooden crates containing chemical agents. In 1946 or 1947, according to the Army's proposed plan for interim remedial action, "20 to 30 cylinders of mustard agent and an unknown number of Crude sold at loss to pay for cleanup wooden crates containing chemical agent identification sets"were buried in a trench near the post's tank farm. Monitoring wells have been constructed at U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve the site since the former soldier's testimony came to light in 1987, and since then the site has been added to the posts Superfund cleanup list. Coast while recent radar tests and soil borings have failed to unearth any metal sprouts leak on La ■ objects or measurable contamination, subsurface mapping has indicated some anomolies that might be buried hazardous materials, according to officials of NEW IBERIA, La. — What environmentalists agree that the the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The cleanup plan seemed like a prudent plan at the cleanup is warranted. To ignore the calls for digging to a depth of 15 feet or to bedrock, whichever occurs first. time some 20 years ago — storing oil leakage from the salt caverns Materials from the excavation will be taken to a"secure interim holding facil- billions of gallons of crude oil in poses the possibility of a spill many ity" on the post before a decision is made about final disposal,Army officials abandoned salt mines as a hedge times the size of the Exxon Valdez said. against foreign embargoes —has disaster in Alaska. turned into environmental night- The Weeks Island area is"a large �� cons ruc a wetland mare for thea U.S. Energy Depart- nursery ground for shrimp, crabs, ■ ment here along the coast of Louisi- and a lot of fish species offshore," ana. noted Wilma Subra of Subra Co., an could be mitigation bank Over the next two years, federal environmental consulting firm in officials intend to pump some 3 bil- New Iberia. "It is used by a tremen- lion gallons of crude oil from caverns dous amount of commercial fisher- AUBURN, Wash.—This region's history of the Puget Sound area.The at Weeks Island, where surface wa- men as well as recreational fisher- largest constructed wetland being new wetland itself is designed to off- ter has washed out sinkholes that men,"Subra added. created from marshy farmland some set the destruction of 17 acres of could release a flood of oil onto Besides pumping oil from the cav- 20 miles southeast of Seattle could natural wetlands caused by the con- coastal wetlands. erns, the cleanup involves the drill- become one of the first wetland miti- struction of a horse-racing track In order to pay for the projected ing of some 55 wells around sink- gation banks in the Northwest. named Emerald Downs located a $105 million cost of the cleanup at holes. The plan calls for refrigerant Under Section 404 of the federal half-mile away. Because of the de- Weeks Island, Energy Department to be circulated through pipes within Clean Water Act, developers can tailed scientific approach taken by officials intend to sell 10 percent of the wells,freezing groundwater that exchange wetlands that stand in the track developer,Northwest Rac- the oil stored in the former mine of is washing out the fissures. The their way for the same amount of ing Associates, which is overseeing Morton Salt Co. cleanup method constitutes the]at- land in a constructed wetland else- the project, it is also an important While this might seem a tidy plan, est technology for dealing with sink- where, if the application is approved test case for the technology.The $4- the fact remains that the oil is worth holes that threaten groundwater by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- million project will entail recontour- �' barely half the price at which it was supplies. neers. Several states have formed ing of the land by massive land-mov- purchased in the 1970s and 1980s The Weeks Island site is the only wetland banks as mitigation land ing equipment, the planting of thou- for storage in the Strategic Petro- one of six caverns of the Strategic for wetlands destroyed by develop- sands of wetland-specific trees and leum Reserve.The premature sale of Petroleum Reserve that is leaking. ment, and private banks have been wetland-specific grasses, shrubs, and the oil in order to pay for the cleanup The reserve consists of some 25 bil- created in some areas. other forms of vegetation. will result in a loss of some $100 lion gallons of crude oil stored At 56 acres,the experimental wet- Early in the project, workers million. underground in Louisiana and land near Auburn is one of the larg- cleared a stand of trees on the farm, Nevertheless,federal officials and Texas. est artificial wetland projects in the but instead of being discarded, the waste logs were carefully stored to be placed as animal shelters at a later time. Northwest Racing Asso- River authority provides book covers to 70,000 students ciates, has even made provisions to hire biologists whose duties might F. In its fourth year of include weeding, mowing, monitor- distributing water quality r / ing wildlife, and even irrigating the ,•.,F,� 1 new marsh for a period of 15 years. book covers to public school students,the As an experimental project, the / �� Brazos River Authority of artificial wetlands in Auburn face Waco, Texas, has given the fact that few artificial wetlands out some 70,000 covers at �— �+� �� ��__ have never functioned as well a the start of a new school natural wetlands. In a study of 17 � ��_..�i/ small wetlands in western Washing- year. The authority has ton state, the U.S. Environmental distributed more than _ �— _�/ � YOU Agency (EPA)concluded 250,000 book covers in 39 � J �� ' that two-thirds failed to attract wild- central Texas counties L� TRASH life and bad too little water to sup- since the program began. OUT OF Damon Brown, a Prairie _ d� � �_ ��� port wetland plants. Most of these, c��a ° �' however, are very small projects of View A&M University Q advertising student, won � p two acres or less. The latest project the annual Contest for the D will deepen 45 acres of existing wet- for this year's book �>> • lands and dig 11 acres of new wet- artwork lands. Even if artificial wetlands fail cover rtworrtwork with a drawing to function as planned, U.S. Envi- entitled "Keep Your Trash / o j . �� Out of My Water." ronmenta] Protection Agency (EPA) officials are committed to the con- cept. it 1 � . , ► ■ l . } �a z a conflict exists between society's and sciences' increasing appreciation of wetlands and the itigation bank S �. functions they perform, contin- JL social and economic pressure to allow activities that negatively affect wetlands, One potential solution is establishment and operation of mitigation banks. mise pro Mitigation banking is the restoration,creation,enhancement and,in exceptional circumstances,preservation of wetlandsand/ or other aquatic resources,expressly for the purpose of provid- return ing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts Sforto similar resources. Theobjective of a mitigation bank is to provide for the replacement of the chemical,physical and bio- logical functions of wetlands and other aquatic resources which wetlands , are lost as a result of authorized impacts. Mitigation bank works Prepared by Jean O'Neil,Ph.D._ much like regular bank U.S.Army Engineer Waterwa ys Experiment Station Once established, a mitigation bank � g P -, 41,, wi , Vicksburg, MS works very much like a business bank. 1 ,ig; / ` 1 1 Call 1996 C, ongress presentations,10, he Call for Presentations is out for the 1996 TOPIC International Public Works Congress,Au- gust 25-29,in Washington,D.C.. SPEAKER The program for the 1996 International Public Works Congress and Exposition, (Please include name,how the proposed speaker may be reached,and a brief bio the largest annual gathering of people and statement of qualifications.) equipment in the public works industry in North America, will be prepared by the SUMMARY.Please attach a sheet stating in 150 to 250 words a sum- APWA Congress Planning Committee at Congress in Septem- mary or abstract of the proposed session. ber.In addition to considering proposals submitted by APWA Your name institutes and councils, the committee is calling for individual suggestions from members for speakers and program sessions Phone FAX of interest to the public works practitioner. Please submit suggestions for program presentations on tech- Title nical or nontechnical topics.Use this form to propose a TOPIC, Agency/Firm SPEAKER and/or SESSION for the 1996 program, including one you may like to present.You may recommend a topic of interest without a specific speaker in mind.Suggestions for key- Please return information to:Peggy Hall,APWA,106 West 11 th Street,Suite notes speakers are also being sought. 1800,Kansas City,MO 64105-1805.FAX(816)472-1610.Summaries or ab- stracts are requested by September 1,1995. © MAGNUM CONCRETE GRADE CROSSING XManufactured to fit ' any rail ranging from 115lbto 136lb. XDesigned for 9 and 10 1 1 foot ties. XLow maintenance - ' long wear. XCustom designed for switches. Xlnsulated crossings 1 available. MAGNUM MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (801)785-9700 0 FAX(801)785-9701 Manufacturing locations in: 0�,oact,, Pleasant Grove,Utah and Everman,Texas MAGNUM Oporao • For more information,circle#253 on Reader Service Card. For more information,circle#254 on reader service card. JULY 1995 APWA REPORTER 23 Credits are accrued from wetland restoration,creation,orpossi- bly preservation. Debits are deducted as authorized impacts to wetlands occur. Credits and debits are,expressed in some cur- rency (acres or quantity of wetland function). A banker is ap- pointed who is responsible for maintaining the bank and a led- providing ger. If a particular bank is so chartered,loans and trades among By I' customers can be arranged. There is alimited service area. A mitigation bank differs from a business bank in two ma- coo ensn ton before jor ways, however. One, the concept is less established, still C showing many inconsistencies in regulations and practices across the country. Two, the resource base(wetland extent and fungi- the impacts occur, tion)is not even as stable as the dollar; there are changes over time, in area,in quality, and in knowledge. there is no time Concept of mitigation banks rapidly gaining acceptance across country during which wetland There is rapidly increasing acceptance and use of this concept. functions The graph below shows results of a 1992 study conducted by are lost. the Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources on approxi- mately half of all known mitigation banks.The trend continues upwards. Unified federal guidance from five agencies is being promulgated to encourage such banking. Mitigation banking is not universally accepted, however. graph Road,Alexandria,VA 22315-3868,telephone (703)355- Uncertainties and past failures in our ability to restore and cre 3069 for more information or(703)355-3042 for copies of avail- ate wetlands undermine the concept. In addition,our ability to able reports. describe functions in some form of currency is limited by tech- The Waterways Experiment Station is heavily involved in nical deficiencies. This results in uncertainty in determining developing tools for quantifying wetland functions and in all credits,debits,and compensation ratios. aspects of techniques for restoration and creation of wetlands. Contact the Wetlands'Research and Technology Center,CEWES Successful banks can provide EP-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Road,Vicksburg, MS 39 1 80--6 1 99 or telephone(601)634-4217 for information in these areas. larger, more effective wetlands When all goes well, banks can provide an 50 economy of scale in accomplishing mitigation because many small impacted sites can be miti- gated with larger and therefore more effective wetland. The likelihood that mitigation for small sites will occur increases,more expertise can be 40 Estimated cumulative applied to the project, and larger wetlands tend number of Wetland to provide more benefits in most functions. By providing compensation before the impacts oc- mitigation banks f cur,there is no time during which wetland func- 311 established nationwide tions are lost. Banks also provide the opportu- nity to target wetland restoration to meet local since 1977. needs,because banks often mean off-site mitiga- tion. . 20 Studies seek to facilitate watershed-based management The Institute for Water Resources under direc- tion of Bob Brumbaugh, Ph.D. is continuing a t0 nationwide study with a focus on commercial banks(and similar credit ventures)and on use of banks to facilitate watershed-based management. Contact IWR at the Casey Building,7701 Tele 0 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 198 1486 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 199? 1993 ►�Ri ► e o New lab test for I treating wastewater A new laboratory test that will determine optimum parameters ` _ for treating wastewater with the Toro offers .��' ECOCHOICE process has been ` � established byECOPurification portable grinder Systems USA,Inc..The lab al- lows EPS to evaluate its ability Shredder mulches The Toro Recycling Equipment to cost effectively treat a poten- Division introduces its new Buried metal tial customer's wastewater.Ad- trees Up to 15 ProGrind 4000 tub grinder, a ditionally,the test provides cus- portable unit for heavy duty objects located tomers with a budget cost esti- green waste processing. The mate for each ECOCHOICE inches In diameter ProGrind 4000 is designed for Schonstedt Instrument Company application.The process is a new Alamo presents the new FM(tm) the most demanding production introduces the MG-230 Mag- cost-effective,proprietary cata- Series Severe-Duty Shredder. environments,handling material netic Gradiometer. It is used to lytic oxidation system that re- The tractor mounted FM Shred- more than 48 inches in diameter help prevent hitting buried iron moves harmful, dissolved or- der answers today's need of dis- with throughput up to 100 tons and steel objects during drilling ganic waste from a variety of posing of cut vegetation while per hour.It is configured with 12 or digging operations.It is also water streams without any re- not harming the environment. foot hinged flares and an eight very useful for locating ferrous sidual disposal requirements. The FM Shredder quickly dis- foot base,allowing the unit to be objects during underwater re- Additionally, a sophisticated poses of trees and brush by turn- transported without special per- covery operations in ponds, computer system for data acqui- ing them into useful mulch. mits and makes it an ideal sys- lakes, rivers, and streams. The sition provides data such as These powerful shredders can tem for multi-site or contract electronics is housed in aninjec- ozone consumption, liquid fill a tree up to 15 inches in grinding operations. The tion molded, rugged case with flows, gas flows, and contami- diameter and mulch the limbs ProGrind4000 is appropriate for sensors with a 50 or 100400t ❑ant reduction on a continuous and trunk so all that remains is a heavy duty processing needs.For cable. For more information, basis. For more information, fine 3/4 inch mulch.Circle#387 more information, circle #383 circle #380 on reader service circle #390 on reader service on reader service card. on reader service card. card. card. Will This Serve Your Y Needs in the Year 2000? ®U N AV MORE I WITH THE MOST DEPENDABLE CASTING GRADE ADJUSTMENT RISER SYSTEM AVAILABLE Complete Line of Catch Basin, Curb Inlet, � ' — --- - Manhole and Monument Box Risers Available in 1/4 inch Height Increments State Approved Steel Frames and Grates American Made by American Craftsmen Domestic A-36 Steel Construction You need timely data and accurate forecasts to Fabricators of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous manage garbage effectively and economically. Products for the Highway Industry The Role of g in Recycling Integrated Solid Waste g�,Ea_ .�.E-. ==v= Tay Management to the Year 2000,g a study by Franklin _ ' �' p =OnE v0i_r-EJ Associates,Ltd. for Keep America Beautiful,Inc., will help your community make the right decisions. _ Want to know more? Order a copy from Keep METALANDREWS PRODUCTS, America Beautiful. APWA members receive a 745 Andrews Avenue •Youngstown, Ohio 44505 special discounted price of$63.50. Send check, (216) 744.3900 Fax (216) 744.1044 money order,or purchase order to KAB,Solid 1-800-837.3901 Waste Services-APWA Offer,9 West Broad Street, Stamford,CT 06902,or call(203) 323-8987. 26 APWA REPORTER For more information,circle#204 on reader service card. JULY 1995 —fr3eLm SEP 2 7 1995 Welland Miti a t i o n Ban • n Restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands at a mitigation bank site g F.RENTON generates "credits" that reflect the net gain in functional value over the BL f ORKS condition prior to enhancement. Functional gains may be measured in terms ADMIN. g y an Example from King County Washington of water quality, diversity of species and related criteria. Typically credits are in units of acres; one credit equals one acre. Using one approach, the entire cost for designing, constructing and monitoring the wetlands bank is divided by the acres of wetlands in the bank to determine the average cost per acre, BY PEGGY BILL or the average cost per credit. Mitigation banking can potentially provide a net gain in wetlands since mitigation ratios are initially required at 2:1 or greater; two acres of wetlands are in the bank for each acre of wetland impact In the last few years, wetland mitigation banking has gained ground, both lit at the site. erally and figuratively. Past policies required on-site mitigation to compensate King County, Washington, which includes the Seattle area, is currently in the for unavoidable damage to wetlands; damaged wetlands had to be replaced Process of finalizing and adopting a wetland mitigation banking program. The or improved on the same site where the damage occurred.Wetland mitigation banks provide an alternative to on-site mitigation and are a form of regional Washington State Department of Transportation adopted a wetland banking compensatory mitigation. Through banking, large areas of wetlands are Program in 1994. In the King County program, public agencies, utilities, or restored, created or enhanced for the express purpose of providing off-site Private developers who have unavoidable impacts and who meet the bank mitigation for several wetland impacts within a watershed. program criteria are eligible to use a mitigation bank. The county will be constructing its first mitigation bank in 1996. Numerous studies have documented the failure of on-site, piecemeal mitiga- tion projects to effectively compensate for wetland losses. With a wetland mit- igation bank,'multiple, small mitigation projects are consolidated into a large- program ensures that the mitigation's bank is functioning as a wetland prior scale wetland complex, resulting in economies of scale in planning, imple- to the release of the majority of credits. Because many wetlands mitigation mentation and maintenance. Banks can also generate wetlands of greater eco- efforts fail for lack of a stable water supply, hydrology must be established at logical value because they are larger and better managed for long-term the bank site before more than 25%of the credits are released.The remaining resource protection and benefit to the public.Wetland mitigation banking also 50% may not be released until the rest of the functional gains are made or typically requires compensation in advance of impacts, reducing temporal until five years. losses often associated with mitigation. In the county's banking program, a minimum of 2:1 mitigation ratios are ini- Nationwide, based on a study conducted by the Institute of Water Resources, tially required for restoration or creation, and greater than 2:1 for enhance- there were 44 active mitigation banks in existence in 1992, and an addition- ment. Lower mitigation ratios are allowed only after all performance standards al 70 proposed mitigation banks (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994). have been achieved at the bank site, and are never lower than 1:1. Banking Approximately half of the active banks were established to provide mitigation promises to reduce costs associated with permitting, design and acquisition of for single agencies, typically state highway departments. Many banking mitigation sites, which have often caused extensive delays in projects. The programs are for highway and utility mitigation because these public infra- banking approach should also increase the consistency of mitigation efforts structure services are limited in their site locations and they have linear and improve compliance. •: project impacts. For more information,contact Peggy Bill,206-296-8067,or Tina Miller,206-296-1955,at King County Surface Water Management. I how local governments may set up TDC programs runs only two pages). "When the program started prices to allow land owners who need credits Wetland F2esou rce Management September 5, 1995 Mr. Scott Woodbury Renton Planning, Building and Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Services provided by WRM Dear Mt. Woodbury: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me recently regarding wetland mitigation banking in Renton. As promised, I have enclosed my Statement of Qualifications and brochures on the services I can provide through Wetland Resource Management. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. Sincerely, J J P. Robert Thompson Enclosures P.O. BOX 8624;ALEXANDRIA,VA.22306 TEL:(703)660-9127 0 FAX: (703)660-0780 0 EMAIL:wetresmt@ix.netcom.com Wetisnd Resource Managem®nt STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR P. ROBERT THOMPSON CONSULTING EXPERIENCE(ENVIRONMENTAL) Wetland Resource Management Alexandria, Virginia Owner 1995 to Present • Provides wetland mitigation banking, bioremediation and floodplain management services to clients on a fee or percentage basis. • Mitigation banking and bioremediation services include the marketing of both the underlying concept and mitigation credits; preliminary site investigation; team establishment and coordination; regulatory negotiation and compliance; permitting; and coordination of the investigation, design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation banks and bioremediation projects. • Floodplain management services include obtaining Letters of Map Revisions (LOMRs) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). Such actions increase the amount of developable land along a 100-year floodplain. Also coordinates technical appeals to FIRM revisions proposed by FEMA. • Counsels clients on the applicability of Federal, state and local wetland, hazardous waste, and other relevant environmental laws to wetland mitigation banks and real estate transactions. • Educates and lobbies Congress, state legislatures, state/federal regulators, environmental organizations and industry groups on wetland mitigation banking, bioremediation and the Clean Water Act Reauthorization. • Commented on Federal policy guidelines regarding wetland mitigation banking. U.S. Wetland Services, Inc. Washington, D.C. Project Manager 1993 to 1995 • Responsible for the marketing of both the mitigation banking concept and mitigation credits; preliminary site investigation; regulatory negotiation and compliance; permitting; and coordination of the investigation, design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of speculative mitigation banks and bioremediation projects. • Established a wetland mitigation bank on site containing contaminated dredge material. Duties included coordinating and preparing site development plan; drafting and gaining regulatory approval for bank-enabling Memorandum of Agreement; researching and obtaining all relevant Federal, state and local permits; and coordinating all site investigations, including Phase I environmental assessment and ecological assessment regarding the effect of contaminants in the soil on the viability of the mitigation bank. • Counseled company on the applicability of state and Federal wetland, hazardous waste, and other relevant environmental laws to wetland mitigation banks and real estate transactions. • Educated and lobbied Congress, state legislatures, state/federal regulators, environmental organizations and industry groups on wetland mitigation banking, bioremediation and the Clean Water Act Reauthorization. • Represented company at industry conferences. LEGAL EXPERIENCE(ENVIRONMENTAL • 1993-1995: Negotiated wetland fill permits and 100-year floodplain elevation designations with state/federal regulatory authorities. • 1994: Brought technical appeal of proposed revisions to FIRM for Parish in Louisiana. • 1993: Brought takings action and action challenging permit denial under § 404 of the CWA. Litigated the first "arranger" liability action brought under CERCLA. • 1989-1993: Counseled clients on environmental issues under the CWA, CERCLA, RCRA, EPCRA,TSCA and OSHA. Counseled insurance carriers on the applicability of insurance coverage for environmental claims. P.O. BOX 8624;ALEXANDRIA,VA.22306 TEL:(703)660-9127 0 FAX: (703)660-0780 0 EMAIL:wetresmt@ix.netcom.com OTHER EXPERIENCE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. Environmental Protection Specialist 1987 to 1989 • Drafted and promulgated recordkeeping and reporting rules for existing chemicals under TSCA, CERCLA and EPCRA. • Incorporated recordkeeping and reporting requirements from all U.S. EPA Program Offices and OSHA into the Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (CAIR). • Authored detailed interpretive guidance and represented the U.S. EPA before industry groups on the CAIR • Awarded a Bronze Medal for Commendable Service in promulgating the CAIR National Association of State Foresters Washington, D.C. Legislative Staff Assistant 1986 • Monitored and lobbied Congress and the USDA on issues of concern to State Foresters, such as Forest Service budget issues and passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. Union Carbide Corporation Charleston, WV Chemical Engineer/Product Distribution Coordinator 1982 to 1985 • Scheduled in-house and subcontracted manufacturing, processing and packaging facilities for international polyethylene resin market. • Acted as liaison between technical plant personnel and business managers. SEMINARS&PUBLICATIONS • Research and Development Under TSCA; Compliance and Inspections Under TSCA; and State Regulation of Toxics, Hazardous Materials Management Guide (Research Institute of America, pending). • State Comparison Chart on Wetlands Laws, Environmental Compliance Desk Reference (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1995). • Bigger is Better When Mitigating For Wetland Impacts,The Great Lakes Environmental Law Report (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1995). • Wetland Mitigation Banking, The Wave of the Future, Illinois Landscape Architecture, (American Society of Landscape Architects Illinois Chapter, 1994-1995). • Wetland Mitigation Banking-- The Future Of Wetland Regulation Is Here, Real Estate Law Journal (Warren, Gorham &Lamont, Summer 1994). • Protecting Property Rights After The 1993 Flood: Using Wetland Banks To Manage The Midwest River Floodplain, Washington Legal Foundation Legal Back grounder (November 5, 1993). • Quoted in Maryland's Wetlands: Getting The Job Done, Potomac Gazette (August 18, 1993). • Seminar,Environmental Law For Small Businesses (June 20, 1990). Seminar addressed enforcement trends by the U.S. EPA; and requirements imposed on small businesses under the Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and through the District of Columbia's Hazardous Waste Generator Handbook. EDUCATION • Juris Doctor, George Washington University National Law Center, 1989. • B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Maryland, 1982. BAR ADMISSIONS • District of Columbia, 1992. • Maryland, 1989. • Obtain all federal, state and local permits Wetland associated with projects that impact FZ@SOurC@ wetlands,wetland mitigation banks, Manageme3nt bioremediation and/or waste reduction projects. • Project management and coordination services. • Hydrologic engineering,vegetation selection and planting services for wetland mitigation banks, bioremediation and waste reduction projects. • Earthwork, erosion and sediment control services. • Maintenance, monitoring and reporting to all relevant regulatory agencies. • Market of wetland mitigation credits. In addition,WRM can obtain Letters of Map Revisions (LOMRs) to the Federal Benefits and Services Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). Such actions Provided by WRM increase the amount of developable land along a 100-year floodplain. WRM also coordinates technical appeals to FIRM revisions proposed by FEMA. What Is Wetland Resource Management? For over twelve years the principal of WRM, P. Robert Thompson, has worked in the chemical industry,within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and in private practice as a chemical engineer, attorney and environmental consultant. Mr. Thompson has been permitting wetlands, establishing wetland mitigation banks and overseeing bioremediation activities since 1993. Mr. Thompson is also actively involved in the formulation of federal wetland mitigation P.O. Box 8624 g For more information on how Wetland Alexandria,Virginia 22306 banking policies through the U.S.Army Corps of Resource Management can solveyour wetland, Engineers and the reauthorization of the Clean (703) 3)660 0 $Y bioremediation and floodplain problems, Fax: (703)660-0780 Water Act. contact P. Robert Thompson at(703) 660-9127 Email:wetresmt@ix.netcom.com General Overview problems. • Establish a new"wetland services" profit center within a company that will enable Wetland Resource Management(WRM) is WRM's philosophy is to provide the best available an entity to profit from complying with its dedicated to the use of wetlands in watershed comprehensive wetland services at the lowest wetland, bioremediation and waste management plans, obtaining§ 404 permits for possible cost. WRM accomplishes this by reduction obligations. clients, establishing wetland mitigation banks, utilizing a client's own expertise to the maximum • Finance an