Monday, June 9, 2008
Daily Summary: 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting, June 9, 2008.
Today and tomorrow environmentalmarkets authors will post summaries, comments, and reactions from the 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting: Developing an Infrastructure Fund for the Planet.
Opening Keynote
John Holdren (Woods Hole, Harvard) - Inconvenient Truth part 2: return of the graphs. Climate change science rundown. Choices for dealing with it: mitigation, adaptation, and my favorite... suffering.
Q & A's
Good metaphor for importance of biodiversity: taking out the rivets on a plane b/c it's free to do so and we don't really know how many we need. Metaphor 2: library.
Re: involvement of indigenous communities... some of the key q's addressed in Bali re: REDD were: can you monitor, how do you compensate, and can you engage indigenous population?
Panel on State of Affairs
Ken Newcombe (Goldman Sachs) - insight to the history of the C market. The 1st C market is an ex of a market catalyzed by an institution, and overtaken by private investment within 1 year. Hope that REDD can start in vol mkt while figuring out baselines. Alluded to an emerging mkt for adaptation - encouraging invest in sust landuse practices like soil C and WL conservation. Ecosystem services are at the nexus between the env, social dev, ag & infra.
Katie McGinty (PA Dept of Env Protection) - Millennium Ecosystem Assessm highlighted WQ as most urgent env problem (over CC). Insight into PA WQT. Environmental imperative for the market - alternative is pouring concrete/grey infrastructure solutions and chemical treatment (aka “call the engineers”). Env skepticism of markets - healthy when a check/balance leading to better design of the mkt, not so good when get "death by discounts" – “slice & dice” of pounds of reduction from edge of field-> stream ratio, stream-> mouth of Ches Bay ratio; reserve ratio; etc. Just say no when trading is proposed when it doesn't belong.
Stuart Anstee (Rio Tinto) – Mining companies own a lot of land that they’re not working on – normally see this as a liability. When impacting biodiversity, consider this a business risk/cost. Switch perspective to opp for mitigation of impacts on their land. Create positive env results from restor/rehabilitation & potentially get income stream. Builds trust with regulators.
Odigha Odigha (NGO Coalition for the Environment) – founder of a Nigerian NGO that works at the local level challenged audience to take the discussion about PES to the community level in developing countries – to where income streams for creation of env benefits is important.
Jonathan Lash (WRI) – stressed importance of “rules of the game”. Stressed viewing markets as a means to getting desired environmental outcomes (questioned the crowd [Who’s here to make markets work?] & no hands went up). The mechanism for creating value in ecosystem services is a regulatory framework. Legitimacy, predictability, transparency important in env markets.
Q & A’s
Re: viability of markets for fisheries—yes, where possible to define & limit access & rights to access can be sold. Politically difficult to limit access.
The Coastal Zone Mngt Act needs to be updated, so why not create a regulatory mechanism to limit access & require offset responsibilities.
Re: market barriers for poor/small landowners b/c of “death by standards & consulting costs”—ex given where markets accessible for areas in extreme poverty – buying C credits [voluntary] from women tree-growers in developing countries. Works in vol market, but compliance markets still buying as commodity, so buying for lowest cost. When commoditize C, you exclude other attributes – issue of quantity vs. quality. Landowners need advanced payments to imple projects. Small parcels are a problem.
Closing Key Note
Kathy Sierra (World Bank) – gave an overview of World Bank involvement in C [& other?] env markets. Anyone have points to add re: this presentation?
Closing Dialogue
Michael Jenkins (Forest Trends) & Cristian Samper (Smithsonian Institution) - Scale, scope, and pace of change are important in development of env markets. Pace—institutions do not move quickly, but must learn to be nimble if want to affect the way markets develop. In developing countries, the institutional capacity to use/enforce standards is weak.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
News Summary for 5/17-6/3
Projects
- Nonmarket Valuation – BBC World “Nature Inc.” – “a new series that reveals the true value of nature by putting a price tag on it.” 1st install – bee pollination & CA almond groves June 13th 19:30GMT.
