Compensatory Mitigation Rule: Corps/EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency October 2006 On March 28, 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a proposed set of new standards designed to promote “No Net Loss” of wetlands and streams. This proposed rule represents a collaborative effort between the Corps and EPA to develop a consistent set of science-based standards for compensatory mitigation required to offset unavoidable impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Overview Background Status of compensation Rule drivers and timeline Major themes Key provisions Next steps The Corps and EPA will be tag teaming this presentation on the proposed compensatory mitigation rulemaking We will highlight the status of compensatory mitigation using data complied in the draft Environmental Assessment generated for the rulemaking (posted on the web form comment in March ‘06) and the Environmental Law Institute’s recently released 2005 Compensatory Mitigation Status Report published on the web in April ’06. We will also describe some of the drivers behind the rulemaking as well as the rule’s timeline We will hit on the rule’s major themes, describe its key provisions, and wrap up by noting our next steps in the rulemaking process.

Type of Compensation Permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) Third-party mitigation Mitigation Banks In-lieu fee (ILF) There are three mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation under Section 404: Permitte-responsible mitigation, mitigation banking, and in-lieu fee mitigation. In Permittee responsible mitigation, the permittee does the restoration work or hires contractor to do work, however, responsibility for completing work and ensuring success remains with permittee. PRM commonly lacks the detailed information and assurances included in bank instruments and it does not benefit from the oversight offered by an interagency review team. With ILF mitigation and Wetland Banking, the permittee pays someone else to do the compensation work and that third party accepts responsibility for completing work and ensuring success. Unlike banks, many ILF programs accept funds long before they have identified a project site to conduct restoration and conservation activities and this has proven to be very problematic. The Proposed Rule is designed to address the inequities between these three mechanisms. Data collected for our draft EA for the proposed rule indicates that the majority of compensatory mitigation undertaken annually is still permittee-responsible ……(60%) …… and currently banking represents approximately 33 % of compensatory mitigation and ILF the remaining 7%. (USACOE, 2006)

Method of Compensation According to the Environmental Law Institute’s recently released report on compensatory mitigation that compiled data from all 38 Corps Districts, the area of compensation breaks down by method into the following percentages: Restoration: 35.2% Creation: 20.2% Enhancement: 30.0% Preservation: 14.7% ELI makes the point in its recently released report on compensatory mitigation, that when you remove preservation and enhancement (which do not replace lost aquatic resource area) from the equation, compensatory mitigation in the form of restoration and creation alone could provide slightly greater than 1.1 to 1 replacement ratio for aquatic resource area, assuming permit compliance is achieved. This potentially allays some concerns that excessive use of preservation may be hindering progress at meeting our No Net Loss goal. Another observation regarding this data is that restoration and enhancement, which are the forms of compensation which most reliably replace lost functions, constitute over 65% of required compensation. (ELI, 2006)

Location of Compensation It is also interesting to look at where this compensation is taking place. Data included in our draft EA for the proposed rule indicates that: 33% of compensation is on-site; 16% is a combination of on-site and off-site; 51% is off-site This off-site compensation breaks down to 33% banks, 7% ILF and 11% PRM The data show a trend toward increasing use of off-site forms of compensation and a decreasing reliance on on-site compensation. Our intention with the proposed rule is that the rule’s provisions describing the “watershed approach” will help guide decisions regarding the location of compensation projects so that we are more confident that the compensation is happening in the right place, whether that happens to be on-site or at some off-site location in the watershed.

3rd Party Mitigation Trends Third-Party Type 1992 1995 2001 2005 Proposed (as of 2005) Single-user Banks 43 -- 76 86 49 Commercial Banks 13 176 305* 149 ILF Programs 8 87 58** 7 Here are some statistics on the status of 3rd party compensation… There are many ways to classify banks…the simplest way is to break banking into two categories, single user and commercial. Single user banks are banks that have been developed by an entity solely for its use….for example a State Department of Transportation realizing that many projects are proposed in a given watershed may decide that a mitigation bank is the most efficient means to meet the projected mitigation requirements in that watershed. A commercial bank is typically a bank that an entrepreneur has developed to sell bank credits to customers for profit…entrepreneur recognizes need/demand for compensation in a watershed/service area and provides a product to sell to meet that demand. From 1992 until 2005 the trend in banks although increasing for both types is increasing more rapidly for commercial banks….A recent inventory of banks by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Spring 2005 found 391 banks and an additional 198 in the proposal stage. *This number does not include the 59 commercial banks that had sold out as of 2005 **An additional 52 ILF programs were identified as discontinued (USACOE, 2006)