entity's wetland mitigation, and using wetlands to bioremediate contaminants extent practicable, and by retaining additional bioremediation and/or waste reduction in the soil and reduce the level of contaminants in wetlands experts only on an "as needed" basis. obligations by constructing more wetlands waste streams or in contaminated groundwater. This approach assures that a client will pay for than are needed in house and selling the These activities are at the forefront of wetlands only those costs associated with its own project. excess mitigation credits to third parties. science and regulation. To accomplish this,WRM has associated itself • Create a positive corporate image by with experts in every field of wetland sciences, utilizing"green" solutions to solve an The recent endorsement of wetland mitigation many of whom are within the university system. entity's environmental problems. banking by the federal and most state This permits WRM to maintain a technological governments will completely alter how wetland edge by utilizing research programs being Services Provided by WRM mitigation is accomplished in this country. conducted by universities. Of course, WRM can Similarly, the complexity of regulations and low also provide all necessary services to a client, from Such benefits can be realized through the use of levels of contaminants permitted to be discharged site investigation through construction, operation WRM's services,which include: under the U.S. Environmental Protection and management of a wetland mitigation bank or Agency's regulations and its state counterparts other wetland project. • Perform market studies to determine if a have forced companies and other entities to start company or its clients can utilize the using non-traditional and more cost effective Benefits Provided by VV" services provided by WRM. means to either bioremediate contaminants in the • Investigate, evaluate and acquire, as soil and/or reduce the level of contaminants in a Some of the benefits a company can realize by necessary, potential sites on which waste stream or in contaminated groundwater. utilizing WRM's services include: wetland mitigation banks, bioremediation Wetlands are considered one of the best options and/or waste reduction projects can be available for these purposes, and are currently • Satisfy all future wetland mitigation needs utilized. more acceptable to regulators. One reason is that associated with known, in house projects • Negotiate all necessary project enabling wetlands utilize natural processes to accomplish that will impact wetlands. instruments with regulators. these goals. • Increase the value of low value real estate • Develop conceptual and developmental holdings, such as floodplains and other plans and designs for wetland mitigation Establishing wetland mitigation banks as part of low lying areas. banks, bioremediation and waste an entity's wetland mitigation, bioremediation • Obtain a tax credit for these low value reduction projects. and/or waste reduction program enables an entity real estate holdings by donating wetlands • Utilize state-of-the-art computer to not only recover the cost of complying with its constructed on such properties to a public modeling, simulation and visualization wetland mitigation, bioremediation or waste or non-profit conservation group after all programs to demonstrate how a project reduction obligations, but profit from such wetland mitigation credits are sold. will impact a site's biotic and hydrological activities through the sale of excess wetland • Save hundreds of thousands of dollars in conditions before any project "mitigation credits" to third parties. Entities that remediation and/or compliance costs by construction takes place. utilize wetlands for wetland mitigation, utilizing wetlands to either bioremediate, • Evaluate the effectiveness of wetlands in bioremediation and/or waste reduction purposes or at least isolate, contaminants located in bioremediating and/or reducing the level may also rely on these activities for marketing the soil; and/or to reduce the level of of contaminants in a waste stream or in purposes by publicizing its efforts to utilize contaminants in a waste stream or in contaminated groundwater before any "green" solutions to solve its environmental contaminated groundwater. project construction takes place. What Is Wetland Wetland Resource Management? FRasou rce Manag®miilant Wetland Resource Management (WRM) is dedicated to the use of wetlands in watershed management plans, obtaining§ 404 permits for clients, establishing wetland mitigation banks, and using wetlands to bioremediate contaminants in the soil and reduce the level of contaminants in waste streams or in contaminated groundwater. These activities are on the forefront of wetlands science and regulation. The company's philosophy is to provide the best available comprehensive wetland services at the lowest possible cost. WRM accomplishes this by utilizing a client's own expertise to the maximum Wetland extent practicable, and by retaining additional wetlands experts only on an "as needed" basis. This approach assures that a client will pay for Mitigation only those costs associated with its own project. Banking To accomplish this,WRM has associated itself with experts in every field of wetland sciences, many of whom are within the university system. This permits WRM to maintain a technological edge by utilizing research programs being conducted by universities. Of course, WRM can also provide all necessary services to a client, from site investigation through construction, operation and management of a wetland bank or other wetland project. For over twelve years the principal of WRM, P. Robert Thompson, has worked in the chemical industry,within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and in private practice as a chemical engineer, attorney and environmental consultant. Mr. Thompson has been permitting wetlands, establishing wetland mitigation banks and overseeing bioremediation activities since P.O. Box 8624 1993. Mr. Thompson is also actively involved in For more information on how Wetland Alexandria,Virginia 22306 formulating federal wetland mitigation banking Resource Management can solveyour (703)660-9127 policies through the U.S.Army Corps of wetland problems, contact P. Robert Fax: (703)660-0780 Engineers and the reauthorization of the CWA. Thompson at (703) 660-9127 Email:wetresmtc@ix.netcom.com What is Wetland "mitigation credits" from a wetland mitigation these properties by establishing wetland Mitigation Bankin-g? bank located in or near the same watershed as the mitigation banks on these properties. impact site. Once the necessary mitigation credits Wetland mitigation banking is defined as: are purchased, the permit applicant's mitigation • Entities that own contaminated requirements have been met, and the permitted properties. Contaminants in the soil of project can commence. such properties can be bioremediated, or the restoration, creation, enhancement, at least isolated, by establishing a wetland and, in exceptional circumstances, Mitigation banking allows a permitted project to mitigation bank on the property. This preservation wetlands and/or other move forward more rapidly. This saves a permit process can save an entity hundreds of aquatic resources expressly for the applicant up to two or more years of carrying thousands of dollars in remediation costs. purpose of providing compensatory costs, as well as the consulting fees associated impacts to similar mitigation resources.advance of authorized with identifying and designing a project-specific • Entities that must reduce the level of mitigation site. A mitigation banker benefits from contaminants in a waste stream and/or in Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and the favorable economies-of-scale associated with contaminated groundwater. Such Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 12286 constructing large tracts of wetlands, and by being contaminants can be reduced or (March 6, 1995). able to sell mitigation credits to mitigate for eliminated by filtering them through a multiple wetland impacts. wetland mitigation bank established on How Does Wetland the property. This process can also save Miti ation Banking Work? Who Can Benefit From an entity hundreds of thousands of Wetland Mitigation Banking? dollars in remediation costs. Under § 404 of the Clean Water Act, any person • Entities that wish to utilize the wetland or entitythat wishes to fill in i.e., impact) a Section 404 permit applicants can, of course, ( p ) benefit from the wetland is act mitigation banking mitigation banking concept to establish a wetland must first demonstrate that the impact new profit center. This new profit center "unavoidable." That person or entity must then concept, as can persons subject to enforcement can act as a mitigation banking company "mitigate" for this unavoidable impact b actions resulting from the improper fill of g p y wetlands However, the types of entities that can in its own right by joint venturing with . replacing the impacted wetland with the same or landowners to establish wetland similar type of wetland. Such mitigation must be benefit the most from establishing wetland � g mitigation banks include: mitigation banks in high growth areas. accomplished either on the impact site or else, preferably,within the same watershed as the Entities which can estimate the wetland Under any of the above scenarios, an entity can impact site. impacts associated with future expansion not only recover the cost of complying with its projects, such as developers and other wetland mitigation, bioremediation or waste The process of identifying potential mitigation reduction obligations, but profit from such sites, designingthe mitigation wetlands and large commercial or industrial entities. g Such entities can construct a series of activities. This is accomplished by constructing obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals fora more wetlands than are needed to satisfy its mitigation project may take as long as obtaining wetland mitigation banks to satisfy these g p j y g g specific needs, and selling the excess mitigation the underlying§ 404 permit. Moreover, this future needs, thereby eliminating the yl g p credits to other § 404 permit applicants which mitigation process generally cannot be mitigation process associated with these must mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts. undertaken concurrently with the § 404 future projects. Once all of the mitigation credits are sold, the permitting process. • Entities which own a large number of low mitigation bank can be donated to a public or value real estate holdings, such as non-profit conservation group, thereby allowing Wetland mitigation banking circumvents this floodplains and other low lying areas. the mitigation bank owner to receive a tax credit mitigation process by allowing a permit applicant for the donated property. to mitigate for unavoidable impacts by purchasing Such entities can increase the value of in the soil and reduce the level of contaminants in W®tland waste streams or in contaminated groundwater. M4BSOU rc' - These activities are on the forefront of wetlands Management science and regulation. The company's philosophy is to provide the best available comprehensive wetland services at the lowest possible cost. WRM accomplishes this by utilizing a client's own expertise to the maximum extent practicable, and by retaining additional wetlands experts only on an "as needed" basis. This approach assures that a client will pay for only those costs associated with its own project. To accomplish this, WRM has associated itself with experts in every field of wetland sciences, many of whom are within the university system. This permits WRM to maintain a technological edge by utilizing research programs being Bioremediation and conducted by universities. Of course, WRM can also provide all necessary services to a client, from Waste Stream site investigation through construction, operation and management of a wetland bank or other Reduction wetland project. For over twelve years the principal of WRM, P. Robert Thompson, has worked in the chemical industry,within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and in private practice as a chemical engineer, attorney and environmental consultant. Mr. Thompson has been permitting wetlands, establishing wetland mitigation banks and overseeing bioremediation activities since 1993. Mr. Thompson is also actively involved in the formulation of federal wetland mitigation banking policies through the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. For more information on how Wetland Resource Management can solveyour P.O. Box 8624 Alexandria, bioremediation and waste reduction Virginia0- 22306 1 (703)660-9127 problems, contact P. Robert Fax: (703)660-0780 Thompson at (703) 660-9127 Email:wetresmt@ix.netcom.com General Overview and waste reduction projects include: streams and/or contaminated groundwater can also be applied to the constructed wetlands. The complexity of regulations and low levels of • Entities that own contaminated Alternatively, multiple cells of wetlands can be contaminants permitted to be discharged under properties. Contaminants in the soil of used as a filtering system to reduce or eliminate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's such properties can be bioremediated, or the level of contaminants in a waste stream or in regulations and its state counterparts have forced at least isolated,by establishing a wetland contaminated groundwater. companies and other entities to start utilizing mitigation bank on the property. non-traditional and more cost effective means to Added Benefits E"erienced IF either bioremediate contaminants in the soil or • Entities that must reduce the level of by Utilizing Wetlands reduce the level of contaminants in a waste contaminants in a waste stream and/or in stream or in contaminated groundwater. contaminated groundwater. Such $r Establishing a wetland mitigation bank as part of Wetlands are considered one of the best options contaminants can be reduced or a site's bioremediation or waste reduction project available for these osesur and are currentl eliminated by filtering them through a P P � Y will allow an entity to not only recover the cost of more acceptable to regulators. One reason is that wetland mitigation bank established on complying with its bioremediation or waste wetlands utilize natural processes to accomplish the property. reduction obligations, but profit from such these goals. activities. This is accomplished by constructing • Entities that wish to establish a new profit more wetlands than are needed to satisfy its Wetlands bioremediate contaminants in the soil center by utilizing wetlands for specific needs, and selling the excess mitigation by absorbing and retaining the contaminants in bioremediation and/or waste reduction credits to other § se permit applicants which the wetland vegetation. Forested wetlands are purposes. must mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts. capable of absorbing and storing exceptional Once all of the mitigation credits are sold, the quantities of contaminants without any harm Any of the above scenarios can save an entity mitigation bank can be donated to a public or being done to the trees. In fact,wetland hundreds of thousands of dollars in remediation non-profit conservation group, thereby allowing vegetation oftentimes utilize such contaminants costs. the mitigation bank owner to receive a tax credit as foodstuffs. Wetlands also isolate contaminants for the donated property. in the soil by preventing such contaminants from Procedure Utilized by WRM being absorbed by the wetland vegetation. Entities that utilize wetlands for bioremediation Moreover, the use of microbes and genetically Each bioremediation and waste reduction wetland and/or waste reduction purposes may also rely on engineered plants increase the efficiency and project must be specially designed to handle the these activities for marketing purposes by scope of a constructed ecosystem's bioremediation contaminants in question, and is generally publicizing its efforts to utilize "green" solutions capabilities. These processes biodegrade the performed on site. WRM designs these projects to solve its environmental problems. contaminants and prevent them from being by first determining whether and what type of released into the food chain. wetlands should be utilized to bioremediate a What Is Wetland particular site or reduce the level of contaminants Who Can Benefit From Utilizing in a waste stream or in contaminated Resource Management? Wetlands in Bioremediation groundwater. WRM then obtains all regulatory and Waste Reduction Pro sects? approvals from the relevant federal, state and Wetland Resource Management (WRM) is � local regulators. Finally,WRM establishes the dedicated to the use of wetlands in watershed wetlands either directly on the contaminated soil, management plans, obtaining§ 404 permits for The types of entities that can benefit the most clients, establishing wetland mitigation banks, or nearby so that the contaminated soil can be from utilizing wetlands in bioremediation periodically applied to the wetlands. Waste and using wetlands to bioremediate contaminants CITY OF RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor April 20, 1995 Mitigation Banking Docket, Wetlands Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW- Mail Code (4502F) Washington, DC 20460 SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO FEDERAL GUIDANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT USE AND OPERATION OF MITIGATION BANKS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The City of Renton, WA, is currently working to establish a Wetland Mitigation Banking Program. On March 6, 1995, the proposed Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks was issued for comment in the Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 43. Review of the guidance raised the following concerns: 1 . The guidance requires that a banking instrument or interagency agreement be formulated with federal, state, and possibly tribal agencies to define the terms under which the bank may be established and operated, even if a Clean Water Act Section 10/404 permit is also required. It is estimated that having to obtain an interagency agreement in addition to the required Section 404 permit will delay implementation of the bank by at least one year with additional costs to the City. This is because of the probability that signatories to the agreement will be unable to reach consensus on form and content of the agreement in less than a year or longer depending upon the number of signatories and the number of revisions. Also, an interagency agreement between a City government and other agencies must be processed in accordance with stringent legal and procedural requirements, adding to the level of effort and costs required to establish the bank. Government agencies, including the City of Renton, are typically understaffed and constrained by limited budgets. Therefore, the additional cost and level of effort required by the additional bureaucracy of completing an interagency agreement can only be offset by delaying and diverting funds from other projects. Therefore, to avoid these problems and unnecessary bureaucracy, we recommend that the guidance be modified to also allow a bank to be established under the authority of a Section 10/404 permit alone. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Comments to Federal Guidance on Mitigation Banking Page 2 2. The guidance is not clear with regard to if and how the banking instrument is to be applied when mitigation is required under state/local permit authority, but not under Clean Water Act Section 404 rules. In cases where mitigation is required only under local or state/local authority, then authority to determine whether an activity is eligible to use banked credits should not require the participation of federal or other agencies not having jurisdiction. A banking instrument should therefore only apply for mitigation required under federal rules. This should be made clear in the guidance so that it is not open to interpretation. However, any debit allowed to be withdrawn from the bank by activities solely under local or state/local jurisdiction should be recorded in the bank transaction ledger to document that the credit was withdrawn. 3. The guidance should be more flexible with regard to the timing of credit withdrawal. The limits placed on the timing and amount of debiting allowed by the guidance may make banking out of reach for City governments because of the difficulty in raising sufficient capital. It is recommended that a higher percentage of the acreage credit, preferably 100% in some instances, be allowed for immediate withdrawal. For example, a high percentage would be appropriate if the activity to be compensated was the filling of wetland perched on top of fill and primarily vegetated by an invasive, non-native plant species, while the mitigation bank site was to be connected with a creek and planted with many different plant species. However, immediate withdrawal of some lesser percentage of the functional credit is reasonable for functions such as habitat structure which take more time to become established. This distinction between withdrawal of areal and functional credit is important to obtaining needed capital funds and needs to be addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 206-277-5548 or Scott Woodbury, Project Manager, at 206-277-5547 if there are any questions. Sincerely, Ronald J. Straka, P.E., Engineering Supervisor Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:95-338:SW:ps CC: Gregg Zimmerman Ron Olsen Scott Woodbury PRtlVI�F� o 60 dl1 a�F�� 6N SILK/�y CONCERNS WITH SECTION 404 CLEAN WATER ACT LEGISLATION AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS The summarized components of the Section 404 Legislation and the Section 404 authorized Corps of Engineers regulations of concern to the City of Renton are as follows: Vague criteria. The adjacency criteria is currently used to determine if a Section 404 individual permit is required regardless of wetland size, function, and value. The Corps published regulatory criteria for determining adjacency is very broad and vague. In an effort to facilitate consistent determinations,the Corps' Seattle branch uses a supplemental,multi-parameter checklist. However,the checklist is for internal use only and is not available to the public. Conflicts with other regulations. The Section 404 program protects wetlands that are of low function and value within urban areas where the Growth Management Act encourages in-fill development to prevent environmental impacts associated with urban sprawl. These same wetlands are also being protected in areas where significant investment in infrastructure improvements have already been made. Inflexible criteria. Section 404 permit evaluations currently do not have to consider need, mitigation,or net environmental effects. Duplication of effort and too many layers of regulation. The City has adopted its own Wetlands Management Ordinance,which is based on a"no net loss of wetlands" policy, requiring a wetland permit for any proposed land use action impacting a wetland. The Corps has indicated that through adjacency rulings it will also invoke the arduous 404 individual permit process over any such action in the Green River Valley regardless of wetland size, quality, and value. Legislation changes proposed as part of the Clean Water Act re-authorization which increase the authority of state and federal agencies will further diminish local jurisdictions ability to make binding decisions on land use planning issues and resource management. Lowering threshold levels for triggering Section 404 nationwide and individual permit processes. Lowering the threshold will increase the jurisdiction of the Corps City-wide and lessen the control of the local jurisdiction to plan for future development with any measure of predictability. Timely permit reviews. Legislation and regulation should ensure that timely permit reviews are obtained. CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM The City has enjoyed the involvement of 8th District's Operations Director, Mr. Richard Larson, in the City's Wetland Mitigation Banking Program. Most recently Mr. Larson attended a meeting on May 2, 1994 with representatives of state and federal agencies,with the exception of the Environmental Protection Agency,who have a role in wetland resource management and in determining the success of the Banking Program. In the meeting, agency representatives expressed general support for the program, but raised many issues and concerns. Much work remains to be done. As work progresses, status reports and further information developed as part of the program will be provided to the 8th District office. Continued involvement is encouraged and appreciated. H:DOCS:94-535:SSW:ps MAY-26-94 THU 15:56 PARAMETR I X FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 01 Post-It`"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of cages ► �5 To �- ESTER Fromm+ J co. _ ce. P1 Dept. Phone Newsletter of the Pacific I\ Fax r 1 ._ Fe:# /A 986c6 (2C6)699-466b January 1993 New Wetlands Policy Adopted PNWA's Wetlands Committee adopted a new infrastrlcture construction on sites properly wetlands policy statement at its January 21. designated in a land use plan. 1993 meeting. The policy was developed by the Wetlands Committee as a -uideline for How the Policy Will be Used reviewing proposed wetlands legislation and to serve as a framework for drafting new These F rinciples will be used to evaluate federal legislation and regulations. Its development legislation and regulations affecting wetlands, took into account problems Northwest economic such as the reauthorization of the Clean Water development interests are having with federal _ Act or i revised delineation manual, as well as regulations and the need to balance preservation to serve as a framework to guide the and developmentof wetlands resources. development of future wetlands legislation. The committee will identify and define terms that PNWA Wetlands Policy Statement should have consistent definition throughout wetlands law and regulation. The committee The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association will develop basic criteria for a classification supports development of a national wetlands and mi.igation system that takes into account policy that is based upon the following wetland functions, the degree to which the principles: wetland performs those functions, the location of the wetland and the degree to which the Definitions. Agencies and developers need a wettand is adjacent to or isolated from navigable standard definition of terms, such as wetlands waters. The committee's longer term approach and water dependency, upon which regulations is to dk,%,elop a relationship between land use are based_ plannin;, processes and wetlands alternatives analysis. Classification. Classification of wetlands according to their function and value is This work is being led by committee members necessary to determine appropriate development Tracey McKenzie and Kittie Ford of and mitigation requirements for adjacent and Parame:rix, Rick Glick of Davis Wright isolated wetlands. Tremaine, David Barrows of Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Ron Klein of PGE, Jerry Heller of Mitigation. Mitigation requirements should the Port of Kalama and Patti Burklund of the reflect the functions and values of the wetland Port of Skagit County. Please let the PNWA and the degree to which they are affected. office know if you would like to participate in the Wetlands Committee process. Site Development Permits. Wetland impact evaluations within the permitting review process Register for the Mission to Washington, D.C. should recognize land use planning as a proper March 7- 12, 1993, Grand Hyatt Washington alternatives analysis. Site development permits should be available for land preparation and See center insert for registration materials. MAY-26-94 THU 15:57 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P. 02 t' N W H I GL- NO ,LUtD0yyJiLi May 1L 7J lU •J8 !YU .UUi r .U4 ciAtIWA PNWA Wetlands Committee 5-11-93 PNWA wFrLANDS_POLICY H R. 1330-THE HAYFS BILL H.R. 350 - THE FDWBEPS BULL Reflnitions, Agencies and desvc1optus The bill defines Wetlands, Crwioa of Tho bill defines Wetlands, Wetlands need a standard definition of terms, such Wetlands, finhaAmueM of Wetlands, Stewardship Trust, Fill Material, Minor as wetlands and water dependeaca, upon Fastlands, Wetlandu Functions, Growing Permit, Other Alteration, and clarifies which regulations are based. Seasons, Incidentally GTruted Vilenands-, the definition of Navigable Waters. Maintenance, Mitigation 13anking, Normal Farming, Silriesulture, Aquaculture and Ranching A.ctividea, Prior Convened Cropland, Rea,toration, and Temporary impact. t.;iamslficatlun. Classification of The bill categorizes and regulates The bill does not attempt to distinguish wetlands according to their fLncdon and wetlands according to their relative among wetlands according to their value is ceceasary to deteermine values and funnions u;lder 3 relative functions and values, appropriate devcicprnwt and mitigation elmifications., T= A - hi.1h value requirements for adjacent and Isolated environmentally sensitive apses tvbloh are wetlands. more arrictly regulated that undtr current law_ TYM B - an= of "signitieanl value." C UrrLnL law is largely retained for these wetlands, but the Corps' traditional "public interest re rivw" is restored. 