- W Flow – new FS project looks at beavers/fens restor/reintro in Rocky Mtn region to incr w retention capacity as CC adaptation. Contact: Trey Schillie
News
- Farm Bill (USDA website)
---“Passes” (w/snafu) on 5/22 (veto overridden)
---5-yr, $307 bill - $4bill for conservation ($188mill for Ches Bay)
---Lang to help env svcs markets but no funding (“develop uniform standards for quantifying environmental services; establish credit registries; and offer credit audit and certification services”)
---New grants for buying community forests; cost share for emergency for restor; state forest assess & plans; forest “CIG”-type grant program; wood-to-NRG program
---Some, but not much reform of subsidies (see Economist slam)
---Ecosystem Marketplace summary
---Summary of forestry-related items by Northern Forest Alliance Exec Dir George Gay
---Summary of Conservation Title from American Farmland Trust
- All things Mitigation - Ecosystem Marketplace’s Mitigation Mail (5/30)
---FL bill to regulate sea grass loss/damages fine facing veto as last-min amend to allow mitigation banking angers enviros. Crit: miti = net loss
---a NJ conserve trust is putting land up for bid to dev/sell WL miti (but not own the land). Bids start at $15k. Could bring the org $3.8mill.
---TX County has HCP for review that sets up cons miti bank (birds, karst invertebrates) for roads, schools, utilities, pub or priv dev, etc. in Co.
---Charlotte County plans to buy scrub jay (TES) habitat crit: $$, would be preserved by landowner anyway (additionality), pub access concerns
---Another Co gets crit re: additionality of cons miti plan on pub land bought for conservation. Sounds like idea to create bank spurred by dev D/ lack of miti S
---Another gov gets crit re: additionality/net loss – ME DOT + partners planned to restore WL for restoration’s sake, then decided to turn it into a WL miti bank for their uses.
---Miti industry consolidation – Wildlands Inc. buys Acer Environmental (GA/NC)
---Australia’s BioBanking has RFP for landowners to dev/sell biodiv credits, sign biobanking agree
- Cons banking/ Regulatory drivers – US House Nat Res Comm/GAO investigation finds USFWS could have “trumped science with politics” on 8 ESA [de]listing decisions (of ~200 investigated). Looks like FWS jumped the gun in delisting. Pol interference could create unnaturally weak demand-driver for cons banking. House Nat Res Comm site, GAO report (70p), News article summarizing GAO official’s testimony to the House Nat Res Committee
- WQT – Ecosystem Marketplace article on Vol W Mkts reviews basics of D drivers (even if “vol”, gotta have reg driver)/players (regulated PT source, unreg ag sector) in WQT; ag prefers to stay under the radar of regulation/gov (eg – verifiers on farms); WQT price must entice - no D if ag prices high; state policies can work against D (ex – MD “flush tax” paying for PT source poll reduction).
- C – PG&E RFP asks for up to 1mill tons GHG emiss reduction via CA CCAR-verified projects to use customers’ vol offset $s. Deadline 7/2.
- C tax – SF Bay air qual mngt auth 1st in US to charge businesses fees to emit GHG. Will raise $1.1mill from 2500 businesses (ex fees: ~$1/yr for service station -> $50k+/yr for oil refinery). [Q: and do what with it?]
- REDD – New Forests continues S Asia roll (orangutan miti in Malaysia, selling biodiv credits to palm oil manu in Borneo) w/ REDD arrange w/ Indonesia regional gov for up to 1mill hectares forest.
- REDD in the USA – NPR story on N CA forest mngd by Pac For Trust –old trees capture/store > C > quickly than younger trees; variable standards of vol C offsets; CCAR
- Nonmarket valuation –U MD Center for Agroecology study on multi ecosys svcs, incl: maximizing forest mngt for C seq & timber, recre values ($96/day trip, $400/overnight trip), existence value of forests ($200-$375/person/yr). Press release, News story
- Nonmarket val – EU/Germany report: world env damage and species loss from forests costs $2.1-$4.8 trill/yr (NPV). Other world-scale val studies in draft stage: gen biodiv loss, coral reefs, Meditterr coastal WL, env bene of flood/erosion risk mngt, cost of species/hab plans.
- Nonmarket val – Tufts U/NRDC research – cost of not addressing CC (esp from hurri damages, real est loss, incr NRG costs, w costs) in US is $3.8trill/yr by 2100.