Rule Drivers and Timeline 2001 NRC report on compensation 2002 Initiation of Mitigation Action Plan Defense Authorization Act for 2004 Timeline: 1/05 – 12/05– Corps/EPA coordination 12/5/05-3/10/06 – OMB review 3/28/06 – Federal Register publication 6/30/06 – Comment period closed There were a number of important drivers behind the rulemaking. In 2001, the National Research Council published a very thorough critique of Clean Water Act Section 404 compensatory mitigation. Among its findings, the NRC concluded that we were falling short of our NNL goal. NRC provided 29 recommendations and specific goals for the federal government to improve the effectiveness of compensation. The Administration took the NRC’s advice to heart and in 2002 the Corps, EPA and four other federal agencies released the National Mitigation Action Plan which included 17 actions for the agencies to accomplish designed to improve the ecological performance and results of compensation Congress also took the NRC’s advice to heart and in 2003 provided the most important driver behind the current rulemaking when it included provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 requiring the development of regulations establishing equivalent standards for the use of all forms of compensation (PRM, MB, and ILF) The Corps has been the lead agency on the rulemaking from the start Corps and EPA began coordinating in earnest on the rulemaking in early 2005, providing OMB with a proposed rule package in 12/05. During OMB review, DOT (FHWA and FAA), DoD (non-Corps), NOAA, USFWS, and DOI provided written comments on the draft rule Adjustments were made to the proposed rule during OMB review to address concerns raised by these agencies. The Corps and EPA are in agreement with all changes made during the interagency review process. OMB review wrapped up on 3/10, Army signed the NPRM on 3/13, EPA on 3/23, and the NPRM was published in FR on 3/28. Based on numerous requests from a variety of stakeholders, the Corps and EPA extending the public comment period to 6/30/06

Supporting Materials Primary sources used in drafting: 2002 Mitigation RGL 2000 ILF Guidance 1995 Banking Guidance 1990 Army/EPA Mitigation MOA 2001 NRC Report, others 2003/2004 MAP work-productions and stakeholder input For inspiration in developing the rule, we looked to the four national mitigation guidance documents, at least one of which has been in use for the past 16 yrs. We also relied heavily on the 2001 National Research Council Mitigation Report As well as the Mitigation Action Plan work-products and stakeholder input.

Major Themes Implementing effective, equivalent standards: “Raising the bar for compensatory mitigation” Emphasizing best available science Watershed approach Ensuring predictability and efficiency Mitigation proposals/banks Expanding public participation There are four major themes of the proposed rule. First, the rule proposes to ensure that all types of mitigation—permitee-responsible compensatory mitigation, mitigation banking and in-lieu fee mitigation—will be held to more stringent mitigation standards. The Corps and EPA believe that raising the bar for mitigation will improve success of the mitigation program. Second, we emphasize best available science. The rule incorporates key National Research Council (NRC) recommendations associated with improving the planning, implementation, and management of wetland replacement projects. Of the 29 recommendations included in the NRC’s 2001 critique of wetlands replacement practices, the rule addresses 23 (15 directly and an additional 8 indirectly). Among the NRC’s recommendations that we are adopting is emphasizing use of a watershed approach in the analysis of impacts and proposed mitigation. A watershed approach considers watershed needs in a structured way and considers how wetland/stream types in specific locations can fulfill those needs. Third, by proposing to reduce the processing time associated with federal decisions on the use of mitigation banks, which may provide better wetland replacement than other mitigation options, the rule seeks to make using banks easier for applicants. The proposed rule will standardize timeframes for reviewing and processing mitigation bank proposals and for resolving any disagreements associated with those proposals. Finally, the proposed rule includes important provisions that will expand the public’s opportunities to participate in compensatory mitigation decisions.