7T+g2C - arvw that posscm a minimum of wetlands functions or valuers are virtually unregulated under the bill. The blll establishes the b*uidt.lnes and Lime frames for the classification of wetlands. Mitigation. Mitigation requirements 'no bill calls for the estab13s1mcnt of The bill requires the Corps to issue a should reflect the functions and values of state mitigation banks throuib which biennial report to Congress on the effxts the wetland and the degree to which they wetlands are restored, anhr.uc ed or on navigable watts of mitiggdon are affected. crezod to re-place wetlands valt.ts lost to required to obtain Section 404 permits. development dubvitics. The bill also cstsbllthes a Wetlands Restoration Pilot Program. Site Development Permits. Wetland The bill does not explicitly address site The bill does not explicitly address site impact evaluations within the permitting development permits. development pt=itrs. review process should rvwgnlzes Innd use Planning as a proper alternatives analysis. Site development permits should be available for land and preparation and Infrastructure construction on siiees properly dcoignatcd in a land use plan. MAY-26-94 THU 15:58 PARANETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 03 A TEL No .2066995121 May 12 ,93 10 38 No .001 P ,05 H-R, 1330- T HAYES BII L H.R. 350 - THE RDWARVJ M L Land Use Planaing, For (hose sinus The bill would exclude from permitting Thu hill does not explicitly address Land with effective land use planning requirements activltles In a wetland thal Use Planning. processes,the fedctal wetlands regulation sirs consistent with R State or local land should be integratod hero the local management plan submitted to and planning process. 1,he presence or approved by the Secretary undix cedtain 2 Rbsence of wetlands would be conditions. wzuidcred along with other fautorx In determining appropriate zcainz for all clusaes of activity. If wetlandg am pm,gent for any given class of zone, alternatives would be analYzcd and the Other Selected Items The bEl a61): Other Selected Items. The bill also: zone would belocated to the of most appropriate Iocatlon " p� he a Provides compensation for takings; ■ Mnforces current law pmhibilinb the alternatives analysis. Once the land use issuance of a permit if there exists a plan is adopted, the alternatives analysis a requires the Secretary to establish practicable alternative to the proposed required by NEVA will be deemed to new standards for delineation of alternative 'which would have less have been satisflod. Upon eOu'piellon of wetlands; adverse environmental impact on an approved mltigati,,,n schedule, if - navigable waters"; required under the plan, development a Dictates that no mom that 20% of any Am+opriate for the yens may occur, classified pasrtype A wetlands;or borougfi shall be a prrrserrve the quantitynid and quality licy to of the nation's wetlands nmourees; ■ Attempts to facilitate state a:;sumption of the Section 404 program a Expands the number of activities which rcquim a permit under Section 404 to all that am harmtul to wetlands, such as draining, flooding, excavation and driving pilings,as well :�s discharging fill or dredged material, ■ Glves USP&WS and NMPS a stronger Colo in the permit process, and requites the Corps tv explain in writing its rzasons fur rej=t1n; the recommendations of these agencies; ■ "hliRhw "expedited permit review" if a project dinturbx less that 1 acre of wetlands and Is performted by an individual or a business that employ: leas than 10 people; and a (mates tax incentives to encourage the protection cif privately-owned wetlands. -louse oil ice or nnvumrnirrCiItill F%lib ,y. ission delegates me, with Will Stelle of the Wetland land use process should be joined office of Environmental Policy, Mollie clog of the rich and Wildlife Service; Jack PNWA staff is working with Oregon regulatory process, including the altematrves g Senator Mark Hatfield and other Northwest analysis and mitigation planning for land use s, Director of the Forest Service; Douglas Hall rn t whom the Director of the National Marine Members of Congress in support of legislation td clas es, The ire rt of their tlofirthocais C did a11Ve � vice reports; Williain White, Deputy Secretary to be added to the Clean Water Act that ry process would be the issuance of a lizabeth Rieke, Assistant Secretary of Interior integrate the federal wetlands regulatory p e d Science; Bob Wayland, EPA's Administrator process into state and local land use planning Programmatic General Permit or Abbreviated Processing Procedures to aulhorize develop- C, vlicltael Davis, bead of the Corps' wetlands processes, c„ Lice; Lt. Gen. Artltter Williams, the Corps' Chief PNWA believes the Adin'emtenti the sistentpwith the plan mitigation activities con-� Lawrence Hancock, the Principal Deputy request for $18 million to i �r of the Bureau of Reclamation; Timothy President's wetlands policy will support this Upon completion of an approved mitt-a- tor of EPA's superli►nd revitalization office, an<! proposal. lion schedule or upon cottipletioet of advance Many cities, counties, and other jurisdic- mitigation, if required under the plan, devel- � ,g environmental policy in the federal agencies. lions, such as port authorities, develop land while continuing to champion environmental oprnent appropriate for the zone may occur. use plans to guide both development and This solution would bring the federal wet- x seems to be reaching consensus regarding the preservation. Land is zoned for natural Ares- lands process into the local land use planning fund science and cost-effective environmental ervation, residential, commercial, industrial press. It will allow communities and land After meeting with the Northwest delegation and other purposes_ owners to set agreement front federal regula- became clear that many in Congress are begin- At present, the local land use planning and ;lion, for example, whether the hydropower sys- federal'wetlands regulatory processes do not tors on where wetlands need to be protected, and when they can be filled for developmeO trd to give any more water for salmon recovery. happen concurrently. The problem arises after with appropriate use of mitigation. it will al- irticles on the Mission are included throughout the planning process is completed, when a low the land use planning process (or other r the Nor'wester. They describe some of the key land owner seeks to develop its land zoned for state, local or coastal zone management plan- Ira) and economic issues PNWA discussed. We commercial or industrial use. It is not until >< .,�..� nr�cecs) to serve as the alternatives x portunity to listen, to learn, to present our post- that time, after all other land use decisions � � z analysis to meet Section 404(b)(1) require- - o on occasion to challenge agency and have been made, that the federal wetlands ments: oral leaders. process begins. Often it results in a portion of M Lie in which PNWA is having success with both the property being delineated as wetland, Find We urge Congress to enact the land use o �istralion and Congress is wetlands. PNWA s it creates a new review of alternatives with Ill- planning process proposal_ We believe that 00 olicy provides a model of how to improve re Ile, if any, correlation to previous land use de- this will increase the quality of local land use co asses for the benefit of both the environment and cisions. This reduces the contnittnity's inven- plans, increase the certainty of implementing o interests. Members of bosh the Administration tory of commercial or industrial property and the land use plans adopted by local jurisdic- ress are working with PNWA staff in an attempt reduces the ability of the local community to Lions, increase the certatnty of protection for gate PNWA's wetlands policy into the reavthori- meet its economic needs. valuable wetlands and increase the cert;tuity the Clean Water Act. This is the subject of this The proposed ]Find use planning approach that local communities will be able to +Meet ditorial. allows local jurisdictions to initiate the federal their ehcohomic development needs. 0 MAY-26-94 THU 15:59 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 05 Fr July 30, 1993 9 LEGI-SLATE Report for the 103Xd-Congress'---- - - -- _22am (EDT) -.. ---------------------------- search of the Congressional Record Shoving the Full Text of Each Item On 07/28/93 AND Contained in tha Senate section AND Attributed to Ssn- Max Baucus (D-M'T) AND With Reference to OWETLA.NDS ' ----..-r------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- �r�a�ac vss�—�rwa�a:s=�ssaarrs�rrrrw rr�L�a=_�rfa�r� Congressional Reco d date wednesday, July 28, 1993 dto ction -- ---------- -------------------------- ------------------------------.. Text of measure -- S. 1304 Wetlands Conservation and Regulatory improvements Act LCR page 3-9722, 742 lines] S. 13Q4 Be it enacted by the neress and HOU ad�oi RepCesQntativsa of the United States of America in g SECTION 1. slJORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "wetlands Conservation and Regulatory Improvements Act" . SEC. 2 . AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION c:oNTROL ACT. Except as otherwise expressly provided, vha»aver in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms at an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the refere Water ce shall bo11u_11onaide c0_1eCnntrolrad to b Act a(33' U-S •C section1251 or other provision of the Federal at see. ) SEC. 3 . DECLARATION OF pOLICIES AND GOALS. Section lol (a) (33 U.S. C. 1251(a) ) is amended-- (1) by striking "and" at the and of paragraph (6) (2) by striking the period at the and of p21ragraph (7) and inserting "and" ; MAY-26-94 THU 16:00 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 06 and (3) by adding at the end the following: 11 (8) it is the national policy to achieve, through regulatory and non- regulatory strategies involving all levels of govarnzent-- " (A) the restoration of wetlands to increase the quality and quantity of the wetlands resource base of the United States,; and 11 (8) no overall not loss of the remaining wetlands resource base of the United Status." SEC. 4. DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF WETLANDS. (a) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 136; ) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7) by inserting ", includir.g wetlands" immediately before the period. (2) by adding at the end the following new-paragraph; " (21) The term 'wetlands' neaps those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions . Wetlands generally include &wasps, marshes, bogs, tens, potholes, playa lakes, vernal pools, and similar areas. " . (b) Delineation of Wetlands. -- (1) Revisions to delineation procedures.--After the date of enactment of this Act, no revisions to or clarifications of the guidelines for identifying and delineating wetlands areas under section 4t14 (a) of the Federal water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 (a) ) , as amended by this Act, shall be issued until the National Academy of Sciences has completed the study of wetlands authorized by Public Law 102-389. (2) Continued use of 1987 manual , --Until the guidelines for identifying and delineating wetlands areas are issued pursuant to section 404 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 (a) ) , as amended by this Act, tha Secretary of the Army, . acting through the Chin= of Engineers, and the Administrator of tha Environmental Protection Agency shall use the January, 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and implementing guidelines to identify and delinezte such wetlands areas. (3) Delineation guidelines.--Section 404 (a) 133 U.S.C_ 1344 (a) ) is amended by inserting " (1) " after - (a) " and by adding the following new paragraphs 11 (2) The Administrator in conjunction with tT.e Secretary, the secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior f;hall, attar field testing and notice and opportunity for public review and comment, issue guidelines to identify and delineate wetlands areas. The guicelines shall- MAY-26-94 THU 16:00 PAKAMETH 1 X FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 07 " (A) be developed in consultation with the States; " (B) be based on the bast available scientiii.0 information; and " (C) take into account regional variations in. hydrology, soils and vegetation. (4) Delineation training, certification and c,utreach.-- (A) Training of wetlands delineators. --The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, in consultation with the Coordinating Committee established under section 323 of the Federal wester Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act, develop materials and conduct training courses for consultants and state and local governments to explain the guidelines for identifying and delineating wetlands areas pura;uant to section 404 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 (a) ) , as amended by this Act. (B) Funding for training and certification P17ogram. --of amounts appropriated for each fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act for administration of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S .C. 1344) by the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary of the Army, with the Administrator, shall use such amounts as are practicable to carry out the Corps of Engineers Program_for interagency wetlands delineation training and the program for training and certification of Faderal employees and other individuals as wetlands delineators :authorized by Section 307(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public LAW 101-640) . (5) Assisting small landowners with wetlands delineation.-- (A) in general.--Of amounts appropriated for saoh fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act for ad�ainistration of section 404 of the Faderal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.3.C. 1344) , the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Enginaeri;, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall use such amounts as are necessary, but not to exceed a combined total of 15, 000, 000, _o assist private landowners who lack the financial capacity to identify or delineate wetlands in order to apply for permits under that section or to avoid impacts to wetlands. (B) Form of assistants.--The assistance under subparagraph (A) shall be provided in cooperation with the Director of t;le U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service and shall include: (i) the delineation of wetlands boundaries within 90 days of a request for such delineation to the maximum extent practicable; and (ii) technical assistance to owners of wetlands in the preparation of wetlands management plans for their lands to protect and restore wetlands and meet other goals or the Federal Water Pollution control Act, including protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, control of nonpoint and point sources of pollution, prevention and reduction of erosion, and protection of estuaries and lakes . MAY-26-94 THU 16:01 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 08 (C) Regulations. --within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Administrator shall issue regulations defining the scope of technical assistance and which lando-,n:ers are eligible for assistance under this paragraph. (6) Education and information.--The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, in cooperation with the Coordinating Committee established under section 323 of the Federal Rater Pollution Control Act (as amended by this Act) , prepare, update on a biannual basis, and make available to the Public for purchase at cost-- (A) an indexed publication containing all fac►eral regulations, general permits, and regulatory guidance letters relevaLnt to the permitting of activities pursuant to section 404 of the Federal avatar Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) ; and (B) information to enable the general public to understand the delineation of wetlands, section 404 permitting requirements, wetlands restoration, and other matters considered relevant. SEC. 5. REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES. (a) Definition of_ Fill Material.-- (1) Section 404 (d) (33 U.S.C. 1344 (d) ) is amended -- (A) by inserting " (1) " after " (d) " ; and (B) by adding at the end the following: 11 (2) The term "gill material" as used in this section means any material that has the effect of replacing portions of navigable waters or changing the bottom elevation or configuration of a water bcdy. " . (2) Section 502 (6) (33 U.S. C. 1362 (6) ) is amended by inserting "fill material, dirt, " after 'Pdredged spoil,". (b) Definition of Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material.--Section 404 (d) (33 U.S.C. 1244 (d) ) , as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: 11 (3) The term "discharge of dredged or till material" means any addition of dredged or Lill material into navigable waters and includes, Without limitation, any addition or redeposit of dredged or till materials, including excavated materials, into the navigable waters which is incidental to any activity, including draining, mechanized landclearing, ditching, channelization, or other excavation that has or would have the effect of destroying or degrading any area of navigable waters. SEC. 6. PERMIT PROCESSING IMPROVEMENTS. MAY-26-94 THU 16:02 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 09 (a) Permit Decision Deadlines.--Section 404 (a) (33 U_S. C. 1344 (a) ) , as amended by this Act, is amended by adding the following nets paragraphs: 11 (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4) , a decision with respect to an application for a parmit under paragraph (1) shall be made not later than the 90th day after the data the notice of such application is published under paragraph (1) . " (4) The Secretary's decision with respect to an application for a permit under paragraph (1) may be made after the 90th day referred to in paragraph (3) , only if-- " (A) with raspact to issuance of the permit, the Secretary is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, to issue an environmental Impact statement, in which case the decision shall be made within 30 days of data on which the requirements of that Act are met; " (B) the permit application involves an activity that may affect any, species that is listed or any critical habitat that is designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 , as amended, in which cane the decision shall be made within 30 days of the data on which the requirements of that Act are met: " (C) the Administrator, the Secretaries of the Dapartmnnts of Agriculture, the Interior, Coatmerce, or Transportation, the head of another appropriate Faderai agency, or the Governor of the State in which the activity occurs requests that the decision be made after such day, in which case the decision shall be made not later than the 150th day after the date the notice of application is published under paragraph (1) 1 " (D) the Secretary and the permit applicant determine that additional time is needed to evaluate such application; or I' M the decision is precluded as a matter of law or procedures required by law. " . (b) Deadlines on prohibition or Restriction of Activities by Administrator.--Section 404 (c) (33 U.S.C. 1344(C) ) is amended by adding at the and the following new sentence: "The Administrator shall make any determination under this subsection to prohibit or restrict any discharge into navigable waters resulting from an activity for which a permit may be issued under subsection (a) not later than the 180th day after the data of a decision with respect to an application for such a permit under subsection (a) . (c) Administrative Appeal of Permit Decisions.— (1) In general.--Section 404 (a) (33 U.S.C. 1344 (a) ) , as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the and the following new paragraph: 11 (5) The Secretary shall, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, issue rules establishing procedures under which- MAY-26-94 THU 16:02 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 10 " (A) an applicant for a permit under paragraph (1) or any person who participated in the public comment process regarding such permit application may appeal a decision under this subsection with respect to such a parmitl and " (B) an appeal shall be heard and decided by an official other than the person Who made the decision with respect to such a permit. " . (2) Deadline for issuance of rules.--The Secretary shall issue rules under section 404 (a) (5) (33 U.S.C. 1344 (a) (5) ) , as amanded by this Act, by not later than 160 days after the data of the enactnent of this Act. SEC. 7. GENERAL PERMIT IMPROVEMENTS. Section 404 (e) (33 U.S.C. 1344 (a) ) is amended to read as fellows : 11 (e) (1) In general.--in carrying out the fune,tions of the Secretary under this section relating to the discharge of dredg-ad or fill material, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for a public hearing, issue general permits. 11 (2 ) Categories of activities.--General permits may be issued on a state, regional, or nationwide basis for any category �)f activities involving discharges of dredged or till material if the S2cretary determines that the activitie6 in such category are similar 14 natuZe, will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed se;?arately, and will have only a minimal cumulative adverse effect on the enrviro:zment. " (3) State and local programs. -- " (A) In general . --A general permit may be ia8ued for an existing State, Tribal, regional or local regulatory program to avoid unnecessary duplication of requirements by Federal, State, Tribal, ragi�Dnal, and local programs if the general permit-- 04 (1) requires that the State, Tribal, regional, or local regulatory program has jurisdiction over the activities and waters within the scope of the general permit; " fii) provides adequate safeguards to ensure Chat the State, Tribal, regional , or local regulatory program will have no more than minimal cumulative impacts on the environment and will :orovid* at least the came degree of protection for the navigable waters a;3 that provided by this sections " (iii) provides at least the same opportunity for public review, comment and hearings as that provided by this section; •ind " (iv) includes provisions to provide an opportunity for the Secretary, tha Administrator, the Secretary of the Interior (ai:ting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) , and the Se+:rotary of commerce (acting through the Administrator of the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to review permit decisions subm.Ltted to the State, Tribal, MAY-26-94 THU 16:03 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 11 regional , or local regulatory agency to ensure that the requirements of thie subsection are met. " (B) After December 31, 1996, a general permit shall not be issued or ranain in effect for a local regional regulatory program unless the program is part of a wetlands and watershed management plan approved under section 322 , and the responsible unit of government has the legal authority and scientific monitoring capability to issue, monitor, and enforce permits in compliance with the requirements of the plan and the terms and conditions of the general permit. " (4) Swampbuster.--A general permit may be issued for discharges of dredged or fill material associated with activities found by the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to be exempted from the ineligibility provisions of section 1222 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 V.S.C. 3822) pursuant to section 1222 (f) and (h) of that Act i2 the general permit-- " (A) provides adequate safeguards to ensure that the activities exempted will have no more than minimal individual and cumulative impacts on the environments and " (S) includes provisions to provide an opportunity for the Secretary and the Administrator to review determinations by the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that the terms and conditions of the general permit and the requirements of this subsection are tnet. " (S) Requirements applicable to general permits.-- " (A) No general permit issued under this subsection shall be for a period of more than five years after the date of its issuance and such general permit may be revoked or modified by the Secretary if, after notice and opportunity to request a public hearing, the Secretary determines that the activities authorized by such general permit have an adverse impact on the environment or such activities are more appropriately authorizes by Individual permits or a State, Tribal or local government has failad to adequately monitor and control the individual and cumulative adverse effects of activities authorized by State, Tribal, regional or local program general permits issued under paragraph (3) . " (B) Any general permit issued under this subsection shall-- " (i) be baned on the guidelines developed pursuant to subsection (b) (1) 1 and " (ii) set forth requirements and standards which shall apply to any activity authorized by such permit, including specific anforceable requirements and standards for mitigation of adv®rae impacts to wetlands and other navigable waters. ". SEC. 8 . COORDINATION AND CLARIFICATION OF PROGRAM CONCERNING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES . MAY-26-94 THU 16:04 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 12 (a) Coordination With Agricultural Programs...-Section 404 (q) (33 U.S.C. 1344 (q) ) is amended by inserting " (1) +' after +' ;q) '+ and by adding the following new paragraph: " (2) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, the Administrator, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall enter i;ito agreements to develop consistent criteria and procedures for making 1:echnical determinations under subtitle C of title XI1 of the Food 6ecurity Aut of 19aS (16 V.S.C. 3821 at seq. ) and this section concerning wetlands located on agricultural lands, including but not limited to the delineation oi' wetlands and prior converted croplands and to provide information and aducat;ion concerning these criteria and procedures. ". (b) Exemption for Prior Converted Cropland.---Section 404 (f) (33 U. S.C. 1344 (t) ) is amended by adding the following nev paragraph: 11 (3) (A) Areas determined in accordance 'with subparagraph (B) to be prior converted cropland shall not be considered to be navigable waters. " (B) Tha Secretary, the Administrator, the secretary of Agriculture, and the secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations, after notice and opportunity for public review and comment, for identifying areas that meet the description under subparagraph (A) for administering the programs established under this section and subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et (c) other Exempt waters and Areas.--section 404 (f) (33 U.S.C. 1344 (f) ) , as amended by this Act, is amended by adding the following new paragraph- " (4) (A) For purposes of this section, the following shall not be considered to be navigable waters: " (i) nontidal drainage and irrigation ditches; excavated in uplands; " (li) artificially irrigated areas which would revert to uplands if the irrigation ceased; " (iii) artificial lakes or ponds created by Excavating or diking uplands to collect and retain water, and which are used exclusively for stock watering, irrigation, or rice growing; ++ (iv) artificial reflecting or swimming pcoic or other amall ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or dikin4, uplands to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; ►' (v) water-filled depressions created in uplands incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in uplands for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel, unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meetf, the d:finition of waters of the United Statas; and '+ (vi) artificial stormwater detention areas 2Lnd artificial sewage treatment MAY-26-94 THU 16:04 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 13 areas that are not modifications of navigable eaters. (d) Examptsd Activities.--Section 404 (f) (1) 33 U.S.C. 1344 (f) (1) ) is amended to read as follow: " (f) (1) Excapt as provided in paragraph (2) , the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters-- " (A) from normal farming, silviculture, and zanehing activities, such as haying, grazing, plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and crater conservation practices; " (8) for the purpose of maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, cauc+eways, bridge abutments or approaches, and transportation structures; " (C) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches: " (D) for the purpose of construction of temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site which does not involve a discharge of till into navigable waters; " (E) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm roads or forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment, where such roads are constructed and maintained, in accordance with beat management practices, to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the navigable waters are not: impaired, that the read of the navigable waters is not reduced, and that tiny adverse effect on the aquatic environment Will otherwise be ninimizecl; or " (F) resulting from any activity with respect: to which a State has an approved program under section 208 (b) (4) which meets the requirements of subparagraph (8) and (C) of such section, is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this section or section 301 (a) or 402 of this Act (except for iiffluent standards or prohibitions under section 307) . " . (e) cooperation With Secretary of Agriculture.--Section 404 (f) (33 U.S.C. 1344 (f) ) , as amended by this Act, is amended b« adding the following new paragraph: " (5) In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary and the Administrator shall coordinate their efforts with the Secretary of Agriculture. ". SEC. 9. MITIGATION HANKS. Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by ailding at the end thereof the following now section: MAY-26-94 THU 16!05 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 14 " (u) Mitigation Banks.-- " (I) Establishment. — 11 (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year aftQ:_ the date of the enactment of the Wetlands Conservation and Regulatory Impro•rem.ents Act of 1993 , the secretary and the Administrator shall jointly issue rules, after notice and opportunity for public review and comment, for establishment, use, maintenance and oversight of mitigation banks. " ($) Provisions and requirements.