- Nonmarket val – CA Forest Assoc’s summer mag is all about link betw forest -> clean water/ consistent flow, W & CC, etc.
- Certif – FSC Fam Forest Cert mtg ID’d ways 2 reduce costs assoc w/ cert, incr landowner bene, impr communic. Mtg report soon.
- Tools – NWI maps now on Google Earth
- Tools – Forestry GIS freeware
-Misc – OSU article on forest mkt drivers - TIMOs and REITs don’t care about maximizing ecosys svcs, sustaining local econ, etc. Land goes to highest val (golf course, timber, whatever). Rise of TIMOs/REITS b/c of tax law (disadvan for timber co’s to own land).
- Nonmarket Valuation – BBC World “Nature Inc.” – “a new series that reveals the true value of nature by putting a price tag on it.” 1st install – bee pollination & CA almond groves June 13th 19:30GMT.
- W Flow – new FS project looks at beavers/fens restor/reintro in Rocky Mtn region to incr w retention capacity as CC adaptation. Contact: Trey Schillie
News
- Farm Bill (USDA website)
---“Passes” (w/snafu) on 5/22 (veto overridden)
---5-yr, $307 bill - $4bill for conservation ($188mill for Ches Bay)
---Lang to help env svcs markets but no funding (“develop uniform standards for quantifying environmental services; establish credit registries; and offer credit audit and certification services”)
---New grants for buying community forests; cost share for emergency for restor; state forest assess & plans; forest “CIG”-type grant program; wood-to-NRG program
---Some, but not much reform of subsidies (see Economist slam)
---Ecosystem Marketplace summary
---Summary of forestry-related items by Northern Forest Alliance Exec Dir George Gay
---Summary of Conservation Title from American Farmland Trust
- All things Mitigation - Ecosystem Marketplace’s Mitigation Mail (5/30)
---FL bill to regulate sea grass loss/damages fine facing veto as last-min amend to allow mitigation banking angers enviros. Crit: miti = net loss
---a NJ conserve trust is putting land up for bid to dev/sell WL miti (but not own the land). Bids start at $15k. Could bring the org $3.8mill.
---TX County has HCP for review that sets up cons miti bank (birds, karst invertebrates) for roads, schools, utilities, pub or priv dev, etc. in Co.
---Charlotte County plans to buy scrub jay (TES) habitat crit: $$, would be preserved by landowner anyway (additionality), pub access concerns
---Another Co gets crit re: additionality of cons miti plan on pub land bought for conservation. Sounds like idea to create bank spurred by dev D/ lack of miti S
---Another gov gets crit re: additionality/net loss – ME DOT + partners planned to restore WL for restoration’s sake, then decided to turn it into a WL miti bank for their uses.
---Miti industry consolidation – Wildlands Inc. buys Acer Environmental (GA/NC)
---Australia’s BioBanking has RFP for landowners to dev/sell biodiv credits, sign biobanking agree
- Cons banking/ Regulatory drivers – US House Nat Res Comm/GAO investigation finds USFWS could have “trumped science with politics” on 8 ESA [de]listing decisions (of ~200 investigated). Looks like FWS jumped the gun in delisting. Pol interference could create unnaturally weak demand-driver for cons banking. House Nat Res Comm site, GAO report (70p), News article summarizing GAO official’s testimony to the House Nat Res Committee
- WQT – Ecosystem Marketplace article on Vol W Mkts reviews basics of D drivers (even if “vol”, gotta have reg driver)/players (regulated PT source, unreg ag sector) in WQT; ag prefers to stay under the radar of regulation/gov (eg – verifiers on farms); WQT price must entice - no D if ag prices high; state policies can work against D (ex – MD “flush tax” paying for PT source poll reduction).
- C – PG&E RFP asks for up to 1mill tons GHG emiss reduction via CA CCAR-verified projects to use customers’ vol offset $s. Deadline 7/2.
- C tax – SF Bay air qual mngt auth 1st in US to charge businesses fees to emit GHG. Will raise $1.1mill from 2500 businesses (ex fees: ~$1/yr for service station -> $50k+/yr for oil refinery). [Q: and do what with it?]