Rule Highlights General considerations and requirements Sections 1-3 Administrative requirements and performance standards Sections 4-7 Third-party compensation Sections 8-9 This is a joint rulemaking so it involves the addition of parallel provisions to both Corps and EPA regs Corps: 33 CFR Part 332 EPA: Subpart “J” in 40 CFR Part 230 Proposed rule has nine sections First seven apply to all types of CM Section 8 – banks Section 9 – ILF

General Considerations and Requirements §332.1-2(Corps)/§230.91-2(EPA) Purpose Establish standards and criteria for the use of all three types of compensation Reference to 2004 DAA Affirms “mitigation sequence” Avoid, minimize, compensate New Definitions The purpose of these regulations is to establish standards and criteria for the use of all three types of compensatory mitigation: on-site and off-site permittee-responsible mitigation, mitigation banks, and in-lieu fee mitigation Very importantly the rule clearly affirms the requirement to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S., known as the “mitigation sequence” (i.e., avoid, minimize, and compensate). The rule’s emphasis on avoiding impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources recognizes that despite progress over the last two decades there are still large gaps in the science of restoration ecology. The National Research Council and others in the scientific community have stressed that in light of continued uncertainty associated with the successful replacement of many types of wetlands, our first step should always be to avoid impacting these important aquatic resources if possible. Definitions: Thirty-four terms are defined, most of which have been in use for over 10-15 years, many previously included in 1995 Banking Guidance, 2002 Mitigation RGL, etc. Two existing definitions were modified (compensatory mitigation and on-site) and we have defined five new terms (adaptive management, functions, services, values, and watershed plan).

General Considerations and Requirements §332.3/230.93 – General Requirements Watershed approach Consistent with plan or principles Considerations and information needs Absence of watershed plan/approach On-site/in-kind Off-site/out-of-kind “near” This section discusses general compensatory mitigation requirements concerning issues such as location, type, and amount of compensation, the use of preservation, buffers, and riparian areas as compensation, and the relationship with other federal programs. Watershed approach: This section endorses a watershed approach to compensatory mitigation decision-making, towards making mitigation decisions based on a more comprehensive analysis of watershed needs, conditions, and trends. 230.93(b)(2) “Where practicable and appropriate, the district engineer will require that the location and aquatic resource type of permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation necessary to offset anticipated impacts be consistent with an established watershed plan or be determined using the principles of a watershed approach as outlined in paragraph (c) of this section. The district engineer and the IRT should also use a watershed approach to the extent practicable in reviewing mitigation banking instruments.” Note: The watershed approach proposed in the rule does not establish minimum information requirements. However, in the preamble we solicit comment on whether or not the watershed approach should have minimum information requirements. Absence of a watershed plan or approach: Where reliance on a watershed plan or approach is not practicable, there is a structured preference: 1) On-site/In-kind options should be considered first by district engineers 2) Off-site/Out-of-kind: If the on-site/in-kind options are unlikely to compensate, an alternative, practicable off-site and/or out-of-kind mitigation opportunity may be used if it has a greater likelihood of offsetting the permitted activity. On-site: The rule defines on-site as “an area located on the same parcel of land as the impact site, or on a parcel of land contiguous to or near the impact site.” Note: While we support broadening this definition, some may feel “near” should be more clearly defined.

General Considerations and Requirements Site selection – five factors Mitigation type – “in-kind” Amount of compensation 1:1 minimum Use of banks Preservation: “certain circumstances,” five factors Buffers Site selection: Provides criteria for determining whether the proposed mitigation site is ecologically suitable for providing the desired aquatic resource functions. These criteria include watershed scale features, size/location of mitigation site relative to hydrologic sources, compatibility with adjacent land uses, and effects the mitigation project will have on other important aquatic and terrestrial resources. Mitigation type: States that in-kind mitigation is generally preferable to out-of-kind unless a watershed-based analysis supports the use of out-of-kind mitigation that would better serve the aquatic resource needs of the watershed. Amount of compensatory mitigation: The district engineer must require an amount of compensatory mitigation sufficient to replace lost aquatic resource functions. If a functional assessment is not used, a minimum 1:1 acreage or linear foot replacement ratio should be used. There is a list of factors (e.g., temporal lag, quality/type of impact and mitigation, etc.) that may support a decision to require a higher ratio. Use of Banks: This section clarifies that banks may be considered to provide compensation for all permitted impacts as long as the use of the bank is consistent with the terms of its instrument (e.g., the permitted activity is located in the approved service area, and credits are available for the appropriate resource type). Banks are eligible to be used to compensate for impacts authorized by general permits, individual permits, after-the-fact permits, and, in EPA’s rule, in the context of enforcement actions (e.g., supplemental environmental projects). Note: This provision would eliminate the existing patchwork of different regional/district policies that limit bank use to certain types or sizes of projects. Preservation: Five criteria must be met in order to use aquatic resource preservation as compensation (i.e., functional importance, importance to watershed, practicable, under threat, will be permanently protected). Preservation should generally be done in conjunction with restoration, establishment and/or enhancement (to avoid a net loss of function/area), unless the sole use of preservation is supported by a watershed-based analysis. Buffers: Buffers designed to protect mitigation sites may be required and may generate limited compensatory mitigation credit.