--Rules for establishment, use, maintenance and oversight of mitigation banks i3hall ensure that mitigation banks-- " (1) comply with the guidelines under subsec-:ion (b) (1) ; " (ii) to the extent practicable and environmantally desirable, provide in- kind replacement of lost wetlands functions and be located on or in proximity to the same watershed as impacted wetlands) " (iii) provide for the long-term security of ownership interests of Wetlands and uplands on which projects are conducted to protect the wetlands valued associated with the mitigation bankt " (iv) employ consistent and scientifically-mound methods to determine debits by evaluating wetlands functions and project impacts at the sitea of proposed permits for discharges of dredged or fill material pursuant to this section, and methods to be used to determine credits baaad upon vetlands functions, values, and acreages at the sites of mitigation banks; 11 (v) base fee charges for participation in the mitigation bank on the full costs of replacing lost wetlands functions and acreage, including the costs of land acquisition, wetlands establishment, management measures, lon -term maintenance, monitoring, and protection, potential remediation of pro ect failure, and ether relevant factors; ,, (vi) shall specify responsibilities for long-tern monitoring, maintenance, and protection: and 11 (vii) shall provide opportunity for public review of proposals for mitigation banks through one or more opportunities for public notice and comment. 11 (2) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term "mitigation bank" means wetlands restoration projects undertaken by one or more parties, including private and public entities, expressly for the purposQ of providing, in advance, mitigation compensation credits to fully offset reasonably foreseeable wetlands losses from future discharges of dredged or fill material into tha navigable waters, whore compensatory mitigation at thQ project site is not practicable or is not environmentally desirable. " . SEC. 10. GRANT AUTHORITY FOR RESEARCH, INVESTIGATION, AND TRAINING. MAY-26-94 THU 16:06 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 15 Section 104 (33 U.S.C. 1254) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: I' M The secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to make grants to and enter into cooperative agreements with State agencies, interstate agencies, other public or non-profit agencies, institutions, organizations and individuals for purposes stated in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section. " . SEC. 11. REPORTS AND ANALYSIS. " (a) Effects of Program an wetlands.--Section 404 (a) (33 U.S.C. 1344(a) ) , as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the and of the following new paragraph: " (6) (A) The Secretary, the Administrator, and the States which have a permit program approved under subsection (h) (2) shall collect and make available to the Congress and the public every 2 years information regarding the effects on navigable waters of activities conducted under permits (including general permits) issued pursuant to this section, including-- " (i) the number of permit applications that were granted, withdrawn or denied; " (ii) eatimates of the total acreage of navigable waters affected adversely by issuance of individual permits; 11 (iii) estimates of the acreage of navigable waters affected by each general permit, in order to determine whether the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects of activities authorized by each general permit are minimal; and "(iv) estimates of the acreage of navigable -iraters preaerved or restored through mitigation of permitted activities and the rate of compliance with such mitigation requirements. " (B) Monitoring. --For purposes of preparing reports under this paragraphs, the secretary, the Administrator, and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly monitor the achievement of the policy stated in section lol(a) (8) under permits issued under this section. ". 11 (b) Needs Analysis.-- " (1) In general. --Not later than 90 days attar the data of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the Unite3 States shall submit to the Congress an analysis of the needs of the Department of the Army, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service for additional personnel, administrative resources, and funding to improve implementation of section 404 of the Federal water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S. C. 1344) and to carry out the provisions of this Act. MAY-26-94 THU 16:06 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 16 (2) contents.--The analysis submitted under this subsection shall-- (A) give particular emphasis to the needs of the agencies identified in paragraph (1) with respect to improving and expediting wetlands delineation and section 404 permitting, including advance planning and early consultation ; (B) include specific recommendations regarding additional appropriations and staffing necessary for that improvement and expedition► and (C) include specific recommendations concerning allocation of additional appropriations and staffing to the regional, district and field offices of the agencies identified in paragraph (1) according to the Workload of those offices. SEC. 12. WETLANDS CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION. (A) Funding for State wetlands Conservation Plane.--Section 104 (b) (3) (33 U.S.C. 1254 (b) (3) ) is amended by inserting immediately before the semicolon "and for the development and implementation of State wetlands conservation plans under section 321" . (b) Wetlands Conservation, Management and Restoration.--Tit18 111 (33 O.S.C. 1311 et seg. ) is amended by the adding at the end of the following new sections: "SEC. 321. STATE WETLANDS CONSERVATION PLANS. " (a) Davelopment and Implementation Assistance.--Subject to the requirements established by the Administrator and this section, the Administrator is authorized to make grants to States to assist in the development and implementation of state wetlands conservation plans . " (b) Contents of Plans.--To qualify for assistance under subsection (a) , a State wetlands conservation plan shall generally include: " (1) management strategies and policies for achieving within the State the goal under section 101(a) (8) r 11 (2) an inventory of wetlands resources in the Stater 11(3) a description of the major causes of wetlands loss and degradation in the Stata, including an estimate of historical wetlands losses; " (4) a description of state and local government programs applying to wetlands resources in the State; 1, (5) identification of sites in the State with wetlands restoration potential; 11 (6) identification of riparian areas in the State with restoration potential; MAY-26-94 THU 16:07 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 17 11 (7) a schedule for implementing the elements of the plan; " (8) a mechanism for monitoring achievement of trie stated goals of the plan; 11 (9) meaQures to assist in the development cif wetlands and watershed management plane under section 3227 and " (lo) involvement of local public and private agencies and organizations which have expertise in wetlands conservation or land use planning or development. "SEC. 322 . WETLANDS AND WATERStMD MANAGEMENT PLANS. 11 (a) Designation and Approval of Management Units and Entities.-- " (1) in general.--The Governor of a state ma.y at any time designate wetlands and associated land areas within the State as a wetlands and watershed management unit. " (2) Unit boundaries.--The boundaries of--each wetlands and watershed management unit shall be identified on a m$p end shall be based on the best available scientific information and, to the extent practicable, consistent With the hydrological units identified by the United states Gaological Survey of the Department of the Interior as the-most appropriate units for planning purposes. 11 (3) Management entity.--The Governor of a !�tate shall determine the entity responsible for developing and implementing a plan for each wetlands and watershed management unit designated under this section. The management entity may be an agency of State government, at local government agency, a substate regional planning organitntion, a conservation district or other natural resource management district, or any tither public or nonprofit entity which has adequate powers to carry out the responsibilities authorized by this section. " (a) Approval. --Each designation of a wetlands and watershed management unit and a corresponding management entity under this subsection shall be submitted to tale Administrator and the Secratz y of the Array, acting through the chief or Engineers (hereinafter in this ocction referred to as "Secretary") , for approval. The Administrator and the Secretary shall approve the designation of a management unit and antit:y not later than 180 days after the date of submittal, if the designation meets the requirements of this section. If the Administrator and the Secretary disapprove the designation, they shall notify the State in writing of the reasons for disapproval. The State may resubmit the designation amended to meet the objections of the Administrator and the secretary. " (b) Development and Approval of a wetlands and Watershed Management Plan. -- " (1) Plan development.--An approved management entity shall be eligible to MAY-26-94 THU 16;08 PARAMETR1X FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 18 receive funding pursuant to section 106 (h) , 205(j) , 319 (c) , or 604 (b) (or any combination thereor) for the following activities in the development of a wetlands and watershed management plan: " (A) inventory and mapping of-- " (i) all navigable waters within the proposed wetlands and watershed management unit) " (ii) potential wetlands restoration sites; " (B) assessment of the functions and relative value of wetlands within the wetlands and watershed management unit; " (C) categorization of activities according to the dagrno to which they have an adverse effect on navigable waters wi':hin the wetlands and watershed management unit; " (D) identification and adoption of program:a, policies and measures to achieve within the wetlands and watershed managarant unit the goal under section 101 (a) (6) ; " (E) identification of potential mitigation banks; " (F) identification and adoption of measures; to integrate wetlands planning and management with broader water resource and land use planning and management, including floodplain management, Boater supply, stormwater management, and control of point and nonpoint source pollution; " (G) identification and adoption of measuress to increase consistency in Federal, State, and local Wetlands definitiont;, delineation methodologies, and permitting approaches; and " (H) identification and actablichment of management strategies for restoring wetlands on a watershed basis. " (2) Public participation.--Each State shale astabliah procedures, including the establishment of scientific and citizens} advisory committees, to encourage the public to participate in dev,nloping wetlands and watershed management plans under this section. " (3) Approval or plans. " (A) Submission of plan,--The Governor of a State many submit to the Administrator for approval a wetlands and wat,arshed management plan developed pursuant to this section. " (B) Decision on plan.--The Administrator a:id the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Sacretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, and after notice and opportunity for public czzzant, approve or disapprove a wetlands and watershed management plan within 180 flays of the date the 'plan is submitted by a Governor pursuant to this paragraph. " (C) Plan requirements.--The Administrator and the Secretary shall approve MAY-26-94 THU 16:09 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 19 a wetlands and watershed management plan aubm4tted pursuant to this paragraph if they determine that the plan satisfies east. or the following conditions: 11 (i) the plan has been developed for a wetlands and watershed management unit designated and approved pursuant to subsa.ction (a) ; " (ii) the management entity with responsibility to carry out the plan has been designated and approved pursuant to subsection (a) and has the legal authority and financial resources to carry out the plan; " (iii) the plan contains an inventory and mapping of-- " (l) all navigable waters within the proposed wetlands and Watershed management unit; " (II) potential wetlands restoration sites With a description of their intended functions upon completion and the time required to completion; " (iv) the management entity has adopted programs, policies and measures that will ensure achievement within the watershed or the goal under auction 101(a) (8) ; and " (v) the plan provides that the management entity will, report to the Administrator, the Secretary and the public every two years on implementation of the plan and on the louses and gains in functions and acres of wetlands within the wetlands and watershed management unit. " (a) Plan Implementation and Revision.- -"(I) Planning and implementation schedule.--Each wetlands and watershed management plan submitted and approved under subsection (b) shall include a planning and implementation schedule for a period of at least 10 years. 11 (2) Duration of approval--The approval of a plan by the Administrator and the Secretary shall apply for a period not to exceed 10 years. 11 (3) Plan revisions. --A revised and updated plan may be submitted for approval prior to the expiration of ,the period specified in paragraph (2) pursuant to the same conditions and requirements that apply to any initial plan for a Wetlands and watershed management unit that is approved pursuant to subsection (b) . " (d) Incentives for Wetlands and Watershed Management Planning. -- " (1) Funding of projects and activities.--Projects and activities identified in an approved plan as necessary for achievement within the wetlands and watershed management unit of the goal under section 101(a) (8) , and not otherwise required by this or other Federal law, shall-- (A) be eligible for funding under section 603 (c) (1) (F) ; " (H) be included in any needs assessment conducted pursuant to section 516; and MAY-26-94 THU 16:09 PARAME'TRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 20 "(c) be eligible for funding under section 604 (a) (2) (c) " (2) Expedited permit review. --Notwithstanding section 404 (a) , a decision under that section with respect to a coy¢plated application for a permit for discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters within a designated wetlands and watershed unit and sutject to an approved wetlands and watershed management plan shall be made nct later than the loth day after the date the notice Of such application is published under section 404 (a) (1) , unless-- " (A) with respect to issuance of the pe Mit, the Secretary is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 19eq to issue an environmental impact statement; " (B) the permit application involves an activity that may affect any species that is listed or any critical habitat that is designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973; " (c) the administrator, the Secretaries of tiia Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, Commerce, or Transportation, the head or another appropriate Federal agency, or tha Governor of the State in which the activity occurs raquests that the decision be made after such clay, in which case the decision shall be made not later than the 90th day after- the date the notice of application ie published under section 404 (a) (".) ; " (D) the Secretary and the peracit applicant determine that additional time is needed to evaluate such application; or " (E) the decision it precluded as a matter of law or procedures required by law. " (3) Mitigation banks.-- " (A) At the request of an approved management. entity, the Secretary and the Administrator shall provide assistance in astat-liahment of mitigation banks under this section and section 404 (u) by the approved management entity to achieve the goal under section lol(a) (8) within an approved wetlands and watershed management unit and in accordance with an approved wetlands and watershed management plan. " (B) Establishment and oversight of mitigaticn banks within an approved wetlands and watershed management unit and in accordance with an approved wetlands and watershed management plan shall be eligible for funding under paragraph (1) . " (4) programmatic general permits.--After December 31, 1996, a general permit may be issued or remain in effect under section 404(a) (3) for a local or regional regulatory program if the program is part of a wetlands and watershed management plan approved under section 322. " (f) Research Program. --The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary, the secretary of the Interior and ot'ler appropriate Federal, State and local government entities, shall initiate a research program of wetlands and watershed management. The research program Shall include-- MAY-26-94 THU 16: 10 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P. 21 "(1) study or the functions, values and management needs of altered, artificial, and managed wetlands systems; " (2) study and development of techniques ant; methods for determining and analyzing the functions and values of different types of wetlands; " (3) study and development of techniques for managing and restoring wetlands Within a watershed context; " (4) study and development of techniques fox better coordinating and Integrating wetlands protection, floodplain management, stormwmter management, point and nonpoint source polluticn controls, and water supply planning on a watershed basis; " (5) development of criteria for identifying wetlands restoration sitar on a watershed basis; and " (6) recommendation of procedures and ecological criteria for wetlands restoration. "SEC. 323 . INTERGOVERNMENTAL WETLANDS COORDINATING COMMIE. " (a) Establishment.--Nat later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Wetlands Conservation and Regulatory Im'prcvemznts Act of 1993 , the Administrator shall establish a committee to c3ordinate federal, state, and local government wetlands policies (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "coordinating Committee") . " (b) Functions. --The Coordinating Committee 3hall-- " (1) assist in coordinating Federal, state, Ind local wetlands policies; 11 (2) make comments available to the Secretary of the Army, acting through the chief of Engineers, or the Administrator r;=_garding existing and proposed regulatory, policy, program, or technical guid,3nce affecting wetlands systems; " (3) in cooperation with the Secretary of th(a Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, and the Administrator, ass:Lst in the review and field- testing of technical and scientific methods ut:Llized in wetlands regulatory and non-regulatory programs? " (4) encourage the development and implementation of state wetlands conservation plans pursuant to section 321; " (5) encourage the development and implementation of wetlands and watershed management plans pursuant to section 322 ; and " (6) assist in the development of a national strategy for the restoration Of wetlands ecosystems pursuant to section 324,. " (c) Membership. --The Committee shall be composed of IS members as follows: MAY-26-94 THU 16: 11 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 22 " (1) the Administrator; " (2) the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers; " (3) the secretary of the Interior, acting t;zrough the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife service; 11 (4) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service; "(5) the under secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; "(6) one individual appointed by the Adninist rator who shall represent the National Governor's Association; " (7) one individual appointed by the Administrator who shall represent the national Association of Countieer " (8) one individual appointed by the Administrator who shall represent the National League of Cities; and " (9) ten State Wetlands eXperts selected and appointed by the Administrator from among nominations submitted by the Governc-rs of each State. " (d) Terms.--Each member appointed pursuant to paragraph (6) , (7) , (a) , or (9) of subsection (c) shall be appointed for a term of 2 years. " (e) vacancies.--A vacancy in the Coordinating Committee shall be filled, on or before the 30th day after the vacancy occurs, in the manner in which the original appointment was made. If Pay- --Members shall serve without pay, but may receive travel expenses (including per diem in lieu of subsistence) in accordance with Sections 5702 and 5703 of Title 5, United States Code. " (g) Co-Chairpersons. --The Administrator and one Inerabar appointed pursuant to paragraph (6) , (7) , or (8) of subsection (c) who shall be selected by such members shall serve as co-chairpersons of the Coordinating Committee. "SEC. 324 . NATIONAL COOPERATIVE WETLANDS RESTORATION STRATEGY. " (a) Development. --Not later than one year aster the date of the Hnactmant of the Wetlands Conservation and Regulatory Improvements Act of 1993 , the Administrator and the Secretary of the Army, acting through the chief of Engineers, in cooperation with the Coordinating Committee established under Section 323 , and with opportunity for public conment and participation, shall develop a National Cooperative Wetlands Restoration Strategy (horeinaftor referred to as the "Restoration Strategy") . " (b) Goals. --The goal of the Restoration Stra:egy shall be to restore damaged and degraded wetlands and riparian scozjstems consistent with the goals of this Act and with the recommendations �f the National Academy of MAY-26-94 THU 16: 11 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 23 Sciences with regard to the restoration of aqu4tie ecosystems. " (a) Functions.--The Restoration Strategy shell-- " (I) be designed to help coordinate and promote. restoration efforts by Federal, State, regional, and local government) and the private sector; 11 (2) inventory and evaluate existing restoration efforts and make suggestions for the establishment of additiona:. efforts and funding mechanisms for such efforts consistent with ex-sting Federal, state and local programs and plans; " (3) evaluate the role played by, and succasl: of, wetlands restoration efforts in both regulatory and non-regulatory contexts: " (d) evaluate current efforts to monitor restoration efforts; " (S) periodically report on the statue of wetlands restoration efforts; and " (6) identify regulatory and non-regulatory cbsitacles to Wetlands ecosystem restoration and recommend methods to remove such obstacles. " . ** MAY-26-94 THU 16: 12 PARAMETRIX FAX N0. 206 889 8808 P, 24 • GNE�PAT-LCK MMV-MI.Me-I ya"' �0++*+.0'W".aMODE�S►A� i�O�f1E F McTrrdL„^W K^N K S&WSOM A,reY4E54To FwrK R-uW new JER4EL G�VW.WA�JER.1 n",NEYWA JOeI�h.W�E£P.WiP1AbW �r �qL�ITM.NEW M,By�il� .. RON 0LAM,A'.ROB r.[GZICtJL W1Cr+/ATM.r.OrITM CAPOLIWA �O wAA I.U I A C ZEPAS ¢aK KF4vT�.C" MOr�AAD,l'1£T�r+g�W,OrtO F1Aar+i9 Weg OM.vfM4'1M.Vauu BAPMAPA 9C'KfR CALK"" _ �A L��AfT C F OW ►+o- CJiF�Cd1YO6 E; SENATE COMMITTEE ON AND PUBLIC �VORKSFOR IMMEDIATE AF.LFASE CONTACT: Deborah Q o�i 202/224-2921 July 28, 1993 CANS LgpbERS WIRODUCE WMANDS BILL Bau,cuslC.hafee ef'f4 cQmpl d= .wat ffl WASHINGTON — Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mcntnnsl, anal Republican Leader John Chafee, R-R.hode Island, today introduced the Wedands (;onservation and Regulatory Unprovemcnts Act. The bill will be included is the Clear. Water reauthorization bill -- the Cornmittee's top legislative priority this yeAT- "The jobs, recreation and critical envirmiraental benefits that wetlands provide are in jeopartty," Baucus said. "Both the quality of our envirorrnmt and a significant segment of ovY economy -- W boon each year -- are under siege from the continuing pace of wetlands destruction. 'Miis bill will make the rules more uses-friendly, while helping to ensure that America's wedands remain up to the tasks of sponging flood waters, recharging grtmundwaters, filtering surface waters, and sustaining healthy fish and wildlife populations," Baucus added. 'The Clean Water Act's wetlands protection program his two major problems," Chafee said. "First, it is one of the most controversial envirvnalental proms$ in eAstence and it is under serious attack in Congress. Second, it is not as effective as it needs to be in protecting wetlands. Even with Section 404, we continue to lose 200,000 arsts of wetlands each year, 'This bill is an attempt to solve both, these of the gran],,gChafee ddressaddedtuna. te complaints and to imorove the effectiveness The bill aims to: Ap enhance the protection and restoration of wethaids nationwide; make regulation of wetlands fair, efficient and consistent; make it easier for farmers and ranchers to comply with efforts to protect wetlands; strengthen the federal-state wetlands conservation partnership. MAY-26-94 THU 16: 12 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 25 TXPR�� AM CRY OF WBTI-ANflS CD�1SgR�I� � R�'��OA? the effectiveness The Baucu9-Chafee bill improves , 4� =ries s of the wetlands protection program without wezlar►ds and flexibility - ov.r remaining jeopardizing a critical national asset resource ba8e • ou or _ gal$: -' consistency anti fairness Of the 1� �prpve the efficiency, regulatory program; 0 it easier federal wetlands p for farmers anranchers anho to comply with 2) protection efforts; Hui ld a stronger Partnership for wetlands conservation 3) encies and the States; and between federal aq 4 gnhance the protection amd restoration of wetlands aationwj-de. Y FROGR njpR0VM0MT5 Sets tight deadlines for permit prOce,aaing; * Establishes a process for appeal of permit decisions; pQrmitting for wetlands within eft ,r Requires expeditedement plan; approved wetlands and watershed mana4. : Provides for wetlands delineation assistance for small landowner Past applicants , Authorizes , with appropriate safequs:cds , the use of mitigation banks; outreach, information exchange * Improves educations wetlands . and resaarch reg SI)CFLIFIES F /RANC.R C,.MWLLANCE Exesapts prior converted croplands fi:om section 404.; established in uplands , such as rack Eon at and areass areas crsated by irrigation; P generally Provides for issuance of regulations that * eneral ge�it• ) under section 404 through a g t under the mitigatian authorize { found by SCS to be exeMP any activity rovisions of t},e Food security Act; and minimal effect P MAY-26-94 THU 16: 13 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 26 +. EnhanCeg and improves wetlands delineation and certification efforts ; the consistent e Cc and SCS dev'-lop Z1cultural RBquiree that EPAI lands dc`sxialnatio�scleangwater Act; policieS regarding Security Act and tha lands under the Food and eluded within the Clarifies that haying and grazing ase in normal farming exemption. rOR STATE IgypLYMEWT nKggASED OPATUNI-ry within ards , state (and appropriate aafe9u general permits Authorized , with PP lan local) Pr°g=r processing; a roved wntesahed P speed perms -an PP d to Increase state flexibility a wetlands pl d ng provides funding for ata.te lain9 # Adh8tates and and local wetlands and watershed 8 an ttee t:o coordinate wetlands Establishes a Sta=eetO atil arts . conservation an WS�+A� �gCTIOH ?►�iD RZq�iTI0I3 �� A?S ICI a oal of the � Makes �„Qtlands protection and restoration g Clean Water Acts subject to =ejilation to include rt Expands the activities fwetlands ; �� dsainq and excavation of to establish a Direr- federal agencies and tho states and Datiornal Wetlands Restoration StratvgYed lane in to the use of wetlands/waterah p approach to * Encoarages =ehensiye and rated dev®lop a more comp wetlands protection' 2 MAY-26-94 THU 16: 13 PARAMETRIX FAX NO. 206 889 8808 P, 27 1aAMM y14 K SAP` ' 6EOF+ag F.1EI'll, t.Y0042 �fT pAVi�URd�i P ►wE`rgr OAMNY OEM.MCVADA pUnLwT swix Pew KwND9400- CiWWl'.0.DICA VyJf.?I FA���."3AT14CJP0.YM J05EM I.�AEP*%Al�l, cfC1IT yA(, } >L pApp ,gwAM w.j.ETZENSALAk 0 0 +,,,,oa pgfFARO.oQ►aqdYIVAMA y,I&Vk&1Kj17P.GLPO 01- VCM 6.eo 9 am p,t`Ad 1 00440a.10007 NE\NS .. Remarks of Chairman May: Baucus The ,Wetlands Canseminon and Regulatory Improvements Act of 1993 July 28, 1993 Mr. president, I am introducing leg slaQan today with Senator cidee to better conserve ds and to improve the elation of wetlands development tinder secdon 404 of Wcdgn . the Clean Water Act- a envitn�t3- They help �� and are our most impartastt and reretainiaS autrifmts, processinS wastes, and water qualiry by remo�S store' flood waters, �S � � �°�' and reducing sediwent. Thep tempotar�y thereby reducing downstream flood peaks and protecting prOPEM owners from good wares, wetlands help tna nMM water table levels tined am dage. By r d='ging grog ,,rater suppl>g and to prevent loss of SCal =Oisttu'e- to provide irrigation and drinl�8 Weds sustain most of the Nation's fisheries. N shy ' �tt freshwater fish are dependent upon wetlands and important for d sources of food. Wetlands are especially spawning sites, nursery areas, as and feed; sites for waterfowl and many as breeding grounds, over-wintering aeas, ott over ona-third of aU other migratory birds. 'these aquatic habitats also sul p d=atc ed and endangered species in the U.S. nearly 400,000 people spend over $160 mRlion to go fishing Fach year in Montana, millions of dollars more Bunting warelfowL Nearly three Almost 30,000 p P spend watching and photographing waterfowl and other Montanans out of every five enjoy the rsilesies and wildlife that generate wildlife Species. Nationwide, wetlands su annual expenditures in excess of $40 billion. abs rovidec. by wetlands are in jeopardy- The Unfortunately+ the food, recreation and P nearly S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recently esti=tedEtd-19d.losses averaS� U from the raid-1970's to The TTi 30Q,000 acres per y� than 50 event of the wetlands in the lower ,, Seat thattiara late More P the eighteenth century have been lost. The State of Muar'tec of its original wetlands. ngtional average, but it still has lost more than a q MAY-26-94 THU 16: 14 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 28 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act protects wetlands 8111 other waters from the In reverting and muumizin wetlands loss and degradation, adverse effects of filling. P the clean Water Act's goal of restoring the section 444 program is essential to achieving griry of the Nation's waters." and raaintnirli g "the chemical, pphysical, and biological bite uali deteriorates, properzY owners are made more When wetlands are filled, water q tY wa tesfowl populations decline, and susceptible to flood damage, water table levels drop, fisheries and shell$shrsies suffer. nesit of this nation's effort to have healthy aquatic Section 404 remains a eitical cnmpo environments. But from almost anyone's perspective, there are problems with this pro - It is difficult for the public to understand the ptogram's r'q,�reinents it is confusing, cularl difficult for farmers and and, therefore, how to comply with than. It is pare Y ranchers to son through and recona�e th,e various requirements of section 404 and the swarup-buster provisions of the Food Security act, such tt is often financially or technically difficult for ratan lsndowne to take the ,' as idcntiScation and delineanon of wetlands, necessarY to evenapply for a 404 permit to Lill portly of a wetland. 