- REDD – New Forests continues S Asia roll (orangutan miti in Malaysia, selling biodiv credits to palm oil manu in Borneo) w/ REDD arrange w/ Indonesia regional gov for up to 1mill hectares forest.
- REDD in the USA – NPR story on N CA forest mngd by Pac For Trust –old trees capture/store > C > quickly than younger trees; variable standards of vol C offsets; CCAR
- Nonmarket valuation –U MD Center for Agroecology study on multi ecosys svcs, incl: maximizing forest mngt for C seq & timber, recre values ($96/day trip, $400/overnight trip), existence value of forests ($200-$375/person/yr). Press release, News story
- Nonmarket val – EU/Germany report: world env damage and species loss from forests costs $2.1-$4.8 trill/yr (NPV). Other world-scale val studies in draft stage: gen biodiv loss, coral reefs, Meditterr coastal WL, env bene of flood/erosion risk mngt, cost of species/hab plans.
- Nonmarket val – Tufts U/NRDC research – cost of not addressing CC (esp from hurri damages, real est loss, incr NRG costs, w costs) in US is $3.8trill/yr by 2100.
- Nonmarket val – CA Forest Assoc’s summer mag is all about link betw forest -> clean water/ consistent flow, W & CC, etc.
- Certif – FSC Fam Forest Cert mtg ID’d ways 2 reduce costs assoc w/ cert, incr landowner bene, impr communic. Mtg report soon.
- Tools – NWI maps now on Google Earth
- Tools – Forestry GIS freeware
-Misc – OSU article on forest mkt drivers - TIMOs and REITs don’t care about maximizing ecosys svcs, sustaining local econ, etc. Land goes to highest val (golf course, timber, whatever). Rise of TIMOs/REITS b/c of tax law (disadvan for timber co’s to own land).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Farm Bill... could've been so much better
The 5-year, $307 billion Farm Bill was passed on May 22nd (vetoed and overridden). Here's what Ecosystem Marketplace says about the bill:
The action has direct and indirect effects on environmental markets – for not only does the new Farm Bill govern large swathes of the ecosystem marketplace, but the relatively small portion of its funding earmarked for conservation [$4 billion] still represents the federal government's largest environmental outlay...
The new Act calls for the agricultural secretary to: "establish technical guidelines that outline science-based methods to measure the environmental services benefits from conservation and land management activities."
The guidelines are to be used to develop procedures for measuring environmental services benefits, a protocol for reporting them, and a registry. Guidelines to help farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners participate in carbon markets are a priority – but the bill provides no funding for the initiative. [emphasis added]
Both Ecosystem Marketplace and The Economist note that the real loss in this Farm Bill is the lack of reform of commodity subsidies. The Economist slams the Bill as one giant income distribution mechanism, funneling tax dollars to rich farmers (average income: $230,000)
Here'a a summary of the conservation title, courtesy of American Farmland Trust
Friday, May 16, 2008
News Summary for 5/3-5/16
Meetings / Seminars
- 5/7-9 - 11th Annual National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference – day summaries for May 9th, May 8th, and May 7th
Projects
- Mapping – National Geographic/NatureServe’s LandScope, to be launched 2008, brings maps/data/photos/info about conserved/priority cons/planning areas, trends, etc. for US/states together to inform/target efforts on the part of land trusts/st & local gov/private landowners/etc.
- Mapping – Trust for Public Land launches Conservation Almanac--lists data (1998-2005) about conserved areas in each st, acres acquired, $s spent, LandVote ballot measures, profile of state policy/conserv programs. Helpful for st/regional cons stats.
- Markets – AgTrader, a Craig’s List for MD farmers launched
News
- CC – US FWS lists Polar Bear as threatened due to loss of habitat (sea ice), says won’t use listing to force regulatory action
- All things C – Ecosystem Marketplace’s V-Carbon Mail (5/2/08)
---CCAR launches Climate Action Reserve that provides standardized protocols for C projects, info on projects, and tracks credits.