General Considerations and Requirements Other F/S/T/L programs Must fully offset 404 impacts - over and above what is required by other programs to address other impacts No “double dipping” Federally funded projects may not generate compensation credits “Supplemental” projects Relationship to other Federal, State, Tribal, and local programs: Compensatory mitigation projects for DA permits may also be used to compensate for environmental impacts authorized under other programs (e.g., State, Tribal, or local wetland regulatory programs) consistent with the terms and requirements of these programs, subject to the following conditions: 1) the compensation project must fully offset the permitted impact, providing such compensation over and above what would be required under other programs to address other impacts; and, (However, compensatory mitigation projects may be designed to holistically address requirements under multiple programs and authorities for the same activity) 2) the same credits may not be used to compensate for more than one activity. This section also retains relevant provisions from the 1995 Banking Guidance: 1) Federally-funded wetland conservation projects (e.g., Wetlands Reserve Program, Partners for Wildlife Program), may not generate compensatory mitigation credits; and, 2) Compensatory mitigation credits may be generated by activities undertaken in conjunction with, but supplemental to, such programs in order to maximize the overall ecological benefits of the conservation project.

General Considerations and Requirements Permit conditions Amount and type, party responsible, approved plans, performance standards, monitoring requirements, financial assurances and management provisions Timing – concurrent Financial assurances – “high level of confidence” Permit conditions: Enforceable permit conditions must include information such as: amount and type of compensatory mitigation, party responsible for providing the compensatory mitigation, compensatory mitigation plans approved by the district engineer, performance standards and monitoring requirements, financial assurances and long-term management provisions. If a mitigation bank is used, permit conditions must indicate which bank will be used and specify the number and type of credits that must be purchased. Timing: Compensatory mitigation projects should be implemented concurrent with the impacts they are offsetting, or at least by the first full growing season afterwards. Financial assurances. The district engineer shall require financial assurances sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be completed in accordance with its performance standards. The amount of the financial assurances may be project-specific, may be provided in a variety of forms (performance bonds, letters of credit, etc,) and may be phased out as performance standards are met.

Administrative Requirements and Performance Standards §332.4/230.94 – Planning and documentation Pre-application consultations Public review and comment: “…the public notice for the proposed activity must explain how impacts associated with the proposed activity are to be avoided, minimized, and compensated for.” Pre-application consultations: This section encourages potential applicants for standard permits to participate in pre-application meetings. Public review and comment: Public notices for standard permit applications must now include information explaining how impacts associated with the proposed activity are to be avoided, minimized, and compensated for. This information: “shall address the amount, type, and location of any proposed compensatory mitigation, including any out-of-kind mitigation, or indicate an intention to use an approved mitigation bank. The level of detail provided in the public notice must be commensurate with the scope and scale of the project.” Note: This is one of the most important provisions in the proposed regulations, as it will greatly improve transparency to the public and expedite our ability to provide constructive comments on proposed projects. The lack of such information in the public notice has greatly hampered meaningful and timely comments from resource agencies as well as the public.

Mitigation Plans Project objectives Site selection factors Site protection instrument Baseline information (at impact site and compensation site) Credit determination methodology Work plan Maintenance plan Performance standards Monitoring requirements Long-term management plan Adaptive management plan Financial assurances Mitigation plan. Mitigation plans must be developed by the permittee or bank sponsor and approved by the Corps before a permit is issued (in the case of permittee-responsible mitigation) or the banking instrument is approved (in the case of mitigation banks). Mitigation plans must include: project objectives, site selection factors, specification of the site protection instrument, baseline information (at the impact and compensation sites), credit determination methodology, work plan, maintenance plan, performance standards, monitoring requirements, a long-term management plan, an adaptive management plan, and specification of financial assurances. For permittees planning to use a mitigation bank, the following information is required: baseline information (only at the impact site), and credit determination methodology.