'I'h8 section 404 petztit Process can still drag on for too long wlthaut a decision one way or anodser_ And permit applicants have no avenu+, other the courts to appeal a decision on their application. gram does not adequately LMWurage and facatate state The current section 404 P rote� n o efforts. And these is a neCd for better coordination inwlveraent in we$aDds p of these efforts at all levels of government. s other than by Bllia& such as d�n8 and Wetlands are des-nbyed in many waysited under sectio,14a4- excavation, which are not now regal Wedands losses also have remained high m p� �1 lse cumulative impacts are �, This individual difficult to assess and address undue smitigario eff 404 Forts that are often unduly permit process also results in Pec mnnitore+i for compliance, and ineffective burdensome to the permit applicant, poo Y achieving environmental goals. efforts also too fail to look Cun�en t federal and state wetland protection he wa bond watershed. impacts to a specific wetland and to comider the effects on rovetaents Act of 1993 being introduced The Wetlands conservation and Rregulatory Lmp problems with the currenE b Senator Chafee and I today addresses these fairness cther and fleaability of the program y rfl to improve the effectiveness, section 404 p g wetlands resource base. without jeoyardizing a critical national asset -- our remaining MAY-26-94 '['HU 16: 15 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 29 The bM has four major goals: 1) Improve the effiaency, consistency and fairne.45 of the regulatory prograrc►, 2) Mal._ it easier for farmers and ranchers to cOmPly with federal wetlands protection efforts; 3) Build a stronger parmetship for wetlands conservation between federal ag"-nae-s and the States; and 4) Fobz=e the protection and restoration of wetlands nationwide. REGU A-MRY PROGRAM WROVEWENTS To improve the operation of the section 404 regulatory pteog='am. the bill and rs substantial education, outreach, and iafarmatioa dfwz to help the public ndtcstand the program and improve their ability to comply with its . in ad&dam' the bill provides technical aasiataace m ddumating wedsnds for uu.n landowner permit applicdrnts. The bill sets ti to deadlines for permit prooming and r°4mm even shatter P'erl� FT.- . MMY for wetlands within an approved wedxnb and pLw, The bill establishes a process for appeal of pe:Mdt dedsi°� To move away from piecemeal amitigatioa efforts that ate often unduly burdewome to the pezatit applicant, pocniy ==tomd for corapl xi= and meffective achieving environmental goals, the bill authorizes use of nAtIp3cn banks. While there is potential for abuse in the use of banks, the bill recoVim that, with safeguards they also lave the potential to be a more and ctledive maw of not only offsetting unavoidable wetlands losses, bum cif fnct=siuS'Che Quality and quantity of the nation's werlands resource base dmm;h r stora'ddu effw"• To ensure ptedittability bZ the idanti�tii n and delirxation of wetlands, the bill writes into law the d�tion of wetlands treat bar been in the section 444 tegiilations Unchanged she-1977. The bell ti= mandates continued use of the 1987 CA I opmmt of a manual Delineation Manual until a new manual is ° h1ic review and Cpttimalt; C2) in would bane to be d0W (1) with OFPomm3'ry for consultation with the states; (3) an the basis of the 'X= available stimt o and ific intvnlatlan, and (4) in a way that takes into account nod be issued until the Nationall vegetation. No new delineation m Academy of atzual cool late next,year. Sciences issues its report on this subject, which is especied 3 MAY-26-94 THU 16: 15 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P. 30 SQueLTFILS FARNvm/tANGTF.R CC)?&L ANC To make it easier for farmers and ranchers to comply w..,th both section 404 and the wetlands provisions of the Food Security Act, the bill exempts prior converted cropiazids from regulation under section 404. In addition, the bill exempts wetlands areas established in uplands, such as stock ponds and arras created by irrigation. The bill provides for issuance of regulations that generally authori2e under section 404 (through a so-called "ger=zl permit") any activity fourui by the Sod Conservation Service to be exempt under the mitigation agd minimal effect provisions of the Food Security Act's swamp-buster program Consequently, f inners and ranchers will be dealing with the SCS on these determinations, and to tIR extent necessary, SCS will be dealing with the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the bill requires that EPA, the Corps and SCS develop consistent policies regarding wetlands determinations on agriculrx-al lends under both the Food Security Act and the Clean Water Act, so that as much as possib*e, a deter=inatioa by one agency under one of these laws will be accepted-by another agency under the other law. The bill also clarifies that haying and gracing are included within those normal farming activities that are exempted from regulation under se cti:)n 404. INCREASED OPPORZUNTIY FOR ST-A'II: UMLVEMENT To provide increased opportunity for state involvement in wetlands conservation and regulation, the bill authorizes, with appropriate safeguards, state (and within an approved watershed plan — local) program general permits to increase state fleadbility and speed permit processing- The bill authorizes and provides funding for state wetlands planning and for state and local wetlands and watershed management planning- Jwd the bill establishes a state/locaVfederal committee to coordinate wetlands conservation and restoration efforts. ENHANCING WETLANDS PROTECTION AND ;!USMRAMON EFFORTS Finally, to enhance wetlands protection and restoration efforts under the Clean Water Act, the bill first makes wetlands protection and restoration a goal of the Clean Water Act. The bill expands the activities subject to regulation to include draining, excavation, ditching, and mechanized land-clearing of wetlands. 4 MAY-26-94 `1'HU 16: 16 PARAMETR I X FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P. 31 WU QXLVUS.WXWTANA,CXAhQh"N wopue ir urrpELL aA%W ALAN K MWSCM,WrOh" FMli R LAUTVGNNM rEw xpwf DiAVE DIMM40004 1H1 A=W4IE30rA 40~MM.WVAQA QN W,*~K vIiNwA am aAAwwt AdIpA ao WT 5UM4.►EW ruJAPsW AO A9GPw 1,UERVIM".CQfEEC%AJT I-AUGH FAOKXOTH.NOR711 CAPODUkA M**AI p-kC 29A&L&L 0w0 DOW arMP"400%uE OAkC MMMG�fOM.090arLYAMA BAABAAA MOXE)k CALOWe" N F��WSAFUR L§DQ RA+R DFIEC:-M irEOM A.fMdMiR hsd0w"9?AW ftWCr0•A+O C>W f MLPLM • Remarks of Senator John Chafee The Wetlands Conservation and Regulatory enis Act of 1993 July 28, 1993 Mr. President, today Senator Bauicus and I are introducing a bill to improve the existing federal wetlands regulatory program, Section 4,04 of the Clean Water Act Our bill, the Wetlands Conservation and Regulatory Improvements i1ct, w81 enhance the Fairness and flexibiliry of federal wetland; protection -- without Jeopardizing our wining wetlands resources. 'le bill makes it easier for farmers to comply with federal wetlands regulations and provides for a sam gm parmership for wetlands ccaterrvation between federal agencies and the Stares. The Clean Water Aces wetlands protection program ha; two major problems. First, it is one of the most controversial environmental programs in existence and it is under serious attack in Congre s. Second, it is not as effective: as it needs to be in prvrecting wetlands. This bM is an attempt to solve both of these problems -- to address legitimate complaints and to improve the effectiveness of the program. Several months ago, during the debate on Senator Bonci's wetlands amendment to the EPA cabinet bill, Senator Baucus and 1 pledged to carrl;1lly examine the federal werlan.ds regulatory program and work to address the concerns that have been expressed by a number of Senators regarding Section 404. I believe the introduction of d m bill goes a long way towards fulfilling our charge- The UU is the result of consultations with groups and individuals representing numerous interests affected by wetlands protection -- including developers, farmers, state agencies, and environmentalists. our staffs have rnet with the staffs of about every Senator who has expressed dissatisfaction with the cuirrat program. We uLo worked closely with the Administration -. which has recently established an Interagency Working Group on Federal Wetlands Policy at the request of Senator Breaux and other senators to examine wetlands issues. We found that m;;ny concerts could t-,e addressed without weakening our commitment to maintain and restore wetlands, Frankly, Mr. President, this bill does nor p as far as I would like in stmagI eninsr the 404 wetlands program. I continue to believe we are losing too many wetlands -- an MAY-26-94 `I'HU 16: 17 PARAME'1'R I X FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 32 To help federal and state wetland protection efforts to look beyond impacts to a specific wetland and to consider the effects on the watershed i�. which the wetland is located, the bill encourages the development of wetlands and watershed nwiagement plans. These plans will result in a more comprehensive and in-_egrated approach to wetlands protection. And the bill directs federal agencies and the states to establish a National Wetlands Restoration Strategy. The wetlands Conservation and Regulatory Improvements Act of 1993 is sincere effort to ffnd common ground in improving a very controversial program. In developing the bill, we have reached out to the Administration, to our colleagues, to the states, and to many other affected and interested parties in a pragmatic effort to both improve protection of wetlands and to improve the regulatory process under current federal laws. The Subcommittee on Clean Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife of the Comutitree on Environment and Public works, chaired by Senator Gmiann., will conduct a hearing in early September on this bill and on protection and regulation of wetlands generally under the Clean Water Act. We have introduced the bill at this time to provide our colleagues and the various interested and affected parties an opportunity to-thoroughly review it. This legislation will be combined in the Committee roarie-up process wi-:h the Clean Water Act reauthorization bill, S. 1114. I look forward to worldng with each of you as the Committee proceeds to developed Clean Water Act legislation for consideration by the M. Senate later this year. 5 MAY-26-94 THU 16: 17 PARAMETRIX FAX N0, 206 889 8808 P, 33 astounding 200,000 acres per year -- and it would be wise to significantly strengthen wetlands protection efforts. I recognize, however, that neither wetlands not the public derive any benefit from the controversy that has plagued our wetlands protection efforts in recent years. By introducing more flexibility and responsiveness into the wetlands regulation program and by emphasizing weuAnds and tiratershed planning, the enactment of this legislation would increase both the level of acceptance and the effectiveness of the Section 404 regulatory program. Before discussing the speQfic provisions of the bill, t would like to review the functions and values of wetlands to explain why it is important to protect them in the first place. Unfortunately, the people of the Midwest suffering front the devastating effects of the sunuuer floods may have learned too late about one important function that wetlands perform -- flood storage. When left in their natural sta-,-e, wetlands along rivers and suvams act as buffets that can catch and holl flood waters. Once the wetlands are destroyed, however, these is nothing to hold the floods back and the water pours out into croplaads and developed areas such as our towns and cities. It is important to note that three of the states that have. been the most severely affected by the Hoods had already seen sigaiftc=t tosses-of thee- historical wetlands areas: Illinois had lost 85% of their wetlands prior to the flood; Missouri 87%; and Iowa 90%. Experts believe the loss of wetlands and their flood storage capacity has exacerbated flood damage in the area- Wetlands are also one of the most biologically producti re ecosystems on earth_ They are home to migratory waterfowi and many other species of buds. Approrimately two- thirds of the major U.S. commercial fishes depend upon wetlands for nursery or spawning grounds. Over one-third of our endangered and threatened spenes depend upon wetlands at some stage in their life cycle. Wetlands improve water quality and help reduce non-poiat source pollution by collecting and filtering sediments and pollutants- beform they reach streams, rivers and estuaries. Wetlands also act as recharge sites for groundwater systems. In short, wetlands are an essential part of the hydrologic-cycle, and thus, critical to achieving the goal of the Clean Water Act: to restore and maintain t 2e chemical, physical and biological integrity of our Nation's waters. Despite the valuable functions wetlands perform, attempts to protect wetlands have been controversial -- primarily because =st wetlands are found on private lands. In addirion, while Section 4d4 of the ClrBn Water Act regilates wetlands generally, the Swampbuster provision of the Food Security Art prohibits farmers who convert wetlands from receiving agricultural subsidy payments. The eadstence of two different laws affecting agriculturai wetlands has led to confusk" and misunderstandings about what farmers need to do to comply with federal law. Our bill will greatly simplify the process for farmers. First, it exempts prior converted croplands -- which are exempt under Swampbuster -- from Section 404. This is consistent with current U.S. Army Corps regulatory policy -- a policy that has been effect since September 26, 1990; our bill would simply recognize that policy as part of the law. Second it exempts wetands established by human actions in uplands, such as MAY-26-94 THU 16: 18 PARAMETRIX FAX K 206 889 8808 P, 34 stock ponds and wet areas created by irrigation. Third, it provides for issuance of regulations that generally authorize (through a "general permit") under section 404 any activity found by the Snit Conservation Service (SCS) ta be exempt under the mitigation and minimal effect provisions of the Food Security Act. Finally, it requires EPA, the Corps ana SCS to develop consistent policies regarding wetlands determinations on agricultural lands under the Food Security Act and the Clean Water Act. These provisions will reduce conf Won and lead to better, more consistent wetlands detenninations. The bM also contains a number of provisions to improve administration of the 404 regulatory program -- to help Landowners receive quick, consistent decisions and to improve our efforts to protect wetlands. It rquirrs, in most cases, that permits be issued in less than 90 days— or 60 days for wetlands that are located within an area covA!red by an approved wetlands and watershed management plan. It establishes an administrative appeals process, and provides wetlands delineation assistance for small landowners seeking a section 404 permit. These provisions will reduce unnecessary delay in the perndtting process and provide assistance to smaIl landowners attempting to comply with Section 404. The bill also authorizes, with appropriate safeguards, the use of mitigation banks. I realize that mitigation ban icing has beta opposed by many environmentalists as weakening wetlands protection. Nevertheless, the fact iy that these banks are allowed — and many exist -- under current law even though there is no legislative language Specifically authoriziug thesis Undo current law, mitip lion banking is an ongoing practice and there are no apparent limits governing thee- use. Our bill would authorize theta and place appropriate restrictions on their use to improve the operation of the mitigation banks while protecting wetlands values. The participation and cooperation of the Stairs is vital >f'we are to achieve our goal of protecting and restoring the nation's wetlands. The bill increases ncreases opportunities for state involvement in the Section 404 program without requirvig a state to assume the entire program. It authorizes, under appropriate conditions, stcite program general permits. Kcal arras with an approved wetlands plan would also be eligible for local prcgzsm general permits. State and local program general permits already east uala current law -- but are ill- defined and are not governed by any legislative requirements or safeguards. These new Provisions will change that. They a=eese state ilexdbi]ity and accelerate decisions, without sacrificing valuable wetlands, The bill also authorizes and provides funding for state ar.d local wetlands and watershed planning. Adoption of a plan under this provision would not allow states or localities to weaken protections for wetlands. What wetlands plans can do is reduce the uncertainty and cost of protecting wetlands by allowing ::tales to plan ahead and evaluate wetlands in the context of the overall, watershec. In this way, states and local 3 MAY-26-94 THU 16: 19 PARAMETRIX FAX NO, 206 889 8808 P, 35 gove-rnMents can worst with the federal agencies to protf,ct their vital resource's and still allow for economically and a nviron mentally siztainable development, Onc specially controversial issue regarding wetlands-- the definition and the delineation of wetlands — has substantially subsiLed since both the C,,.ps and the EPA formally adopted the 1987 Corps delineation manual. Gar bill adopts the current section 404 regulatory definition of wetlands and rnanda Ces continued use of the 1987 wetlands manual until a new manual is adopted. Any ne.w manual is rXqui,red to be developed after public notice and comment, and after coiWdering the recomn=datiom of the National Academy of Science (NASA. The NAS is expected to complete their study regarding the definition and delineation of wetlands soma tune next year. There is little to be gained by changing the curmt definition or delineation method until the results of the NAS study are known_ Any change would only ca�lse confusion and uncertainty for landowners and the states. PAY, the bill seeks to improve -- to strengthen — fedena efforts to enhance and restore wetlands. it makes the protection and restoration of wetlands one of the explicit goals of the Clean Water Act. The bill e—Vaiids the list of activities harmful to wetlands which are subject to regulation under section 94. For the first time draining and excavation will be coveted by 404. It also calls on federal agencies and the states to establish a National Wetlands Rtstomtion Strategy. We need to continue our effiarts to protect and restore wetlands if we hope to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act The Wetlands Conservation. and Regulatory Improvements Act is an attempt to address the complaints we have heard about the section 404 regulatory program, without jeopardizing our remaining wetlands resource base, and I urge my colleagues to support it. 4 MAY 26 '94 15: 19 HDR ENGINEERING, INC. P.2i3 FAX TRANSMI?TAL MEMO a aae�+ 3 THEE �- COMPANY NATIONAL FAX g PHONE 8 /—Zo(o- BOr- 88o$ FAX# WATERL May 1994 House Avoids Contentious Markup of CWA The Clean Water Act native is said to have bor- in this Act is intended to nearly reached the boiling rowed many concepts from amend, supersede, or abro- point in the House Public a clean water bill just gate any right to a quantity Works Committee during recently compiled by the of water that has been late April but now appears National Governor's Asso- established by any inter- to be on slow simmer as ciation (NGA) and the state water compact, Su- Chairman Norman Mineta Association of State and preme Court decision, state (D-CA) offers to hold hear- Interstate Water Pollution water law or any require- ings and delay what surely Control Administrators ment imposed or right would have been a tempes- (ASIWPCA) in a effort to provided under any state ruous full committee mark- bring state, local and fund- environmental or public up. ing concerns to the fore- health law..." At press time, The Chairman had front of the Clean Water this language had not been planned to bypass subcom- debate. included in the Bipartisan mittee mark-up, an unusual The original NGA/ Alternative. move in what is considered ASIWPCA draft also con- Hearings and a mark-up one of the most open and rained language on state date have not been sched- hipartisan committees in water rights to strengthen uled, but committee action the House, and head state authority. NWRA's could begin as early as straight for a full commit- Clean Water Act Task Force Tuesday, May 3. Congress- tee mark-up. A second has reviewed the unusual event is that the language and indi- INSIDE ranking Republican, Bud cated that the pro- Shuster (R-PA), has pub- posaI would not licly opposed the address NWRA Chairman's Clean Water members concerns SDWA: Chairman's Dilemma .............2 bill, H.R. 3948 as too resrric- because of the r House CWA cunt. ..............................3 rive and has introduced his opening phrase (see own "Bipartisan Alterna- italics), The lan- BuRee Changes ...................................4 rive" bill together with at guage in question least 5 conservative com- reads in part: "£x- mittee democrats and sev- cept as necessary to eral committee republicans: meat the express require- men Geren and Mica have Mike Parker (D-MS), Pete ments of This Act, nothing expressed a strong interest Geren (D-TX), Greg in offering a risk assess- Laughlin (D-TX), ,jimmy ment/cosy benefit analysis Flayes (D-LA), Glenn amendment to the bill Poshard (D-IL) John Mica requiring EPA to calculate (R-F1.) and Bill Emerson (R- NAfx)Nvat Mo). 'rhe Bipartisan Alter- W.�Tuc RFscuRt£s AssociAnoN MAY 26 '94 15:20 HDR ENGINEERING, INC. P.3i2 House Avoids Contentious Markup (continued) the cost to implement new cerns had not been ad- agribusiness and soil and standards and technology equately addressed. water conservation groups, versus the risk to human expressing similar con- health. A similar amend- cerns. ment is credited with effec- Senate Action The environmental com- tively killing the EPA cabi- munity has also continued net status Iegislation in the Although the Senate is to keep pressure building House this February when largely preoccupied with on the Senate Clean Water the House leadership would the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization by not allow such an amend- Act, off-committee action continuing to shop for a ment to be offered in its has continued on Clean sponsor for an amendment procedural rule. When this Water Act as the bill is calling for a study of chlo- rule was put to a vote, the readied for Floor consider- rine and potential phaseout, rule failed by a margin of ation after the Safe Drink- as proposed by the Clinton 30 votes, and the legislation ing Water Act reauthoriza- administration. Industry was pulled from further tion. Most recently a group and agriculture remain consideration. of 46 Senators including 12 staunchly opposed, and In an effort to resolve Democrats joined in sign- have vowed to "kill the bill" similar concerns and ing a 3 and a half page if such an amendment is clarify other items that had letter to Environment and included. been raised by members of public Works Committee The Clinton administra- the committee and interest Chairman Max Baucus Lion and Members of Con- groups, Chairman Mineta indicating that while they gress up for reelection this introduced his own 163 are "supportive of the bill's fall are anxious to have .an page "amendment in the goal of a targeted, water- environmental statute that nature of a substitute" on shed approach and timely they can point to as a suc- April 22. The amendment, implementation of best cess for campaigning pur- which is longer than H.R. management practices to poses, but prospects keep 3948 itself, adds new wet- address non-point source getting dimmer as the lands measures, defines pollution," they are "con- "unholy trinity issues" terminology, and attempts cerned with many provi- (unfunded mandates, risk to clarify a variety of nebu- sions that are excessively assessment and private lous issues, but does not restrictive and would prove property takings) just won't contain any risk assessment extremely costly for family go away in.either chamber. language. Initially, it farmers, livestock produc- Both chambers of Con- appeared that members of ers, agribusiness, forest gress will have to move into the committee were pre- product producers and high gear, as the legislative pared to accept the substi- small rural communities." schedule continues to wind tute as alleviating many of The letter was delivered to down with only 15 legisla- their concerns, but a quick Baucus' staff on April 28, tive weeks to go (amounting lobbying effort by several just 1 month after the Clean to about SS legislative days), coalitions at the last minute Water Act Working Group all 13 appropriations bills influenced many waivering delivered a similar letter to left to pass and an off-year members that their con- Max Baucus signed by 25 election in November.j 05 26/94 10:26 FAX 206 883 7555 HaRZa NW Dave Jennings 16001 Tel: (206)882-2455 NORTHWEST, INC. Fax: (206)883-7555 Memorandum ITM To: Dave JenningsFrom: Joan Nichol � AY 2 51994 Date: May 26, 1994 OF RENTON CITY Subject: Clean Water Act Reauthorization Engineering Dept* Dave: Here are a few thoughts on the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act for your consideration. - Section 404 permit evaluations currently don't have to consider need, mitigation or net environmental effects. ( Cite Boeing experience. Also, courts recently upheld an EPA veto of a community water supply project that would have affected a wetland). - Senate version of reauthorization would expand the authority of states and EPA. (I don't know what language the House version contains.) Section 401 certification authority would be expanded to include protection and maintenance of state-designated uses of waterways. The Senate bill would require states to set up non-point source pollution management programs under EPA guidance and federal agencies would be required to conform to those programs. - The proposed expansion of state authority would add more layers of regulatory jurisdiction to projects that would affect waterways. Water quality authority is presently delegated to the Dept of Ecology; other state agencies are trying to assert authority under Section 401 (WDF [fish flows], State Parks [aesthetic or recreation flows], etc.). One of these challenges is presently before the US Supreme Court. Imagine trying to get approval to dredge the Cedar River if this authority is expanded as proposed. cc: Post-it"'brand fax transmittal memo 7-71 of pages • t To M t From Co. Co. Dept. Phone N Fax i 1,V " 0 Virginia Tech Department of Agricultural Economics qW VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE College of Agriculture and Life Sciences AND STATE UNIVERSITY Blacksburg,Virginia 24061-0401 (703)231-6301 UPON e C,7y of Neot ego 5 S spy RE�peQ'�. -0 PIP-, IN A&At\4tS rv,( IYI Gonl✓ RSA 72 6 1) 7717S i is A1,)p /-faf45" Ta 7-tvt;1-1 '�b /it�-A-pe ,Av6 NI 6 o u r wA4-T y" `vK be?�jv u.P TD Ciea PA v6:'-' w1 ' A Land-Grant University—The Commonwealth Is Our Campus An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution 10 A complete copy of this report can be obtained by contacting Dr. Robert Brumbaugh, Water Resources;Support Center, Institute for Water Resources, CEWRC-IWR-P, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22310-3868, Phone: 703-355-3069, FAX.'703-3S5-3I71 or 8435 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FQR SUCCESSFUL 'WETLAND MITIGATION: THE PR/VA TE CREDI T MARKET AL TERNA T/VE Leonard Shahman,11 ` Paul Scodari2, and,Dennis King'' March 1994' This report replaces Staff Paper SP-93-S of the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, dated May 1993. Support for this work was"provided by the Institute for Water Resources of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The findings and recommendations included are the authors' and 1. do not represent the position of the Department of the Army. 1 Department of Agricultur.11 al and.11A.. pplied Economics,Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.,Virginia 24061-0401,703- 231 6844. -11 z King and A"66Wa41. , I616 A St., N.W., Washington,D.C. 20036,202-332-6995. 1. s Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland,;Solomons, Maryland 20688, 410- 326-7212,and Icing and Associates, 1616 P St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 202-332-6995. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report 1) explains what a private credit which are expected to be constructed on-site(i.e. market is and how it functions, 2) describes the at the permitted site) if at all possible, are called potential for private markets in mitigation credits mitigation credits. to help the federal wetland regulatory program achieve the national goal of no-net-loss in Although federal wetland regulations wetland function and acreage, and 3) explains emphasize the use of on-site mitigation to the regulatory conditions necessary for their compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts,the widespread emergence and ecological success. rules provide that the use of off-site mitigation banks may be an acceptable alternative in certain Mitigation credit markets are a special case situations. Mitigation banking offers the of "mitigation banking". Mitigation banks are opportunity to obtain compensation for wetland large areas of replacement wetlands created for impacts caused by multiple independent or linear the express purpose of providing off-site development projects by locating a single, large- compensatory mitigation for more than one scale wetland mitigation project elsewhere in the future wetland development project. The vast watershed. Developers favor mitigation banking majority of mitigation banks in operation today because it can reduce the costs and delays often are single-user banks; that is, each was associated with the permit review process. developed by a single large public or private Regulators are interested in mitigation banking developer to provide only for its own future because of its potential ecological advantages. mitigation needs. By contrast, private mitigation For example, mitigation banks typically involve credit markets would encourage entrepreneurs to large-scale replacement wetlands that can, in establish commercial mitigation banks from many instances, more effectively maintain which credits would be sold to wetland ecosystem function than isolated on-site developers in need of compensatory mitigation. mitigation projects. Such markets could help the nation achieve no- net-loss of wetlands by increasing the Despite the potential of off-site mitigation opportunity to obtain successful compensatory banking to increase the efficiency and mitigation for permitted wetland losses. effectiveness of wetland regulation, its use to date has been very limited. This is because traditional single-user banking arrangements are On-Site Mitigation and Off-Site necessarily limited to those large public and Mitigation Banking private developers that routinely undertake many independent or linear development projects and The "mitigation sequencing" rules of the can afford a substantial up-front investment in federal wetland regulatory program require compensatory mitigation. In addition, developers (i.e. permit applicants) to first avoid regulatory and resource agencies often have been and minimize wetland impacts to the extent reluctant to endorse mitigation banking because practicable, and then mitigate any remaining of the perception that it may lead to "buying" impacts that cannot be reasonably avoided. permits. Compensatory mitigation is expected in the form of wetlands created from uplands,the restoration of former or severely degraded wetland areas, or by enhancing the functioning of existing wetlands. These compensatory mitigations, v Private Versus Public wetland restoration technologies as credit supply Credit Markets firms seek out more successful mitigation techniques. Mitigation credit markets offer the opportunity to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation by The Benefits of Private providing the banking option to a wider set of Credit Markets permit applicants. Indeed, toward this end a number of states and localities across the nation The most obvious benefit from private credit have established public commercial banks and market systems is the opportunity to secure public fee-based mitigation systems (sometimes mitigation for the many small wetland impacts referred to a "in-lieu" fee systems). Public that would otherwise go unmitigated. For commercial banks offer mitigation credits for example, under general permits, including sale to the general public, and use the proceeds Nationwide 26 permits, compensatory mitigation from credit sales to recoup the costs of bank is often not required when wetland alterations construction and management. Similarly, public are so small that the possibility of on-site fee-based systems charge permit fees for projects mitigation is deemed impractical or infeasible. involving small wetland impacts in lieu of the The cumulative impact of many such small direct provision of mitigation by permittees. Fee wetland losses is one cause of slippage from the revenues are accumulated in trust funds for the no-net-loss goal. The widespread establishment intended future provision of replacement of private credit market systems could correct wetlands by the government entity. this deficiency by making credits available for sale in small increments. Regulators could then While the broader establishment of these require compensatory mitigation in cases two types of public mitigation systems could involving small wetland impacts by having potentially extend the advantages of mitigation developers purchase equivalent credits from banking to a wider set of permit applicants, established private commercial banks. important obstacles must first be overcome. One major problem for establishing public banks Credit market systems could also have involves the substantial up-front public financing broader application to permitted development needed for bank construction and management. projects involving more significant wetland Public fee-based systems may also face financing impacts. Current wetland regulations emphasize problems since there is no guarantee that fee the on-site mitigation option in the hope that revenues accumulated in trust funds for important site-specific wetland functions,such as replacement wetlands will not be diverted to stormwater retention and erosion control,will be other uses. retained at the site affected by the fill activity. However, wetland development projects also Unlike commercial mitigation banking by impact wildlife habitat and ecological "life- public entities, a private credit market system support" functions which may be transferable to would tap the profit motive to encourage private other locations within watersheds. entrepreneurs to produce mitigation credits with private capital. If entrepreneurs emerge to sell The opportunity to successfully replace lost credits to many possible buyers, a private habitat and life-support functions may often be market for wetland functions would develop. improved by conducting mitigation away from Market.competition could ensure that mitigation the development site. For example, in some credits were provided at least cost, and provide instances the inflexibility in the mitigation incentives for the further development of sequencing rules of the regulatory program-- vi w 1 which require permit applicants to avoid, 1. Private credit markets would tap and minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts on-site— combine mitigation expertise, planning, and may limit the possibility of successful mitigation. capital in a manner that is typically not This can occur if permitting decisions pay too possible with on-site mitigation projects. little attention to the possible fragmentation, Then if a permit applicant had the option of isolation, and functional degradation of the buying credits from an established bank that preserved wetlands and replacement wetlands had already planned for °�ri provided provided by in-kind and on-site mitigation. replacement wetlands, there would be less chance that the permit applicant's Allowing the purchase of private market compensatory mitigation requirement would credits in certain cases, instead of requiring on- go unfulfilled. site mitigation, could also enable regulators to avoid the several institutional sources of failure 2. The consolidated mitigation projects associated with on-site mitigation. Foremost provided by private banks would enable the among these are problems of enforcement: regulatory agency to concentrate its limited oversight and monitoring resources on a 1. When permits are granted conditional on the much smaller number of mitigation sites. provision of mitigation, typically "on-site and in-kind", often no compensation effort 3. Regulators would have more leverage and a is ever made. greater variety of tools for imposing cost liability for mitigation failure in the banking 2. If mitigation is initiated, regulators often do option since regulators could dictate the not have the technical expertise nor the time conditions under which banks could be to check the mitigation plans for technical utilized. quality and feasibility or to check the construction practices which execute plans. 4. Private banks would reduce the problem of ecologically vulnerable mitigation sites by 3. Often there are too few resources to allow consolidating what would otherwise be for regulatory monitoring of mitigation many isolated and fragmented on-site projects that are constructed. mitigation projects into a relatively few areas of replacement wetlands that could be 4. If a mitigation project is monitored and sited and constructed according to watershed determined to have failed, there may be no goals. responsible party liable for rectifying that failure. 5. The increased likelihood of successful replacement wetlands and available 5. If a mitigation project is constructed and mitigation credits would make the evaluation judged successful in the short term, often of permit applications more focused on there is no assurance that the mitigation site issues concerning the need for the permit will be maintained as a wetland into the and the ecological value of the impacted future. wetland if the permit is or is not granted. These important permitting issues would The credit market alternative could greatly then be divorced from concerns about the reduce the institutional and ecological sources of possibility and likelihood of successful on-site mitigation failure inherent in the current mitigation. regulatory program by leading to the following outcomes. Indeed, these advantages have been recognized by entrepreneurs and wetland vii regulators in many areas of the country, and two the goals of regulators, permit applicants, and private commercial mitigation banks--the private credit suppliers. Its conclusions and "Millhaven Plantation Bank" in Screven and recommendations for facilitating the emergence Burke counties, Georgia, and the "Florida and success of private commercial banking Wetlandsbank" in Pembroke Pines, Florida-- center around seven major themes: have already obtained federal permission to create and sell mitigation credits under the o Allow Early Credit Sales Section 404 regulatory program. Moreover, across the nation the challenge of creating Regulator concerns about allowing the use regulations conducive to private credit market of private credit markets to satisfy systems is actively being discussed in a number mitigation requirements center around the of states and localities. risk of mitigation failure. This concern may tempt regulators to require private Necessary Conditions for the commercial bank mitigations to be in place Emergence and Success of and fully functioning before they could be Private Credit Markets used as compensatory mitigation. Use of this risk-minimizing strategy in the credit The two newly-permitted and a dozen or so market context would force private banks to prospective credit suppliers (i.e. private bear the full costs of waiting for the commercial bankers) across the country were maturation of replacement wetlands (i.e. interviewed as part of this study. They expected opportunity costs of invested capital) as well a strong demand for this alternative way of as all failure risk costs. However, these satisfying mitigation requirements provided that costs would probably be too high for most it could be made acceptable to regulators and private commercial mitigation banks to earn resource agencies. The study interviews a competitive return on investment. If a generally suggest that a ready supply of market-based trading system is to operate, mitigation credits would emerge from there must be opportunities for private entrepreneurs in many areas of the country banks to sell credits before replacement provided that the conditions for market operation wetlands reach functional maturity or self- established by regulators enabled credit suppliers maintenance, and in some cases, perhaps to earn a competitive return on investment. even at the time mitigation is initiated. This would be consistent with the regulatory But wetland regulators have legitimate conditions placed on traditional single-user concerns about whether the bank mitigation banking arrangements. Early credit sales projects from which credits are sold will succeed may be warranted when the bank site and over time. The emergence of the private market mitigation expertise are favorable for alternative and its ability to improve the mitigation success, and bank rules have effectiveness of compensatory mitigation been established to limit failure risk and depends on the capacity of regulators to fashion allocate cost liability for failure. trading and regulatory rules that provide enforceable environmental safeguards without 0 Establish Bank Standards for being cost-prohibitive. Performance, Monitoring and Maintenance, and Long-Term This report describes in detail the types of Management trading and regulatory rules that could be used to promote the establishment and use of private Regulators must clarify in advance the credit market systems to simultaneously satisfy "contract" conditions for credit suppliers in "Memoranda of Agreement" and/or viii regulatory permits. The agreements realistic failure probabilities and repair costs recorded in these contracts should specify for that case. (in addition to bank siting, design, and construction specifications): performance standards that define the conditions under which mitigation projects would be judged successful; monitoring and maintenance requirements to detect and correct deficiencies and; provisions to ensure long- term site management. Performance standards should provide some leeway to account for less-than-extreme natural events which might cause bank mitigations to o Establish Rules for Credit evolve along somewhat different paths than Valuation and Trading originally planned. The establishment of private commercial o Allocate Cost Liability for credit market systems requires that the type Mitigation Failure and level of wetlands functions and ecological values at the bank site be In order to ensure mitigation quality control specified. Only if such a functional while maintaining the economic viability of assessment is conducted will it be possible private credit markets, regulators should to judge how many credits have been allocate to credit suppliers (or permit created for sale. Bank specific rules should applicants) those failure risk costs resulting be established for determining how credits from non-performance with contract will be defined and their level assessed. requirements regarding the design, There are several methods which have been performance, and management of mitigation used in mitigation decisions for defining projects, but not for extreme events which mitigation credits and determining the prevent credit suppliers from fulfilling compensation needed when granting a contract obligations. permit. Current commercial banking experience shows that there are as many o Assure that Liability Rules ways in which such methods can be used as Reflect Realistic Failure there are different banks. Additional Probabilities and Repair Costs development of these assessment techniques for all types of permit and mitigation There are a variety of mechanisms that decisions should be expected. In addition, could be included in the contracts for rules are needed to define the types and mitigation suppliers(or permit applicants)to sizes of wetland development impacts for allocate cost liability for mitigation failure. which credits can be used to provide These mechanisms, which include higher compensatory mitigation, as well as the trading ratios, performance bonds, leases geographic service area of the banks. As with collateral banks, and insurance with credit definition and evaluation, rules systems, should be viewed as substitutes for defining bank market and service area each other whose use could vary by would necessarily depend on case- and area- situation. Moreover, the level of risk cost specific factors and goals. (i.e. financial assurance) established by liability rules in any particular mitigation case must be reasonable in consideration of ix r o Make Regulatory Reforms to Enhan rket Trading The benefits private credit markets would be maximized if a sufficient number of credit supply firms enter the market, making the supply of credits adequate for mitigation needs. To encourage market entry there must be consistency in the mitigation requirements for banks and on-site mitigation projects; there should be no price controls placed on credits produced by private commercial banks and; the market area over which credits may be sold should not be too narrowly proscribed. In addition, regulatory rules should require full-cost pricing of credits sold by public banks and in-lieu fee systems to ensure that such public mitigation systems do not subsidize wetland development and undercut the private credit market alternative. o Incorporate Credit Markets into Watershed Planning and Management If the wetland regulatory program were integrated with regional or local watershed planning initiatives, the feasibility and success of private credit markets could be improved. x 400 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator May 11 , 1994 Mr. Dave White Virginia Tech Department of Agricultural Economics Blacksburg, VA 24061-0401 SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM Dear Mr. White: Enclosed is the following information regarding the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank Program as requested during our May, 11, 1994 telephone conversation: • Consultant RFP package containing a project description and draft scope of work, historical background of the project, Glacier Park Company and City of Renton Mitigation Bank Agreement outline, project goals and the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance. • Wetland Mitigation Bank Program briefing memo to the City Council. I will forward a copy of the Draft Wetland Mitigation Bank Program Report once it is completed in July. We are interested in any information that you can provide us on other Wetland Mitigation Bank Programs that are being developed in other parts of the country. Please forward any beneficial information that you have available regarding this subject. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at (206) 277-5548. Sincerely, Ronald J. Stra , P.E., Engineering Supervisor Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:94-472:RJS:ps CC: Ron Olsen Enclosure 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 THIC PAPFR CnATAINS 90G RF(-YC'I Fn MATFFIAI 10%Pn4rcoNSUMRR 4 •��'`=°`� ` CITY OF RENTON u� Mayor Earl Clymer April 4, 1994 Mr. Richard Larsen Operations Director, 8th District 50 - 116th SE Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Dear Mr. Larsen: The City of Renton is working to establish a Wetland Mitigation Banking Program that will result in no net loss of wetlands and create large, continuous wetlands of higher quality on City property in the Black River drainage basin. These created wetlands will be used to offset impacts to lower-quality wetlands by private and public development that may occur in the same drainage basin. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Program provides a creative solution to preserving and, potentially improving valuable wetland resources while promoting controlled economic growth in compliance with the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a status report for the project. There are many issues involved in setting up a wetland mitigation bank. The success of the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program depends upon reaching agreement with the Corps of Engineers and other regulatory agencies on what can and cannot be done. As discussed in the attached status report, the issue of adjacency is of great concern. Under an adjacency determination a Section 404 Individual Permit would be required for any development project with impact to wetlands, regardless of the wetland size or value. The Corps' indication that all other wetlands within the valley could likely be considered adjacent may negate the whole concept of the banking program, as we have little confidence that there would be any demand for the wetland mitigation bank. This is because the cost involved in processing a 404 Individual Permit, with little assurance of success, leads developers to look at other sites in other cities. It is difficult to dispute an adjacency determination because the Corps' practice is to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis according to criteria not available for public review. Therefore, even if agreement.on the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program could be established with the Corps and other agencies, the potential for recovery of implementation costs is highly uncertain. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2580 TMIR PAPRR CONTAINS 5D%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER Richard Larsen City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Banking Program Status Report Page 2 We have elected to move forward with the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and hope that the Corps' directives on adjacency will change later this year through the current re- authorization process for the Clean Water Act. However, without some assurance of adequate demand for the bank, we are concerned that the cost of developing and implementing the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program may not be economically feasible. Your support is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Ron Straka at (206) 277-5548 or Scott Woodbury at (206) 277-5547. incerely, 1% Ea 1 C ymer _ Mayor H:DOCS:94-323:SSW:ps CC: Gregg Zimmerman Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury Enclosures CITY OF RENTON <p=; Mayor Earl Clymer April 6, 1994 Mr. Mike Kreidler, Congressman 9th District P. O. Box 4839 Federal Way, WA 98063 SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Dear Congressman Kreidler: The City of Renton is working to establish a Wetland Mitigation Banking Program that will result in no net loss of wetlands and create large, continuous wetlands of higher quality on City property in the Black River drainage basin: These created wetlands will be used to offset impacts to lower quality wetlands by private and public development that may occur in the same drainage basin. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Program provides a creative solution to preserving,. and potentially improving, valuable wetland resources while promoting controlled economic growth in compliance with the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a status report for the project. There are many issues involved in setting up a wetland mitigation bank. The success of the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program depends upon reaching agreement with the Corps of Engineers and other regulatory agencies on what can and cannot be done. As discussed in the attached status report, the issue of adjacency is of great concern. Under an adjacency determination a Section 404 Individual Permit would be required for any development project with impact to wetlands, regardless of the wetland size or value. The Corps' indication that all other wetlands within the valley could likely be considered adjacent, may negate the whole concept of the banking program, as we have little confidence that there would be any demand for the wetland mitigation bank. This is because the cost involved in processing a 404 Individual Permit, with little assurance of success, leads developers to look at other sites in other cities. It is difficult to dispute an adjacency determination because the Corps' practice is to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis according to criteria not available for public review. Therefore, even if agreement on the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program could be established with the Corps and other agencies, the potential for recovery of implementation costs is highly uncertain.. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2580 .o ownco t ni"AJ a VM RPr YCLED MATERIAL.10%POST CONSUMER Mike Kreidler City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Banking Program Status Report Page 2 We have elected to move forward with the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program and hope that the Corps' directives on adjacency will change later this year through the current re-authorization process for the Clean Water Act. However, without some assurance of adequate demand for the bank, we are concerned that the cost of developing and implementing the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program may not be economically feasible. Your support is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Ron Straka at (206) 277-5548 or Scott Woodbury at (206) 277-5547. Sincerely, Earl�mer � Mayor H:DOCS:94-323A:SS W:ps CC: Gregg Zimmerman Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury (( Enclosures V r• • CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROGRAM STATUS REPORT MARCH 31, 1994 A. BACKGROUND On May 18, 1992 the City executed a Wetland Mitigation Banking Agreement with the Glacier Park Company, as authorized by the City Council. Under this agreement, the City was given two properties totaling 45 acres in exchange for permits to fill up to 0.99 acre of low quality wetlands on each of six other Glacier Park parcels. The City of Renton also agreed to pay for and complete on the mitigation bank sites, any mitigation for impacts on the Glacier Park parcels required by the City of Renton Wetlands Management Ordinance, although no mitigation for the fill was required by the Army Corps of Engineers. After fulfilling the requirements of the Glacier Park agreement, the City will use the remaining available acreage on the mitigation sites to mitigate for wetland impacts from other projects. B. ACTIVITIES COMPLETED TO-DATE In July 1993 the City executed a contract with Parametrix, Inc., to establish the technical and programmatic framework for the conversion of existing uplands on the City mitigation bank site to wetlands, and for the use of the created wetlands as compensation for other wetland impacts within the watershed, including the impacts permitted by the City under agreement to Glacier Park (up to 5.33 acres). Using information provided by the City on conditions within the watershed and on the wetland mitigation bank sites, combined with on-site visits and soil exploration, the consultant prepared exhibits for presentation,in public meetings. The exhibits included: 1) existing conditions of the bank sites and surrounding area; 2) preliminary goals, objectives, and policies for the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program; 3) the regulatory permit process; and 4) comparison of advance and concurrent compensation of wetland impacts. Two public meetings were held in late October 1993 to invite comment on the proposed Wetland Mitigation Banking project from interested individuals, groups, property owners, and developers. General support of the project was expressed. Issues discussed focused around the scope of improvements, the potential for successful wetland creation, and the details on the implementation and operation of the bank. A subsequent meeting with regulatory agencies scheduled for early November 1993 had to be canceled because of a labor strike by City of Renton union employees. The decision was made to not reschedule the agency meeting until a separate meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers could be arranged to discuss concerns with the Corps' expressed intent to issue an adjacency jurisdictional determination for the wetlands within the mitigation bank sites. Because of the authority granted the Corps by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act to regulate activities within wetlands, identification of the jurisdictional status was needed. This would establish Corps' permitting requirements associated with alternative site specific plans for converting the existing uplands on the bank sites to wetlands and potentially restoring the existing wetlands. A meeting could not be arranged until late January, 1994 with Tom Mueller, Chief of the Corps Regulatory Branch in Seattle, and supporting staff. The response of the Corps may be summarized into the following main points of the meeting: 1. The Corps will not reconsider the adjacency ruling on the wetland mitigation bank sites. Surface hydrology to Springbrook Creek was deemed to be irrelevant. Other issues were noted to be of more importance to the Corps, such as wetland evaluation methods, performance standards, wetland compensation credit withdrawal procedures, and other bank operation issues. Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan Status Report as of March 31, 1994 Page 2 2. The Corps did a poor job of determining adjacency in the past and would not make the same ruling for previous determinations if made today. Although determinations are made on a case- by-case basis only, the Corps speculated that most, if not all, of the valley would be ruled adjacent based upon currently used criteria. 3. The Corps published criteria for determining adjacency is very broad and vague. In an effort to facilitate consistent determinations, the Corps' Seattle branch uses a supplemental, multi- parameter checklist. However, the checklist is for internal use only and is not available to the public. 4. The Corps' permitting authority is currently under review and may change within a year in a way that will do away with adjacency rulings. The following comparison table illustrates the changes regarding thresholds for impacting wetlands: Current Thresholds Proposed Thresholds Regional Permit 0.0 - 1.0 acres. Isolated 0.0 - 0.5 acres for any wetland. (Nationwide) wetlands only. Regional Permit With 1.0 -2.0 acres. Isolated 0.5 - 3.0 acres for any wetland. Pre-discharge wetlands only. Notification Individual Permit Over 2.0 acres for isolated Over 3.0 acres for any (Requires alternatives wetlands. wetland. analysis) Over 0.0 acres for adjacent wetlands below the headwaters. 