---Bush - proposal of zero emissions growth by 2025
---Canada and Greece out of compliance w/Kyoto can’t trade in EU C market until they get their act together
---Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern report fame in ’07) says he goofed and to minimize dangerous risks of CC, need to reduce emiss by 50% for world and 90% for US
- C - Ecosys M’place releases 2007 State of the Voluntary C Market. Interesting stats:
---65 mill tonnes of C credit transactions in vol mkt [42mill from OTC mkt, 23 from CCX transactions]
---ave pr of credit went from $4.10->$6.10/tonne from 06 to 07
---OTC mkt tripled to 42 mill tonnes C credit transactions (val of $258mill in 07)
---dominant projects in OTC: NRG efficiency, renew NRG, methane, forestry/land projects
- WQT – summary of MD’s newish (4/18/2008) PT-PT trading policy
- Leadership – TNC appoints Goldman Sachs’ green guru Mark Tercek as new president/CEO
- PES - Special Issue on PES in Developing and Developed Countries – May 2008 Ecological Economics, 65.4. Sven Wunder, Stefanie Engel and Stefano Pagiola (ed).
- Nonmarket val – UFORE analysis of Houston’s regional forests: store $721mill worth of C, gen $456mill of env bene/yr, save $131mill in res NRG costs.
- Nonmarket val – WSJ Natural Cap blog discusses bene-cost analysis for env policy; crux of debate – whether economists value future generations’ benefits enough (via disc rates)
- 5/7-9 - 11th Annual National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference – day summaries for May 9th, May 8th, and May 7th
Projects
- Mapping – National Geographic/NatureServe’s LandScope, to be launched 2008, brings maps/data/photos/info about conserved/priority cons/planning areas, trends, etc. for US/states together to inform/target efforts on the part of land trusts/st & local gov/private landowners/etc.
- Mapping – Trust for Public Land launches Conservation Almanac--lists data (1998-2005) about conserved areas in each st, acres acquired, $s spent, LandVote ballot measures, profile of state policy/conserv programs. Helpful for st/regional cons stats.
- Markets – AgTrader, a Craig’s List for MD farmers launched
News
- CC – US FWS lists Polar Bear as threatened due to loss of habitat (sea ice), says won’t use listing to force regulatory action
- All things C – Ecosystem Marketplace’s V-Carbon Mail (5/2/08)
---CCAR launches Climate Action Reserve that provides standardized protocols for C projects, info on projects, and tracks credits.
---Bush - proposal of zero emissions growth by 2025
---Canada and Greece out of compliance w/Kyoto can’t trade in EU C market until they get their act together
---Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern report fame in ’07) says he goofed and to minimize dangerous risks of CC, need to reduce emiss by 50% for world and 90% for US
- C - Ecosys M’place releases 2007 State of the Voluntary C Market. Interesting stats:
---65 mill tonnes of C credit transactions in vol mkt [42mill from OTC mkt, 23 from CCX transactions]
---ave pr of credit went from $4.10->$6.10/tonne from 06 to 07
---OTC mkt tripled to 42 mill tonnes C credit transactions (val of $258mill in 07)
---dominant projects in OTC: NRG efficiency, renew NRG, methane, forestry/land projects
- WQT – summary of MD’s newish (4/18/2008) PT-PT trading policy
- Leadership – TNC appoints Goldman Sachs’ green guru Mark Tercek as new president/CEO
- PES - Special Issue on PES in Developing and Developed Countries – May 2008 Ecological Economics, 65.4. Sven Wunder, Stefanie Engel and Stefano Pagiola (ed).
- Nonmarket val – UFORE analysis of Houston’s regional forests: store $721mill worth of C, gen $456mill of env bene/yr, save $131mill in res NRG costs.
- Nonmarket val – WSJ Natural Cap blog discusses bene-cost analysis for env policy; crux of debate – whether economists value future generations’ benefits enough (via disc rates)
Monday, May 12, 2008
MD's Newish Point to Point Water Quality Trading Policy (dated 4/18/2008)
Maryland Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed
• This is phase I of the policy (PT to PT). Phase II is PT-NPS.
