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

2. 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)

3. 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

4. Alaska Sub region Map

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

6. 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

7. 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)

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

9. Ecoregions

10. Growing Season Dates

11. 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

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

13. Problematic Wetlands

14. Problematic Wetlands

15. 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)

16. Problematic Wetlands

17. Problematic Wetlands

18. 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

19. New Mitigation Rule Cont.
Implications of the New USACE Mitigation Rule
AK District Interpretation
Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) No
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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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”

25. 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

26. Contact Information
Joe Christopher, PWS
DOWL HKM
Kristen Hansen