5. Any impacts to existing wetlands on the wetland mitigation bank sites will require a 404 Individual Permit. An August 23, 1993 Regulatory Guidance Letter and an October 25, 1993 Draft Mitigation Banking Guidance Document will be used by the Corps to formulate the individual permit conditions. The Corps' recommended initiating, as soon as possible, the process of developing a multi-agency agreement regarding the wetland mitigation bank. The agreement would spell out mitigation and specifically what can and cannot be done in the use of the sites as compensation for other wetland impacts. The Corps indicated that the bank sites could be used as compensation for a multi-acre wetland impacts due to a single project, although the Corps would prefer compensation for many separate and smaller impacts. 6. The Corps' 404 Individual Permit process requires evaluation of alternatives. In general, on-site mitigation is favored over off-site mitigation. 7. The Corps generally supports the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program, but foresees many hurdles and a minimum of a year long process in obtaining a final inter-agency agreement. A copy of an agreement between the Washington State Department of Transportation and wetland resource agencies that is pending execution was provided. The agreement was noted as a potential model for a similar agreement between the City of Renton and wetland resource agencies for the City Wetland Mitigation Banking Program. Due to the significant effort and cost already expended in acquiring the wetland mitigation bank sites and in establishing a Wetland Mitigation Banking Program, work on the project will continue. Letters of invitation to the representatives of the regulatory agencies are being prepared to reschedule the agency meeting and initiate the process of creating a Wetland Mitigation Banking Agreement. Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan Status Report as of March 31, 1994 Page 3 C. REMAINING ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE Agency and public meetings. Qtr 2, 1994 Draft wetland mitigation plan completed. Agency meetings. Qtr 3, 1994 Final plan complete, preliminary design drawings completed. Qtr 4, 1994 Draft agency agreement completed. Submit for SEPA review and permits. Qtr 1, 1995 SEPA completed. Local land use permits issued. Qtr 2, 1995 Federal 404 and State permits issued, final design completed. Construction permits issued. Qtr 3, 1995 Construction completed. H:DOCS:94-322:SSW:ps U.S.WATER NEWS May, 1994 /Page 7 Wetlands banks : Is it banking or destruction ? Making a case in support of banking By Frank Pafeo rare that project specific mitigation ence has shown that the higher the wetland impact, at a lower cost and Landowners, developers, and pub- is provided prior to the actual wet- cost of wetlands replacement, the of higher quality than can generally lic works agencies face a myriad of land impacts.This results in a loss of lower the quality of that wetland. be constructed through project spe- federal, state and local land use wetland functions and values for at Higher costs usually means that the cific mitigation. In addition, wetland regulations on wetlands. What these least one and usually several grow- wetland has been created, not re- restoration and creation can be tar- regulations have in common is that ing seasons while construction of the stored, and has been forced into an geted to those watersheds in the when impacts to wetlands cannot be replacement site is completed and inappropriate location. Wetland greatest need for the functions and avoided or minimized, wetlands wetland characteristics are estab- banking should result in higher values of wetlands. While project must be replaced. The question that lished. Wetland banking avoids this quality wetlands, not in spite of, but specific wetland mitigation close to then arises is whether wetlands are problem. Instead of a temporary loss, due to lower construction costs. the impact site is preferable, wet- best replaced through project specific there is a temporary gain of wetland One provision of the Wetlands land banking has a definite advan- mitigation or via wetland banking. functions and values. For example, Conservation Act encourages wet- tage as a reasonable alternative to Wetland banking in many cases pro- the Minnesota Department of Trans- land replacement where the benefits forcing high cost and low quality vides the means whereby those un- portation successfully restored Rice of wetland functions are most valu- wetland mitigation into an unsuit- avoidable wetland impacts can be Lake, a site near Staples, Minnesota, able. This provision allows for wet- able place. replaced at the least cost to society. in the spring of 1989. Five years land impacts occurring in counties or In Minnesota, wetland banking later over 200 acres of this site are watersheds that still have at least 80 Frank Pafko is the director of the has developed as a system which al- still waiting to be used as wetland percent of their original wetlands to Environmental Process Section at the lows the creation or restoration of mitigation,yet those 200 acres have be replaced by restored or created Minnesota Department of Transpor- any number of wetlands to provide been and will continue to provide wetlands in areas that have lost over tation. replacement credit for future wet- wetland functions and values to the 50 percent of their land impacts or debits. The Minne- natural resources and the state. original wetlands. *Pi , sota Wetlands Conservation Act Wetland regulations also dictate Wetland banking +` - (WCA) not only allows wetland the quantity of'wetland replacement. provides the too] to i v banking, it allows wetlands credits Finding a restorable wetland of ex- implement this pro- to be sold on the open market. This actly the size required for project vision, to target wet- provision encourages the establish- specific mitigation is a coincidence land construction in ment of wetlands, not through de- that happens all to infrequently. exactly those water- mand and control regulations or Project specific mitigation more sheds which have costly government programs, but commonly involves the creation, a the greatest need for through market incentives. much less desirable form of wetland flood storage, water One advantage of wetland banking replacement than restoration, of a quality improve- is that successful wetland restora- wetland which can be designed ex- ment, habitat, or tion or creation is insured. One com- actly to the minimum requirements other functions that ' s plaint of wetland replacements is needed to obtain the permit. wetlands provide. that they may not always be success- Wetland banking also offers a very Wetland banking ful. Since construction must be com- real benefit to the development com- is not a wetlands pleted, monitoring undertaken, and munity by reducing the cost of wet- mitigation policy. In the site deemed successful prior to land replacement. Banking allows stead, it is a tool to deposit into the wetland bank, un- developers more flexibility in choos- implement wetland successful sites just don't make it ing wetland replacement sites, al- replacement accord- ` into the bank. Therefore, wetland lowing them to find sites where wet- ing to the mitigation impacts compensated through bank- lands can be restored or easily cre- policies set forth in ing are always replaced by success- ated.This flexibility reduces the cost law and regulation. ful wetland restorations or creations. of wetland construction, and usually Banking insures suc Wetland regulations typically re- the cost of land acquisition well. cessful wetland re- quire replacement prior to or concur- There are few constants in wetlands placement, accom- rent with the wetland impacts. It is mitigation, but 17 years of experi- plished prior to the Wetlands banking has its hidden dangers By Thomas Landwehr suggested strong likelihoods of local extinctions for several species, including Socially acceptable wetland conservation requires there be a provision for turtles, birds, and small mammals. He hypothesized that increasing distances compensatory mitigation when wetland impacts cannot be avoided. Mitigation between wetlands was a major reason for these population declines. banking is an effective and efficient means to implement this mitigation. A Further, Gibbs (1993) noted that dispersal of wetland plants is highly de- good banking system is merely a means to exchange wetland credits, within pendent on transport by wetland animals. Thus, loss of small wetlands can the framework of wetland regulations, between those that have credits and potentially increase extinction rates (or reduce colonization into restored/ those that need them. When understood in this context, most issues regarding mitigation wetlands) by decreasing rates of migration. mitigation (the issue of creation versus restoration, for example)are separate Of course, problems posed by clumping are not related solely to plants and from those of wetland banking. animals. Most recognized functions of wetlands have a geographic component. Minnesota has just begun implementation of the final rules for the Wetland For instance, water quality and floodwater retention benefits are realized in Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA) that include provisions for mitigation bank- the watershed that each small wetland occurs. By accumulating these wet- ing. In drafting the final rules, a very problematic and hotly debated issue lands (through banking) into another geographic area, a new area benefits at arose that is generally unique to banking.This is the issue I call "clumping" the expense of the original area. —a manifestation of habitat fragmentation. Fundamentally this occurs when In general, wetland restoration (and to a lesser degree, wetland creation) is several small wetlands are destroyed, but compensatory mitigation is more cost-effective with increasing sizes. It often costs no more, except for achieved by restoring or creating one large wetland. (A similar situation land costs, to restore a 10-acre drained wetland than to restore a 1-acre wet- arises when small portions of several wetlands are destroyed and mitigated land. As a result,it is highly likely that mitigation bank sites will generally be with one wetland.) much larger than the average, naturally occurring wetland. In practice, in On the surface,the issue of clumping may seem like a minor issue, and one Minnesota,wetland bank sites have tended to be 10 to 100 acres in size,while that should be easy to rectify. However, even after days of discussion, rule most prairie wetlands are less than 5 acres. drafters in Minnesota failed to develop an adequate solution. Even on a small Finding a solution to this issue is not easy. Requiring mitigation wetlands scale (one square mile,for example)potential problems are easy to conceptu- to be the same size as impacted wetlands is impractical for several reasons. alize. For instance, imagine in this one square mile there are 4 two-acre First, mitigation is frequently required at a higher ratio than the impacts (2 palustrine emergent wetlands distributed evenly(one in each quarter-section, acres restored for 1 acre lost, for example). In addition, true restoration sites and similar to adjacent sections). Under many banking systems, these 4 come in predefined sizes. Finally, wetland impacts often destroy only a small wetlands could be destroyed and mitigated with one 8-acre wetland located in portion of a larger wetland. the center of the section. In the pre-impact setting, a terrestrial vertebrate The drafters of the rules for the Minnesota WCA have created one possible could migrate to another wetland within an average distance of a half a mile. solution to this problem. In the final rules, small wetland banking sites are In the post-impact setting, this distance is increased to at least 3/4 mile— a encouraged. This is done by providing full credit for banked wetlands under 50 percent increase in travelling distance. 10 acres, and partial credit for those over. While it represents a crude effort, For most birds and large mammals, this may be inconsequential;travelling no other proposal seemed to appropriately address the issue. these distances should only be a minor impediment. Further, arguments can With society's concerns for wetlands, and the imminent reauthorization of be made that large wetlands have more wildlife value than several small the Clean Water Act, it is likely the use of wetland banks will continue to wetlands(they support more species, for example). However,for many, many grow. Regulators and administrators must listen first to the science of wet- smaller vertebrates and non-flying invertebrates, any increase in dispersal lands, then develop pragmatic approaches to dealing with limited wetland distances between gene pools in highly altered environments means genetic losses. I believe clumping is a fundamental issue with wetland banking, and disaster. must be addressed by administrators in the development of their wetland As early as 40 years ago, the problems encountered by small organisms banks. dispersing long distances to geographically isolated habitats was illustrated Thomas J. Landwehr is the Wetland Wildlife Program Leader at the Minne- (Wolfenbarger 1949). Extensive and persistent habitat loss since then has sota Department of Natural Resources. corroborated this work and produced numerous principles of habitat fragmen- REFERENCES Gibbs, J.P. 1993. Wetlands 13(1):25-31;Harris, LD 1988. tation and island biogeography (Harris 1988). Recently, Gibbs(1993)modeled Environmental Management 12(5):675-693; Wolfenbarger, DO 1949. Ameri- vertebrate population response in relation to small wetland loss. His evidence can Midland Naturalist 35:1-152. i SEATTLE EDITION Editorial Opinion News of the city, Dave Barry %Wg,;nd et Sound region Opposite sides of courtesy coin:Miami and England. the state PAGE B 4 THE SEATTLE TIMES SECTION B MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1996 •f W-leash Hones' �y?Dogs sniopenAspace v n sites:Here are the se a ar •Golden Gardens Park Yes, out off-leash (Aden Gardens Drive but this Northwest):North of upper- ■ ■ most parking lot. to County Council territories .Woodland Park(5t): n ihdi.b. Greenlalce Way N.E.):An area south of north-end parking Se xn.E R.WOOD area. Magnuson Park(6500 Sand- JEAN G 0 D D E N Seattle Times staff reporter point way ME.):An area $215 millionplan be on Spnt. ballotSandy, a 2-year-old yellow Labrador north of maintenance shed. �1�� Tittles staff COIUt11ri1St retriever,blissfully tears across the grass, •Volunteer Park(140 E. no longer bound by leashes and choke Seattle has re- chains.A handful of other dogs mill about, Prospect St.).Land bordering BY DAVID SCHAEFER and 30 percent for protection of forests, streams cently been tumbling and chasing each other's tails. Federal Avenue East,and the Seattle Times staff reporter and open space. Parks are proposed in virtually touted as"the lawn behind Seattle Asian Art Nearby, Sandy's owner Barb Hudak A $215 million bond proposal for parks and every city in the county, and resources of most honest lounges in the sun with the owner of a Museum' natural-resource preservation in King County offi- countywide value would be protected. `�` city in the •Westcrest Park:(9000 German shepherd.They chat easily in the cially will be sent to the Metropolitan King County As part of the drive to push the measure, the � U.S."But it's Eighth Ave.S.W.):Two acres sectioned-off patch of Golden Gardens Council and county executive tomorrow. citizens committee officially will transmit its rec- ,: still difficult to south of the reservoir. The measure was put together after more than ommendation and the list of projects to the count believe a story Park,their conversation punctuated by an 9"Blue Dog Pond"{1610 S. p g p J Y ry occasional command to their charges. 18 months of meetings among community mem- government tomorrow afternoon at Renton's Ce- like the one "I like this," Hudak says, glancing Massachusetts St.):An area bers and elected officials. dar River Park. told by Bill Dubay,a Connecticut northwest of Martin Luther around at the dogs. If approved by the County Council, which is County voters last agreed to a tax measure for native and now campaign man- King Way South and South The city's seven fenced-off areas des- expected, it would be on the Sept. 15 primary- new parks in 1989. Since then, said Phillips, the ager for U.S.Rep.Jim McDer- Massachusetts Street,bor- > ignated as off-leash dog runs don't official- election ballot. county s needs for police, jails and courts have Mott. dered by 26th Avenue South ly open until Saturday,with seven ribbon- made it difficult to find enough money to spend on Dubay was walking down Pine cutting ceremonies throughout the day. and Interstate 90 Lid Park. It took longer than we expected (to put parks. Street Tuesday,paycheck and •Genesee Park(southeast together,) said County Councilman Larry Phillips, the burgeoning population St deposit u in hand But communities of dog owners like But at the same time, g g p p p p ,when he Hudak already have begun to gather at Seattle):On northeast corner who helped convene the Citizens Oversight Comhe - ofsouth section. mittee for the bond issue,"but we have a regional ballfields and parks Sas ell as ncr the eased the threat realized his lost hand w pempty— the areas. bond issue that makes sense." how could that have happened? — PLEASE SEE Off-leash areas ON B 3 The measure is about 70 percent for new parks PLEASE SEE Parks bond ON B 2 he retraced his steps. Alas.No sign of the paycheck. By the time he arrived back at King County Democratic head- _ ;— quarters where the McDermott campaign has its offices,Dubay had entered stage-two panic. V_� f % j Then it occurred to him to call home to check his messages. There on his answering machine was a call from Patrick Brady, who had found the check and the deposit slip on the sidewalk. Brady said he'd hold onto the check until Dubay could pick it is Or,if it made it easier,Brady r offered to deposit it.Seldom does �..1---- �� a hard-luck story have a happier s \_1 8" m xr l ending. gv,u later:Buy a latte or sandwich Fly at the Yale Street Deli and — would you believe it? —you get frequent-flier miles.The cheerful- baristas hand out latte cards along with tall doubles. Get the card stamped 50 times*., and you'll earn a certificate good ' i for 250 miles on Northwest Air- lines. On the other hand,with that you might not need pane to y much erne in your system, :. .. ,. o mi h a l fly. , Top this:Mayor Norm Rice overlooked an item that ought to k ;. Q.. . have been included in his bet with r s h = Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. o; Rice wagered a number of North- - west products that the Sonics would beat the Bulls. But he neglected the obvious: . a barbecue sauce that's been a fa- h vorite at the Hole in the Wall Bar- becue at 215 James St.for eight years. Barbecue owner Chuck For- syth invented the sauce.He calls RON WURZER/SEATTLE TIMES it"Homemade Bullwhacker Bar- Northwest Racing Associates recently restored 56.5 acres of wetlands south of the Emerald Downs horse-racing track,along the Valley Freeway and Main Street in Auburn. becue Sauce."Base for the sauce — how Seattle can you get? — is coffee. Bulldozers restofingwedands re en ver Elaine's hnight out:Spotted k the First Thursday Gallery Walk last week was Julia Louis-Dreyfus who plays Elaine in the TV sit- com"Seinfeld."Louis-Dreyfus BY KEITH SEINFELD And a few miles to the south, in Auburn, taken over the pastures. And with wetlands The $6 million restoration site is along first was spotted in Pioneer Seattle Times South bureau work is nearly finished on an additional 56.5 scarce and degraded, the federal Clean Water Auburn's Mill Creek,a salmon-bearing stream Square and then at a nearby an- KENT — On any given day in the Green acres of restored wetlands. Act and other laws regulate development more that drains hillsides in Federal Way and Au- tique shop.Accompanying her River Valley, bulldozers are making room for Together,the projects represent an effort to strictly. Building on a wetland now generally burn, feeding into the Green River at Kent. was her husband,writer-produc- acres of new office parks and vast apartment preserve niches and corridors for plants and requires improvements to other wetlands near- Northwest Racing Associates has built a er Brad Hall. villages. Grassy, wet pastures give way, one animals as South King County completes its by. large,shallow pond,lined with grasses and mud after another, to civilization. century-long trend toward urbanization. So,when the developers of Emerald Downs flats, that will attract a variety of migrating Times time:Don't miss The But, this year, some of those bulldozers In the early 1900s, the valley was a fertile horse-racing track wanted permission to fill 17 ducks and other birds. Salmon migration will Seattle Times'new centennial have been restoring habitat for the likes of world for wildlife but it was treacherous for acres of wetlands an the north side of Auburn, be promoted by clearing out weeds that clogged time-and-temperature display at otters, eagles, salmon and coyotes — in the settlers because of seasonal flooding from the they spent years battling with opponents. Mill Creek and planting thousands of willows the corner of Fairview Avenue midst of warehouses and strip malls. Green and White rivers. That changed when Eventually, the developers agreed to restore along the shores. Small mammals, such as North and John Street.The sky- One of the largest wetland-restoration pro- dams and dikes tamed the two rivers. 56.5 acres south of the track,an area that had muskrat,weasel and fox,look for such groves. blue and silver-gray sign(Seattle jects in the state,300 acres of ponds,marsh and Soon, farmers cleared the brush and trees, been filled for farming. They in turn bring hawks and coyotes. colors)has it all over the old woods, is under construction a stone's throw filled the bogs and tilled the soil. When the track opens June 20,the wetland time-temp display in at least one from the Green River in Kent. Now, warehouses, malls and homes have will already be hosting its first new residents. PLEASE SEE Wetlands ON B 2 category:time keeping.Market- ing director Robert C.Blethen comments,"The old clock was never right." The two-day session is sponsored • Call waiting-Dial the number by Lowry, House Speaker Clyde Bradleystrikes chord printed on the stationery of a lo- Forum see e Ballard,R-East Wenatchee,and Sen- cal law firm,Allen Hansen& ate Maori Leader Sid Snyder, D- ■ Maybrown,and you end up with Majority Y Long Beach. another law firm,Perkins Coie. Specific proposals for changes to at `electron ie' forum Asked if she'd been getting nc agency policy and law will be made before wrong numbers lately,the recep- g the 1997 legislative session. tionist said,"I get wrong num- "The purpose of this symposium bers all the time.I even get them BY DUFF WILSON neglect each is to jump-start our state's thinking Voters discuss what's wrong with politics for the IRS." Seattle Times staff reporter ' year.The over- on Child Protective Services re- Y g TACOMA — Gov. Mike Lowry nor, who is not form," said conference moderator To Di for:Murdoch,Hunter&Al- kicked off abue-ribbon symposium running for re- Katharine Cahn,of the University of BY ERIC PRrnE "electronic town-hall meeting." ice,the KLSY(92.5 FM)morning today on "New Directions in Child election, also Washington's Northwest Institute Seattle Times staff reporter The subject: political campaigns, team,says,"Shame on the news- Protective Services" as the embat- praised legisla- for Children and Families. Seattle pollster Stuart Elway, what's wrong with them, and how papers for missing a headline op- tled state agency tries to restore its S tors for making Carol Williams, associate coin- whose brainchild this was, likened to make them more meaningful. portunity when Princess Diana credibility by reforming itself. "definite pro- missioner of federal children's pro- the session to the deliberative citi- The underlying premise: Citi- visited the Windy City." "We are totally open-minded in gress"in funding grams, said that more than 1 million zen forums of ancient Athens. zens, not experts, should take the KLSY's headline:"The Night the administration looking for ideas Mike for CPS. children were found to be abused or Those who participated said lead in framing and providing an- Chicago Di'd." on where to go," Lowry told more Lowry However, he neglected in the United States in they just appreciated the chance to swers to thorny public-policy ques- than 150 legislators and state offi- noted, they're 1994.Of those,more than 1,000 died, meet, the chance to be heard. tions. cials. facing an almost impossible situation: she said. Twenty-one randomly recruited This forum featured two attrac- Jean Godden's column appears Lowry praised the state workers "If one child suffers greatly— the That same year in Washington King County voters gathered at tions the Athenians lacked: tech- Sunday,Monday, Wednesday and for their successes dealing with family of that child suffers greatly — Seattle Central Community College Friday in the Local News section of 80,000 reports of child abuse or and that is just not good enough." PLEASE SEE Children ON B 2 Saturday for what Elway billed as an PLEASE SEE Campaigns ON B 3 The Times.Her phone is 464-8300. L 0 C A 1_J NI F-J W S _11=1 ' v IN?l I ., _ l B 2 THE SEATTLE TIMES LOCAL/REGIONAL NEWS MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1996 PUGET SOUND NE WPACIFIC Drumming up somefun NORTHWEST Bill King County Police said they have no sus- 1 Alaska wildfire being tamed ; House destroyed; ects so far. while another is spreading P ANCHORAGE — Light rain and ' Blaze at TV news station probed cooler temperatures helped 1,200 fire- � y' driver s sought �. � � �� . A. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND — Fire officials fighters as they brought the devastat- TUKWILA— Police were looking for a are investigating ablaze that destroyed the ing Big Lake-area wildfire to 60 per- z ' truck driver who apparently fled the scene of an studios of a local cable-news station early cent containment,state forestry offi- aecident that destroyed a house and left a 63- yesterday. cials said yesterday. : ' year-old woman homeless. The fire began in the back of a one-story The blaze,which has destroyed 344 1 E Audrey Woodman was at home Saturday wood-frame building at 7686 High School structures and seriously damaged 18 t night when a runaway tractor-trailer rig Road,which houses the offices and studios of more,has swept through 37,330 acres smashed into her house,knocking the struc- Northland Cable News. in Alaska's fast-growing Matanuska- iQre off its foundation. A passerby noticed the fire about 2 a.m.A Susitna Borough north of Anchorage, h Police say the driver had climbed out of his news van and about half of the building were officials said. t1 tick at the Burlington Northern yard to fill out destroyed,fire officials said. Damage to buildings was estimated paperwork when it began to roll.The truck Gi at$10 million,while the cost of sup- rolled t.. rolled about 50 yards before crashing into death ruled a homicide pressing the fire was pegged at$12 Woodman's house in the 5000 block of South EVERETT — The Snohomish County million,said Terry Virgin,a spokesman 124th Street. Medical Examiner's Office has ruled that a for the fire information center. X. a Police say the driver climbed in his truck Lynnwood-area 2-year-old died of a blunt im- The fire,caused by humans and and sped away,possibly toward Canada.Dam- pact to the head.Chief Investigator Paul spread by high winds through parched age to the house was estimated at$200,000. Moskvin said the death of Amber L.LeQuieu woodlands,was expected to be fully Police were looking for a white Kenmore has been ruled a homicide.Her father is being controlled tonight,Virgin said. STFFANIEBOYER/SEATTLE TIMEB 600 sleeper with a 48-foot trailer.The trailer held as a suspect. Another wildfire on the Kenai Pen- George FOssett,left, and Adrian Cheeks play drums at Gas Works Park yesterday. had the number 30 on the side. She died Thursday at Harborview Medical insula had spread to 23,000 acres yes- "People just show up and start jamming,"Cheeks said. Center in Seattle. terday.The Crooked Creek fire,which Victim's mother unable to testify Her 21-year-old father,who was babysit- started overnight Thursday at a logging EVERETT — The mother of Susana ting the girl while her mother was at work, site near Ninikchik 100 miles south- Blackwell missed a plane in the Philippines had originally told authorities she was injured west of Anchorage,has spread into the and was not able to appear in court this morn- when she fell off a couch. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. THE SUBURBS ing to testify on behalf of her daughter,who The father is being held at Snohomish was murdered last year in the King County County Jail for investigation of homicide by Minor quake hits Duvall area Courthouse. abuse.His bail was set at$250,000. DUVALL — A minor earthquake Prosecutors told the court that Marcella with a magnitude of 3.1 struck an area ' e other is 30 to 39 years old,5 feet 4,with Remerata would not be able to appear for the near here early yesterday,more than a Swindlers are back le hair and a Southern accent.Sometimes penalty phase of Timothy Blackwell's trial. month after an earthquake measuring calling herself Betty,she frequently will appear Instead,they called a legal assistant for an im- 5.4 shook the Puget Sound area May 2. with same scam to be pregnant. migrants-advocacy group to describe Susana The temblor,which struck at 7:50 Everett boy falls 60 feet,into river Blackwell to the jury. I a.m.,was centered five miles east- BELLEVUE —Two con artists are back in Last Friday,Snohomish County Superior ra BULLETIN BOARD northeast of here,the University of the Pacific Northwest and have bagged their EVERETT — An Everett-area boy yes Court Judge Joseph Thibodeau agreed to a Washington Seismology Lab reported. first victim:an elderly woman in Lakewood, terday survived a 60-foot fall down a rocky break in the trial until today to give Remerata It occurred at a depth of two miles. Pierce County,who is now$5,000 poorer. embankment into the Stillaguamish River. a chance to travel here. For the two female swindlers,it's been Iain Hamal,7,was treated at Providence Assisted-suicide ban in place three ears since the left their mark in Belle- Hospital in Everett yesterday and released Defense lawyers were scheduled to open Y Y P Y Y their case this afternoon. WASHINGTON — The U.S.Su- vue. with a shoulder injury and head laceration. On May 29,Timothy Blackwell was con- : preme Court today let Washington The Pierce County Sheriffs Department "The boy and his mother are very lucky to £ �. victed of three counts of aggravated first-de- �� state authorities continue to ban doc- sent a bulletin to local law enforcement agen- be alive,"said Snohomish County Sheriff s gree murder in the March 2,1995,shootings tor-assisted suicide while they chal- ties after the women bilked the Pierce County spokeswoman Jan Jorgensen. of his wife,Phoebe Dizon and Veronica Laur- lenge a ruling that said the law is un- woman in a Fred Meyer parking lot last Mon- Jorgensen said it took rescue workers five eta Johnson.The same jury must now decide IN T CHOOLS constitutional. day.It was a classic pigeon drop. hours to pluck the boy and his mother from whether Blackwell should face the death pen- The justices,extending an order by During 1993,the same con artists operated the bank of the South Fork of the Stillagua- alty or life in prison. Education news Justice Sandra Day O'Connor last in Pierce County;Bellevue;Lacey,Thurston mish River,where he had fallen around 2 p.m. month,blocked the effect of a San Fran- County;Federal Way;Springfield,Ore.;and Sa- The family had gone for a short hike yes- Investigator backs off on timing Cisco-based federal appeals court's rul- lem,taking victims for$6,000 to$15,000. terday on the old Monte Cristo railroad trail SEATTLE — The leader of the ethics in- ing.The 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Ap- Generally,they are described as white.One in the Robe Canyon area,off Mountain Loop f t Seattle University:The Institute or The- vestigation into millionaire Thomas peals declared the Washington law un- is 40 to 49 years old,of medium build,about 5 Highway near Granite Falls,when they Stewart's fraudulent contributions to a ological Studies will hold an open house constitutional on March 6,the first feet 6 inches tall,with blond shoulder-length stopped for a picnic,said the boy's father, Seattle ballot measure said she will not refer Wednesday from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.,Room such assisted-suicide decision by any hair.She sometimes uses the name of Janet. Tracy Redding. the case for possible criminal prosecution un- 200,Casey Building.Information:296-5330. federal appeals court. til her office has completed its investigation. Scientific Illustration:UW Extension The Washington law,first enacted Carol Van Noy,executive director of the will hold an information meeting on its certifi- in 1854,is being challenged by three Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, Cate program Thursday from noon to 1 p.m. terminally ill patients,now deceased,a said last week she would act"soon"to refer UW Downtown Extension,1325 Fourth group of doctors and an organization New quake hits Aleutians; no damage reported the case to the appropriate law-enforcement Ave.,Suite 400.Information:543-2320. called Compassion in Dying. f 1951 Cl Th l hoo: e ass o agency.Today,she backed off on the timing. Ballard High Sc Today's action means doctor-assist- Stewart and Lawrence Riggs,chair and will hold a reunion June 15 at The Yankee ed suicide remains illegal in Washing- president,respectively,of Services Group of Diner,5300 24th Ave.N.W.Information: ton until the state files a formal U.S.Su- ASSOCIATED PRESS Center. America Inc.,paid the commission$60,000 Wally Goleeke,523-2084 or Arlene Charles preme Court appeal and the justices ANCHORAGE — An earthquake of mag- The epicenter of today's quake was in t last week to settle the civil infractions. Morrison,523-0756. say whether they will grant a review. nitude 7.2 rattled the Aleutian Islands today, Pacific about 30 miles southwest of Adal i Roosevelt High School:The Class of one day after a stronger tremor sent hun- That was the third major quake in i Closure of S20 bridge is delayed 1956 will hold a reunion oti June 15.Informa- Lowry signs Yakama gaming pact dreds of people rushing to high ground Aleutians in the past two days; a temb The Evergreen Point Floating Bridge will tion:Bill or Bev,776-9485. WHITE SWAN — Gov.Mike because of the threat of high waves. measuring 6.3 was recorded Saturday not be closed tonight,as previously sched- Ravenna Elementary School:The Class Lowry signed the Yakama Indian Na- miles southwest of Adak. of 1966 will hold a reunion Sept.14 and 15 at No damage or injuries were reported from uled,but will be closed from midnight tomor- P tion slong-awaited gaming compact Yesterday's 8:04 p.m.quake was center Ravenna Eckstein Community Center.Infor- today s quake. row to 5 a.m.Wednesday,and depending on Y yesterday,the day that tribal members � about 60 miles west-southwest of Adak the progress of work,possibly from midnight mation:Dave Peterson,523-8740. also commemorated the 141st anniver- And the highest wave caused by yester- "Everything was shaking,the power we Wednesday to 5 a.m.on Thursday. Cultural Homestay International is seek- sary of their treaty with the United day's 7.7 shaker was only about 3 feet above out,bookshelves fell over,all the drawers c Earlier,the state Department of Trans- ing host families for high-school foreign-ex- States. normal tides at the Aleutian island of Adak, desks and filing cabinets are open. My to, portation planned to close the bridge at mid- change students.While living with you,stu- Lowry signed six copies of the doc- closest island to the quake's epicenter,said a box wandered across the floor," said Ada night every night this week. dents attend the local high schools.Informa- ument along with Yakama Tribal Coun- spokesman for the Alaska Tsunami Warning resident Steve Bell. On the Eastside,the onramp to eastbound tion:377-0838. cil Chairman Ross Sockzehigh. Highway 520 from 92nd Avenue Northeast "I believe this is clearly very good will also remain open. Gridlock( for all the people in the state of Wash- ington,"said Lowry,to a crowd gath- Shooting victim was Shoreline man Interstate 5 exits:The exit from north- ered for the White Swan All-Indian Ro- • • SEATTLE — The King County Medical bound I-5 to westbound Highway 518 will be deo."I want to say how important the $215 millionparks closed from m.10 to 5 a.m.tonight and to- Examiner'sOffice has identified the body of a p• g government-to-government relation- man found at the wheel of his car Saturday as morrow.Crews will work on illumination ship is between the state of Washing- James the closure.Information:368-4499 or James Earl Brown,30,of Shoreline. g ton and the Yakima Nation and that the Brown's body was found in the parking lot 1-800-695-ROAD(7623). Yakama Nation makes a tremendous 1ballot of a Denny's restaurant at 25444 Pacific InfoLine:For complete road and contribution to all of us in the state." may be on Sent. information,call 464-2000 from Highway S.in Federal Way about 12:30 p.m. traffic He had been shot. any Touch-Tone phone and enter 2277.This Seattle Times staff,news services. is a free call in the Seattle area. Parks bond financed by the bond issue: CONTINUED FROM B 1 •Auburn: Nearly $3 million in project including$1 million to renovate a library as to undeveloped lands and salmon habitat. community center and $700,000 to acqui As proposed, the bond issue would cost property for an athletic complex. ozers restore wet n the owner of a$150,000 home about$21.50 a •Bellevue: More than $10 million year. The county also is expected to ask for projects,including$2.5 million for playfielc Restoring the valley an annual levy to pay for parks maintenance, $2.5 million for a Crossroads Park,$1 milli( Two large wetlands are under at an additional cost of about$8.50 a year. each for a park south of Interstate 90 al construction in the heavily in • Phillips said the bond measure would property on the Lake Sammamish wate reen a i Y er a developed Green River Valley. build ballfields. front. The projects will protect salmon That, said Councilwoman Louise Miller, *Federal Way: $5.2 million for light( and other wildlife and help was the top priority. soccer fields and ballfields at Celebratic prevent flooding.The wetlands Among the big-ticket items the measure Park. Wetlands homeowners within the flood basin. are part of a larger strategy to would finance are purchase of a 1,700-acre •Kent: More than $5 million, about lia enhance the creeks that feed into CONTINUED FROM B 1 The site will include an arboretum and the Green River forest between Snoqualmie and Maple Val- devoted to a park,fields and trails on the Ear . nursery for raising native wetland plants that ley, at a cost of$8 million. It also would call Hill. Eventually, as all the plants take root, the can be transplanted to other mitigation sites. 167 for spending about $12 million for salmon- •Kirkland:$1.4 million for Waverly Par. pond will be covered with white water lilies, Viewing towers will offer visitors a chance to stream protection in the more urbanized part development,among$3.7 million in projectE bulrushes and arrowhead — a plant with 8-inch, survey the entire site. of the county. •Renton: $3.8 million, including $1 mil s.18a lai sls The measure still faces review b Count lion to replace the Henryses Pool. arrow-shaped leaves. More than 200 species of birds and mammals TH�T. Y Y P �' "They're the favorite food for ducks and use the pasture and lagoons now, said project Executive Gary Locke and the County Coun- •Seattle: A total of$55 million. Seattle': geese. It's a delicacy for them, and very manager Bill Wolinski.The variety will increase S.E.l08TH ST. cil,but neither is expected to be an obstacle. projects will include more than$7 million foi 'll TH ST.S 'L attractive," said Gary Jones, the wetlands- once tie project is finished.And the ponds will . However, Councilman Chris Vance from neighborhood park developments;$6 million City of Kent wetland: the Kent area objected y g P project manager for Northwest Racing. provide an overwintering home for(oho salm- 300 acres of ponds, �ected at a committee to $7 million to buy new neighborhood ark Biologists with the Army Corps of Engi- on.Most of the construction will be finished by marsh,woods and meeting last week to a mailing by the land, and $4 million for improvements at neers,which regulates wetlands,say they won't November, said Wolinski. Planting will contin- an arboretum. Citizens Oversight Committee. Magnuson Park. know for at least five years how successful it is ue for about a year after that. Vance charged that the mailer, which •Shoreline: Renovation of the Shoreline in attracting and protecting fish and wildlife.But Large wetland projects could become more 516 Kent solicited opinions on the bond measure, pool and community center, part of $3.6 �' r... Jones has few doubts.He says the soil is great, common.Several agencies,including the Army 516 ¢ E constituted a campaign mailing at public million in projects. and the extra rain this spring has helped the Corps of Engineers and state Department of S. zrexv S 167 < p ' expense. •Unincorporated areas: More than $31 plants. Ecology,are analyzing drainage basins to identi- <T Among the local proposals that would be million in local parks and regional projects. The Northwest Racing restoration is one of fy suitable sites for wetland enhancement. c the larger and more complex mitigation projects The goal is to look at the big picture, so s under way in Western Washington. Typically, restoration projects happen where they're most P� wetland restoration is limited to four or five needed,while developers get a less-complicit- N S.E 312TH ST is acres because of the cost and scarcity of land. ed application process. A map of each basin iai Forum seeks helpfixing chip agency But,as ambitious-as the Auburn wetland is, would show existing wetlands and their attri- Aubu n it's dwarfed by the city of Kent's project to the butes. north.On 300 acres of former farmland,part of The maps would allow the region to begin 18 which served as sewage lagoons until 1973,the "mitigation banking," in which developers of �i and Florida. Tomorrow, a panel of six front- Children g g g Pe [ Children line workers will talk about what's reap city of Kent will create a mixture of forest, several small projects pool their five-or 10-acre 1' Auburn racetrack Y meadow, marsh and meandering pools. parcels into one larger restoration. wetland:56.5acres CONTINUED FROM B 1 happening in their jobs around the state of `l The$20 million project will reduce chronic "In the past it's been a totally random of marsh,creek andwoods,to compensate state,44,000 children were victims of abuse Washington. winter flooding near Central Avenue downtown process.Usually,a developer makes a deal with ------ for filling in 17 acres and neglect; seven children died. The symposium is supposed to review by diverting water from Kent's Mill Creek.And the first land-owner who offers to sell," said at the Emerald Downs Williams called for more emphasis on reforms in other states and set up small some of the water will filter down — stripped of Richard Gersib, wetland-restoration coordina- racetrack. safety and a more holistic approach,with CPS groups for "frank and open discussion of pollutants by the plants and soil — to recharge for at the Department of Ecology. �,` `d entering into partnerships with police and controversial issues and the possibilities for 0 5 ? r . the city s aquifer. As mitigation banking becomes more com- isl A ";;;;;;;;rt;-� community agencies. change in our state's CPS system," Lowry, Fundingcomes largely from a monthly mon, we'll start to see more 50- or 100-acre .: g Y Y n1tlPS Seven experts were invited today,includ- Snyder and Ballard wrote in a letter of storm-water utility fee,paid by businesses and restoration projects," he said. ' " ``'' ing officials from Massachusetts, Colorado introduction. l Page 8/0ctober, 1995 WATER QUALITY - - - U.s.MTER NM, _ Burial pit for WWII nerve gas is Alaska's newest Sup erfund site FILL HOLES FAIRBANKS,Ak.— As World War II memories have become popular with StN11i WHO S[DIMSNT FUL 1. o u I S I A N A the recent spate of 50-year anniversaries commemorating the close of the war, it just seems reasonable that recollections of a former soldier would lead to j SUSPECTED FRACTURE New Alaska's newest Superfund-listed environmental cleanup. Based on the for- orieaN mer GI's testimony and military waste disposal records, a World War II-era chemical burial trench is the focus of a$1 million mitigation project at Fort W e e k s Wainwright near Fairbanks. c, Island The cleanup involves the possibility of buried mustard gas and test-tube samples of chemical agents.The area near Fort Wainwright was designated a °j Mexico "waste burial site"and some cleanup was done about 30 years ago.The former soldier who operated a bulldozer during the 1966 cleanup told investigators two decades later that he recalled seeing large cylinders removed from the area, along with wooden crates containing chemical agents. In 1946 or 1947,according to the Army's proposed plan for interim remedial action, "20 to 30 cylinders of mustard agent and an unknown number of Crude sold at loss to pay for cleanup wooden crates containing chemical agent identification sets"were buried in a trench near the post's tank farm. Monitoring wells have been constructed at U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve the site since the former soldier's testimony came to light in 1987, and since then the site has been added to the posts Superfund cleanup list. s while recent radar tests and soil borings have failed to unearth any metal prouts leak k o n La. coast St objects or measurable contamination, subsurface mapping has indicated some i anomolies that might be buried hazardous materials, according to officials of NEW IBERIA, La. — What environmentalists agree that the the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.The cleanup plan seemed like a prudent plan at the cleanup is warranted.To ignore the calls for digging to a depth of 15 feet or to bedrock, whichever occurs first. time some 20 years ago — storing oil leakage from the salt caverns Materials from the excavation will be taken to a"secure interim holding facil- billions of gallons of crude oil in poses the possibility of a spill many ity"on the post before a decision is made about final disposal,Army officials abandoned salt mines as a hedge times the size of the Exxon Valdez said. against foreign embargoes —has disaster in Alaska. turned into environmental night- The Weeks Island area is"a large Wash. constructedwetland noft mare for thea U.S. Energy Depart- nursery ground for shrimp, crabs, ment here along the coast of Louisi- and a lot of fish species offshore," ana. noted Wilma Subra of Subra Co., an could be mitigation bank Over the next two years, federal environmental consulting firm in i officials intend to pump some 3 bil- New Iberia. "It is used by a tremen- f lion gallons of crude oil from caverns dous amount of commercial fisher- AUBURN, Wash.—This region's history of the Puget Sound area.The at Weeks Island, where surface wa- men as well as recreational fisher- largest constructed wetland being new wetland itself is designed to off- ter has washed out sinkholes that men,"Subra added. created from marshy farmland some set the destruction of 17 acres of could release a flood of oil onto. Besides pumping oil from the cav- 20 miles southeast of Seattle could natural wetlands caused by the con- coastal wetlands. erns,the cleanup involves the drill- become one of the first wetland miti- struction of a horse-racing track In order to pay for the projected ing of some 55 wells around sink- gation banks in the Northwest. named Emerald Downs located a' $105 million cost of the cleanup at holes.The plan calls for refrigerant Under Section 404 of the federal half-mile away. Because of the de= Weeks Island, Energy Department to be circulated through pipes within Clean Water Act, developers can tailed scientific approach taken by officials intend to sell 10 percent of the wells,freezing groundwater that exchange wetlands that stand in the track developer,Northwest Rac- the oil stored in the former mine of is washing out the fissures. The their way for the same amount of ing Associates, which is overseeing Morton Salt Co. cleanup method constitutes the lat- land in a constructed wetland else- the project, itis also an important While this might seem a tidy plan, est technology for dealing with sink- where,if the application is approved test case for the technology.The$4- the fact remains that the oil is worth holes that threaten groundwater by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- million project will entail recontour- barely half the price at which it was supplies. neers. Several states have formed ing of the land by massive land-mov- purchased in the 1970s and 1980s The Weeks Island site is the only wetland banks as mitigation land ing equipment,the planting of thou- for storage in the Strategic Petro- one of six caverns of the Strategic for wetlands destroyed by develop- sands of wetland-specific trees and leum Reserve.The premature sale of Petroleum Reserve that is leaking. ment, and private banks have been wetland-specific grasses, shrubs,and I the oil in order to pay for the cleanup The reserve consists of some 25 bil- created in some areas. other forms of vegetation. will result in a loss of some $100 lion gallons of crude oil stored At 56 acres,the experimental wet- Early in the project, workers million. underground in Louisiana and land near Auburn is one of the larg- cleared a stand of trees on the farm, Nevertheless,federal officials and Texas. est artificial wetland projects in the but instead of being discarded, the waste logs were carefully stored to be placed as animal shelters at a later time. Northwest Racing Asso- River authority provides book covers to 70,000 students ciates, has even made provisions to hire biologists whose duties might In its fourth year of include weeding, mowing, monitor- distributing water quality ing wildlife,and even irrigating the o public ' _ new marsh for a period of 15 years book covers / . School Students,the ' �.� / � As an experimental project, the f . Brazos River Authority of `� f ` artificial wetlands in Auburn face k Waco,Texas,has given —� _ �`-a1 the fact that few artificial wetlands ; out some 70,000 covers at r �� have never functioned as well a the start of a new school natural wetlands. In a study of 17 year.The authority has small wetlands in western Washing- distributed more than ton state, the U.S. Environmental 250,000 book covers in 39 £ XW YOUProtection Agency (EPA)concluded Central Texas counties TRASH that two-thirds failed to attract wild- since the program began. �� p o III OUT�F life and had too little water to sup- Damon Brown,a Prairie a", C = w � port wetland plants. Most of these, View A&M University Q u • ��� however, are very small projects of advertising student,wo a � o �\ -, two acres or less. The latest project n the annual contest for the will deepen 45 acres of existing wet- artwork for this year's book >h s lands and dig 11 acres of new wet- r cover with a drawing lands. Even if artificial wetlands fail , entitled"Keep Your Trash -�� to function as planned, U.S. Envi- f Out of My Water." ��/ ronmental Protection Agency(EPA) officials are committed to the con- cept. V.$.WM NEW$ October, 1995/Page 7 FRESHWATER FORUM Zebra mussels: How much are they costing us? By Leroy J. Hushak,Yuming Deng and Mary Bielen Editor's note:Improvements in the into their facilities. To date, three After hitching a ride to the U.S.aboard Russian ships and wreak- speed and efficiency of transportation separate requests have been sent to ing havoc to water supply systems throughout the Midwest, that and the resulting increase in world 1,500 facilities. Nearly 400 usable dreaded water invader-the Zebra mussel-apparently has crossed trade have brought mixed blessings. responses have been received, but the Mexican border into California.Zebra mussels were discovered Along with the economic benefits of few of the large water users that clinging to the hull of a 44-foot pleasure yacht by a sharp-eyed in- opening trade relations with new were heavily affected by zebra mus- spector at the state border inspection station in Truckee,Calif. Since partners across the globe has come sels responded. Efforts are underway then,other discoveries have been made of zebra mussels clinging to ; the risk of importing(or exporting, to obtain more responses, especially vacationers'boats on trailers at border stations.See story on Page 4. for that matter) more than just the from the large, heavily-affected fa- commodities described in the trade cilities,and to determine if the facili- agreements. We are now facing the ties that did not respond are similar physically removing mussels, 53 whether facility operators are learn- worldwide transport of non-native to those that did. reported using chemical treatment ing how to save money by monitor- species of plant and animal life that Of the facilities that have re- with oxidizing compounds, nine re- ing for zebra mussels and then by arrive as stow-aways hidden on the sponded, 28 percent are utilities, 27 ported using chemical treatment treating with the least-cost technol- bottoms of ships or in ballast water. percent are municipal water suppli- with non-oxidizing compounds, and ogy before they become a serious Without the natural controls present ers, and 45 percent are industries. eight reported other treatment problem. We were interested to learn in their native habitats, these species Thirty-six percent are located on the methods. Of the chemical treatment what sources facility operators used can proliferate prodigiously, in some Great Lakes while 45 percent are strategies in 1994, chlorine was used to gain information about zebra cases becoming not just a nuisance located on tributaries of the Great by 35, followed by 16 using potas- mussels and zebra mussel monitor- but a serious threat to native species Lakes(Table 1). sium permanganate, and eight using ing and control. The four most fre- and to the economic resources of the Zebra mussels were reported at 37 molluscicides. quently used sources of zebra mussel areas they invade. The zebra mussel percent of the responding facilities Table 3 provides average costs for information are: is one such exotic species. Its high (Table 2). While only four inland all respondents and respondents Conferences, workshops and trade densities, rapid spread,and potential water respondents out of 74 detected drawing water from a Great Lake, a show ...........................................47% ecological effects on freshwater sys- zebra mussels at their facilities, 103 Great Lake tributary, and inland Trade publications .....................44% tems have helped bring it to public out of 143 facilities,(72 percent) with streams and lakes annually and Sea Grant publications...............32% attention. But the primary reason for Great Lakes water intakes have since 1989. For example, 107 respon- Media..........................................31% the zebra mussel's current high pro- zebra mussels. Four of the surveyed dents reported average expenditures The evidence for adoption of best file is its economic cost. Water users facilities are located on the Missis- of$138,100 in 1992; 84 Great Lakes practices will emerge more clearly as are expected to spend several billion sippi River in Minnesota, but none respondents reported average total the data are analyzed in more detail. dollars over the next few years just to are known to be infested. expenditures of$513,600 over the Data on monitoring and preventive clean water intakes clogged by this Of 145 respondents who have de- five-year period from 1989 to 1994. actions suggest that some facilities fast-reproducing mollusk. The fol- tected zebra mussels at their facili- lowing article explains why. ties, 44 percent had taken preven- tive actions before mussels were de- n 1989, the largest fossil-fueled tected. Of 252 respondents who had Table 3. Average zebra mussel monitoring and control costs power plant in the world, Detroit not detected zebra mussels, nine (in thousands of dollars) for respondents reporting these costs Edison's plant in Monroe,Michigan, percent reported having taken pro- by source of water (397 total respondents) had to shut down because millions of tective actions. a pinky-sized animal - called the Monitoring determines if zebra zebra mussel-had plugged up the mussels are near a facility. A total of Total water system. Since that time,zebra 100 respondents reported monitor- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 89-94 mussels have continued to spread ing for zebra mussels during 1994, All Respondents throughout the Great Lakes, their while 86 reported monitoring expen- N 31 59 93 107 111 Ill 125 tributaries, and many major rivers ditures,and 111 reported monitoring Costs 19.9 46.1 84.0 138.1 144.0 84.1 410.1 and inland lakes. Zebra mussels and control expenditures. Monitor- Great Lakes have reportedly infested hundreds of ing costs accounted for over 10 per- N 22 46 66 73 76 77 84 facilities that use untreated surface cent of total monitoring and control Costs 25.2 51.0 112.2 176.0 170.1 95.1 513.6 water, such as municipal drinking costs in every year except 1992. Tributaries water facilities, industries, and Of control expenditures, 34 re- N 9 14 24 30 32 30 37 power generating plants. There has ported retrofitting(redesigning in- Costs 6.7 33.2 16.2 60.9 79.8 64.3 195.2 been little systematic information to take pipes), 21 reported costs for Inland Waters N 0 1 3 4 4 4 4 Table 1. Responding facilities by type and source of water. Costs 0.0 10-.0 6.6 28.6168.8 18.8 223.6 - Source of Water Great Great Lake Inland Type of Facility Lake Tributary Water Total Respondents with Great Lakes do monitor and prepare for zebra water intakes include 32 of 48 facili- mussels,but many others wait until Private Utility 19 28 14 61 ties with over 50 million gallons per the latest time possible or until they Public Utility 30 16 5 51 day (mgpd) of intake capacity. Re- are actually infested before taking ported costs range from less than action to control zebra mussels. Municipal Water Supply 61 38 9 108_ $20,000 per year for smaller water However, the existence of recently Industry 33 98 46 177 intakes of 5 mgpd or fewer, to developed package treatments for Total 143 180 74 397 $350,000 or more each year for those smaller intakes may make this a in excess of 300 mgpd.. viable strategy. Survey questions also asked Leroy J. Hushak, Yuming Deng, and Mary Bielen are researchers at identify the infested facilities, the Ohio Sea Grant Extension,The Ohio State University,in Columbus,Ohio. costs of monitoring, cleaning, and Table 2. Responding facilities by . zebra mussel This article originally appeared in controlling the infestations, and infestation and source of water the July, 1995 issue of Aquatic Nui- whether the best methods are being sance Species Digest, a quarterly used to minimize these costs. Source of Water newsletter published by the Fresh- Ohio Sea Grant is supporting a water Foundation in cooperation survey of facilities on the Great Great Great Lake Inland with the U.S. fish and Wildlife Serv- Lakes, Great Lakes tributaries, and InfestadonDetected? Lake Tributary Water Total ice and the National Task Force on selected facilities on nearby streams Aquatic Nuisance Species. For addi- and lakes that draw surface water(as opposed to water from wells or Yes 103 38 4 145 tional information about the ANS No 40 142 70 252 Digest,please contact its editor,Nils from.other underground sources) Halker, at(612)471-9773. Freshwater Forum is sponsored by the Freshwater Foundation,a non-profit organization working to increase awareness of complex water issues. By pre- senting this forum,the Freshwater Foundation hopes to encourage information sharing, discussion and understanding among citizens,government agen- cies,researchers,and other stakeholders. To receive more information about the Foundation,or to suggest topics for the Freshwater Forum,please contact the Foundation at(612)471-9773. Fax: (612)471-9685;e-mail:frshwtr@freshwater.org.