• Caps are Tributary Strategies nutrient limits (a concentration of TN or TP x a point source's design capacity/flow) & are written into NPDES permits
• Only allowed to buy credits to maintain cap… or if a new or expanded plant, to get offsets (& have to prove that you can get offsets for next 20 years)
• 3 trading regions: Potomac, Patuxent, Eastern/Western Shore Tributary Basins (including Susquehanna)
• Ways to get reductions: find reductions in your own plant, buy credits from other sewage treatment plants that are below their caps, pay for a little guy to upgrade their treatment, pay for a little guy to reduce their discharge to 0 (retire) or to connect all their discharge to a big plant, pay for septic system folks to connect to a treatment plant (but this only gets TN credits), spray poo (“land application of wastewater w/ pre-treatment & nutrient management controls”)
• A credit is a lb of N or P/yr delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
• Credits are valid for one calendar year & can’t be banked
• Major PT has to do Enhanced N Removal technology before they can trade, but this technology is paid for by MD taxpayers via “flush tax”
• Allows interstate trading
• MDE will initially maintain a database of credits generated & traded
• Appendix A has a nice list of all major PT sources, their design capacity (in MGD), their 06 flow – shows how close WWTPs are to their max capacity (@ which point, caps become a reality)
• MDE estimates use 9.5 lbs/yr TN/person and 0.23 lbs/yr TN/person
• This is phase I of the policy (PT to PT). Phase II is PT-NPS.
• Caps are Tributary Strategies nutrient limits (a concentration of TN or TP x a point source's design capacity/flow) & are written into NPDES permits
• Only allowed to buy credits to maintain cap… or if a new or expanded plant, to get offsets (& have to prove that you can get offsets for next 20 years)
• 3 trading regions: Potomac, Patuxent, Eastern/Western Shore Tributary Basins (including Susquehanna)
• Ways to get reductions: find reductions in your own plant, buy credits from other sewage treatment plants that are below their caps, pay for a little guy to upgrade their treatment, pay for a little guy to reduce their discharge to 0 (retire) or to connect all their discharge to a big plant, pay for septic system folks to connect to a treatment plant (but this only gets TN credits), spray poo (“land application of wastewater w/ pre-treatment & nutrient management controls”)
• A credit is a lb of N or P/yr delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
• Credits are valid for one calendar year & can’t be banked
• Major PT has to do Enhanced N Removal technology before they can trade, but this technology is paid for by MD taxpayers via “flush tax”
• Allows interstate trading
• MDE will initially maintain a database of credits generated & traded
• Appendix A has a nice list of all major PT sources, their design capacity (in MGD), their 06 flow – shows how close WWTPs are to their max capacity (@ which point, caps become a reality)
• MDE estimates use 9.5 lbs/yr TN/person and 0.23 lbs/yr TN/person
Notes from the field: 11th Annual National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference, May 9, 2008
McGeorge Group Breakfast Session
Panel: Mark Sudol (ACOE), Craig Denisoff (Westervelt), Deblyn Mead (USFWS), Michael Bean (EDF).
Some notes: Banking industry has concern of in-lieu fees that are held by groups with a vested interest in keeping the $, but not a concern with in-lieu held by an agency directed to purchase the miti. Prior to 4 yrs ago, didn’t require no net loss of streams, but now, yes (if meets jurisdictional def). ACOE HQ has 6 employees (!). Proactive conservation banking – yes it’s possible, but no practical demand for it w/o regulatory handle—could be an opp to change law to create incentives to help species before they’re listed.
Technology & Tracking Session
Interesting ACOE Ecologist mapping project to identify key lands for WL mitigation from banker perspective (cheap land), ecological/regulators’ perspective. Regional FL interactive mitigation banking website – staff enter info in sys and is immediately avail online – similar to RIBITS.
Update from ACOE on RIBITS & ORM database (?). Basically, all ACOE districts are for the 1st time all using the same database mngt sys. Will be linking database to RIBITS (currently only avail in Norfolk & Mobile districts). ACOE has MOA w/ EPA, USFWS to link conservation banking to RIBITS.
Integrating Banking into Resource Planning Session
Department of Defense interested in doing mitigation offsite; has legal authority to buy credits in WL bank or to pay in-lieu fees; has Legacy Program – env grants to [buy land or easements?] to support mil readiness. DoD has contract with LMI to ID viable offsite mitigation in base buffer areas in a project in the Ches Bay. The 2 pot projects ID’d are related to nutrients/WQT: WWTP in FT AP Hill buys WQ credits; WWTP on base convinces adjacent landowners to do WQ BMPs, then base buys conservation easement & WQ gets credits (?).
