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

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 • 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 • 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 • Stunted Growth

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. 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

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 • 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 • Restoration/Enhancement- 1:1 • 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 562-2000 jchirstopher@dowlhkm.com Kristen Hansen DOWL HKM 562-2000 khansen@dowlhkm.com