Administrative Requirements and Performance Standards §332.5/230.95 – Ecological performance standards Assess whether project is achieving objectives Objective, verifiable, and measurable §332.6/230.96 – Monitoring General requirements Five-year minimum monitoring period § 230.95 (332.5) Ecological performance standards. The mitigation plan must contain performance standards that will be used to assess whether the project is achieving its objectives. These performance standards should be based on attributes that are objective, verifiable, and can be measured with a reasonable amount of effort. § 230.96 (332.6) Monitoring. General Requirement: Monitoring reports must be submitted to assess the development and condition of the compensation project. The mitigation plan must include: the parameters to be monitored, the length of the monitoring period, the party responsible for conducting the monitoring, the content of monitoring reports, the frequency for submitting monitoring reports, and the party responsible for submitting monitoring reports. Note: This section includes an exemption from the monitoring requirement if the DE determines that monitoring is not “practicable”. Such a broadly worded exception is likely to generate criticism. Monitoring period: Monitoring periods should generally not be less than five years and may be longer for certain types of aquatic resources with slow development rates (e.g., forested wetlands, bogs). Note: The Corps is allowed to waive the minimum five-year monitoring requirement “upon a determination that the compensatory mitigation project has achieved its performance standards.” Some stakeholders may consider this to weaken existing monitoring provisions (established in the 2002 RGL). In the preamble we have specifically asked for comment on the proposed provisions for the monitoring period.

Administrative Requirements and Performance Standards §332.7/230.97 – Management Site protection Sustainability Adaptive management Long-term management Party responsible Provisions for long-term financing § 230.97 (332.7) Management. Site protection. The long-term protection of compensation sites should be arranged through appropriate real estate instruments such as conservation easements or transfer of title to public or private land managers. The real estate instrument should restrict or prohibit incompatible uses (e.g., clear cutting). Sustainability: Mitigation projects should be self-sustaining once performance standards have been achieved. However, the responsible party must provide for whatever long-term management and maintenance activities may be necessary to ensure sustainability. Adaptive management. If projects are not attaining performance standards, remediation will be required. Long-term management. The party responsible for the ownership and long-term management of the compensatory mitigation project must be identified in the permit conditions or mitigation banking instrument. The permittee or sponsor may transfer the long-term management responsibilities to a public or private land stewardship entity, after final performance standards are met and approved by the district engineer. Provision for Long-term financing (e.g., endowments or trusts) must be provided in the original permit of banking instrument to ensure the long-term sustainability of the compensation project.

Third-Party Compensation §332.8/230.98 – Mitigation banks Siting banks – public vs. private lands Interagency review team (IRT) Bank establishment and oversight Bank review process – public and IRT Disciplined timelines for federal review §230.98 (332.8) Mitigation banks. General considerations: While the first seven sections of the rule are applicable to all compensatory mitigation projects, this section includes provisions that are unique to mitigation banks. Note: This organizational structure is consistent with the DAA’s directive to “…apply equivalent standards and criteria to each type of compensatory mitigation …” Siting banks: While mitigation banks may be sited on public or private lands, siting on public land is only permitted when done in accordance with the mission and policies of the land management agency and with its written approval. Credits for mitigation banks on public land must be based solely on aquatic resource functions provided over and above those provided by public programs already planned or in place. Interagency Review Team. An interagency team assists in the establishment and oversight of mitigation banks, similar to the effective team structure and function established in the 1995 Banking Guidance. Review process: The rule implements disciplined timelines for the public and interagency review of bank applications, ensuring that when bankers are well-prepared, organized, and responsive, the federal review component of the bank approval process should only take a total of 7 months (this does not include the time it takes for bank sponsors to respond to federal/public comments). Note: This will be a substantial improvement over existing practices.