EPA’s Green Infrastructure approach can help bankers with the watershed approach req by new Rules b/c GI ID’s priority cons areas. DOT did big grant to use GI to see pot conflict/ID miti opportunities on their projects.
Highlights from Q & A’s from the Day
Q: If Rappahanos final decision says have to mitigate for ditches, could we dig another ditch that has the same function?
A: In Supreme Court discussion, Scalia says a ditch is jurisdictional, so yes.
Q: Does RIBITS allow you to find onsite mitigation projects?
A: No. Audience member suggested that searching for conservation easement database could help.
Q: Regarding military knowledge of mitigation banking…
A: Military knows about, & is extremely interested in mitigation. Presenter saw a recent research paper that suggested the mil would be the largest buyer of mitigation (anyone have this source?).
Panel: Mark Sudol (ACOE), Craig Denisoff (Westervelt), Deblyn Mead (USFWS), Michael Bean (EDF).
Some notes: Banking industry has concern of in-lieu fees that are held by groups with a vested interest in keeping the $, but not a concern with in-lieu held by an agency directed to purchase the miti. Prior to 4 yrs ago, didn’t require no net loss of streams, but now, yes (if meets jurisdictional def). ACOE HQ has 6 employees (!). Proactive conservation banking – yes it’s possible, but no practical demand for it w/o regulatory handle—could be an opp to change law to create incentives to help species before they’re listed.
Technology & Tracking Session
Interesting ACOE Ecologist mapping project to identify key lands for WL mitigation from banker perspective (cheap land), ecological/regulators’ perspective. Regional FL interactive mitigation banking website – staff enter info in sys and is immediately avail online – similar to RIBITS.
Update from ACOE on RIBITS & ORM database (?). Basically, all ACOE districts are for the 1st time all using the same database mngt sys. Will be linking database to RIBITS (currently only avail in Norfolk & Mobile districts). ACOE has MOA w/ EPA, USFWS to link conservation banking to RIBITS.
Integrating Banking into Resource Planning Session
Department of Defense interested in doing mitigation offsite; has legal authority to buy credits in WL bank or to pay in-lieu fees; has Legacy Program – env grants to [buy land or easements?] to support mil readiness. DoD has contract with LMI to ID viable offsite mitigation in base buffer areas in a project in the Ches Bay. The 2 pot projects ID’d are related to nutrients/WQT: WWTP in FT AP Hill buys WQ credits; WWTP on base convinces adjacent landowners to do WQ BMPs, then base buys conservation easement & WQ gets credits (?).
EPA’s Green Infrastructure approach can help bankers with the watershed approach req by new Rules b/c GI ID’s priority cons areas. DOT did big grant to use GI to see pot conflict/ID miti opportunities on their projects.
Highlights from Q & A’s from the Day
Q: If Rappahanos final decision says have to mitigate for ditches, could we dig another ditch that has the same function?
A: In Supreme Court discussion, Scalia says a ditch is jurisdictional, so yes.
Q: Does RIBITS allow you to find onsite mitigation projects?
A: No. Audience member suggested that searching for conservation easement database could help.
Q: Regarding military knowledge of mitigation banking…
A: Military knows about, & is extremely interested in mitigation. Presenter saw a recent research paper that suggested the mil would be the largest buyer of mitigation (anyone have this source?).
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Tip to WL Mitigation Bankers: Differentiate Company Name/Logo
As someone new to mitigation banking, I can say that I had a hard time remembering companies because they all sounded alike: "environmental", "mitigation", "solutions", "ecological". And so many use that heron logo...
[The color] Green is Out
From a Getty Images green marketing report
"Expect the future to be any color but green because right now everybody uses green (and darker shades are predominant). The environment comes in all colors, and visual clichés do not compel interest. Expect to see a backlash on all familiar environmental iconography. Innovators will embrace the mucky, the messy, the colorful."
[The color] Green is Out
From a Getty Images green marketing report
"Expect the future to be any color but green because right now everybody uses green (and darker shades are predominant). The environment comes in all colors, and visual clichés do not compel interest. Expect to see a backlash on all familiar environmental iconography. Innovators will embrace the mucky, the messy, the colorful."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
