“How Wetlands Permitting in Alaska has Evolved in the Past 5-10 Years”

Overview Alaska Supplemental Manual (September, 2007) Purpose Changes to 1987 Manual New Mitigation Rule Overview Implications Mitigation Plans Recent Changes to Anchorage Debit/Credit Method Glossary Functional Assessment (Relative Ecological Value-REV) Indirect Impacts (Shadow)

Alaska Supplement Purpose Nationwide Effort to Address Regional Characteristics Supplement the Corps 1987 Manual Guidance Specific to Alaska Establish Sub regions Northern, Interior, Western, Southeast, Southcentral, Aleutian

Alaska Sub region Map

Alaska Supplement Cont. Changes to the 1987 Manual Hydric Soils Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrology Indicators Problematic Wetlands

Hydric Soils Changes Histosol/Folist Thick Dark Surface Alaska Gleyed Saturation Requirement Accounts for Non-Hydric Organic Soils Permafrost Thick Dark Surface Mask Hydrology Indicators Alaska Gleyed Specific Munsell Color Requirements Alaska Gleyed Pores Due to Colder Climates and Low Overall Organic Carbon Alaska Redox Along Root Channels

Hydrophytic Vegetation Regional Plant List Indicator Status Revision Sub regions? Morphological Adaptations-Not New Spruce Birch Prevalence vs. Dominance Dominance- Few Species are More Abundant (50/20 Rule) Prevalence- Most Reliable (</= 3.0)

Hydrology Established Growing Season Ecoregions Saturation Generally Mid May to Late October Saturation Don’t Squeeze/Shake Water Table Visible Interior Surfaces

Ecoregions

Growing Season Dates

Problematic Wetlands Included in 1987 Manual Atypical Situation Lack One or More Indicators Due to: Human Activities Man-Induced Wetlands Natural Events Problem Areas Slope Wetlands Seasonal Wetlands Prairie Potholes Vegetated Flats Alaska Supplement Additions Wetland/Non-Wetland Mosaic Natural Problematic Hydric Soils-Low Organic Carbon/High pH Lack Hydrology- Periodically Dry Lack Vegetation-Morphological Adaptations

Problematic Wetlands Vegetation Morphological Adaptations Black Spruce Stunted Growth White Spruce Needles Farther Apart Paper Birch Multiple Trunks Sitka Spruce

Problematic Wetlands

Problematic Wetlands

Problematic Wetlands Wetland/Non-Wetland Mosaics No Defined Boundary Allowance for Wetland Percentage Considerable Savings in Mitigation Costs Prince of Wales Island 80/20= 14.5 acre reduction Estimated 350K Savings (SEAL Trust)

Problematic Wetlands

Problematic Wetlands

New Mitigation Rule Overview Final Rule Dated April 10, 2008 Clarifies How Compensatory Mitigation Occurs Mitigation Banks In-Lieu-Fee (ILF) Permittee Responsible Provides for : Consistency Predictability Increases Success Establishes Performance Standards Watershed Approach

New Mitigation Rule Cont. Implications of the New USACE Mitigation Rule AK District Interpretation Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) No. 09-01 Determination of Mitigation Requirements Applicant Proposed Mitigation Applicant Determines Mitigation not Necessary Establishes Mitigation Ratios No Defined Method for Functions and Values Mitigation Plan Review Considerations Mitigation Plan Requirements (Permittee Responsible) Restoration/Enhancement Preservation

Applicant Proposed Mitigation Hierarchy Mitigation Banks Established Service Areas and Plans Defined Area for Mitigation Limits on Credits Available ILF Established Service Areas Not Always a Defined Mitigation Area Cap on Advance Credits Permittee Responsible Restoration Enhancement Preservation

Mitigation Ratios Anchorage Ratios RGL Ratios Embedded in Anchorage Debit Credit Method (ADCM) Does Not Account for Secondary or Cumulative Impacts RGL Ratios Low Quality Restoration/Enhancement- 1:1 Preservation- 1.5:1 Moderate Preservation- 2:1 High Restoration/Enhancement- 2:1 Preservation- 3:1

Mitigation Plan Review Considerations Option Proposed by Applicant Mitigation Bank-No Mitigation Plan required ILF-No Mitigation Plan Required Permittee Responsible-Plan Required Mitigation Site Public or Private Land In-Kind/Out-of-Kind Hard to Justify Out-of Kind Streams vs. Wetlands Forested Wetlands vs. Sedge Fens

Twelve Steps to Salvation Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Requirements Objectives Site Selection Site Protection Instrument Baseline Information (Project Site/Mitigation Site) Credit Determination Procedure- No Monetary Conversions Work Plan Maintenance Plan Monitoring Long-Term Management Plan Adaptive Management Plan Financial Assurances

Anchorage Debit/Credit Methodology Currently Undergoing Revision Recent Changes Added Glossary Revised Spreadsheets and Integrated Calculations Differentiated vs Standard Approach Indirect Impacts Standard- 10% Reduction (Same) Differentiated- Varies on Impact Category Revised Relative Ecological Value Tables Downgraded Some Streams Downgraded Small/Remote Wetlands Downgraded Wetlands “Dominated” by Invasive Plants Revised Indirect Impact Zone Former “Shadow Factor”

Anchorage Debit/Credit Methodology Advantages Preliminary Data Shows Reduction in Debits (Differentiated) Calculations Included in Spreadsheets Allows for Multiple Existing Indirect Impacts REV Tables Defines REV Window More Clearly Disadvantages Longer to Map Definitions Not Always Clear Multiple Site Visits for REV Mapping Still Draft

Contact Information Joe Christopher, PWS DOWL HKM 562-2000 jchirstopher@dowlhkm.com Kristen Hansen khansen@dowlhkm.com