This shows the bank review timeline: the three required phases total less than or equal to 195 days (does not include the time when the ball is in the bankers court)

Third-Party Compensation Prospectus and draft/final instruments Contents of mitigation plan (slide 17) Service area Credit release schedule Accounting procedures Transfer of liability for site success, and Default and closure provisions Dispute resolution process Prospectus and draft and final instruments: The bank prospectus, draft instrument, and final instrument will include all relevant items required under a complete mitigation plan (see above), but also include the following: Service area, Credit release schedule, Accounting procedures, Transfer of liability for site success, and Default and closure provisions.

Dispute resolution process Dispute resolution process. A formal dispute resolution process is provided in the event that the Corps is unable to obtain interagency agreement on the proposed bank using the rule’s consensus-based approach. The formal process produces a final decision within 150 days of receipt of the final banking instrument.

Third-Party Compensation Credit withdrawal – a % of total bank credits may be released for debiting: Instrument and plan are approved Bank site has been secured Financial assurances established Grandfathers existing banks Instrument modification will trigger compliance with new requirements Credit withdrawal from mitigation banks. A percentage of the total credits of a mitigation bank at maturity may be debited as soon as the instrument is approved, as long as: 1) the mitigation banking instrument and mitigation plan have been approved, 2) the mitigation bank site has been secured, and 3) financial assurances have been established. Grandfathering of existing mitigation banking instruments. Existing mitigation banks may continue operating under the terms of their approved instruments, but any modifications to such instruments, including the addition of new sites for umbrella instruments, would be subject to the requirements in this rule.

Third-Party Compensation §332.9/230.99 – In-lieu fee programs Suspension of future authorizations 90 days after final rule published Transition period for existing ILF programs 5 years and 90 days to comply with new standards for banks or close Section 230.99 (332.9) In-lieu fee programs. Suspension of future authorizations: No new ILF programs will be authorized starting three months after the release of the final rule, because all third-party mitigation will be held to the standards outlined for banks in the previous section. Note: This proposed treatment of ILF is consistent with the DAA’s directive to “…apply equivalent standards and criteria to each type of compensatory mitigation …” Transition period for existing in-lieu fee programs: Existing ILF programs are given five years and three months after the release of the final rule to either comply with the new standards outlined for banks or to close. Note: Although we are justified in our proposal to phase-out the use of in-lieu fee mitigation based on its lax standards, record of poor accountability, and questionable performance, groups may criticize this move for different reasons. States and NGOs who operate or are proposing ILF programs may feel that their investments in ILF programs will have limited returns. Also, despite real concerns regarding the effectiveness of ILF, some permittees who utilize it may complain about the loss of this cheap and “flexible” alternative to banks and permittee-responsible mitigation. We are not prohibiting State and NGO ILF sponsors from continuing to provide compensation in the future, merely requiring them to comply with a more effective set of standards to deliver that compensation. We are also allowing existing ILF programs a generous timeframe to comply (5 yrs and 3 months from final rule release). Furthermore, high-performing ILF programs such as the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) appear to be in compliance with the new standards already. Recognizing that the phase-out of ILF is a substantial departure from current practice, in the preamble we also request comment on the option of retaining in-lieu fee programs as a distinct regulatory entity. Under this approach, in-lieu fee programs would have equally specific, but somewhat different, requirements from mitigation banks. We request comments on these potential differences.

Next Steps Process/post public comments Analyze public comments ~12,100 total comment letters ~900 unique comment letters Analyze public comments Draft comment response Implementation MBRT/IRT Academy The public comment period closed on 6-30-06, So what’s next? Received a large number of public comments. All have been processed and posted in the online public docket and can be viewed at Reg.gov (website URL is on next slide) EPA and Corps are currently analyzing public comments – over the next few months we will draft comment response document, make necessary edits to rule, and submit to OMB It is never to soon to start planning for implementation. To that end: The Corps and EPA have been working with other federal and non-federal partners to develop a pilot course that would provide critical training to federal and state regulators on the broad set of legal, financial, as well as scientific and technical skills necessary to do an efficient and effective job reviewing and managing complex compensation projects such as mitigation banks

Questions Compensatory Mitigation Website: Federal Docket Contacts: http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/ Federal Docket http://www.regulations.gov Contacts: Corps HQ: David Olson David.B.Olson@HQ02.USACE.ARMY.MIL EPA HQ: Palmer Hough Hough.palmer@epa.gov Available at Website: Copy of FRN Instructions on how to provide comments Q’s and A’s Factsheet Draft EA/FONSI Background/supporting materials