United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 2001-05-04 monographic deposited born digital 75 p. GA 1.13:GAO-01-325 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325 P0b002ee1803a40a5 f:d01325 DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-23 GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325 GAO-01-325 Environmental monitoring Environmental policies Water resources conservation Clean Water Action Plan Other Written Product A00893

Of the estimated 220 million acres of marshes, bogs, swamps, and other wetlands in the United States during the colonial times, more than half have disappeared and others have become degraded. This decrease is due, primarily, to agricultural activities and development. Developers whose projects may harm wetlands must, according to environmental regulations, first avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable. If harmful impacts are unavoidable, the developer must compensate by restoring a former wetland, enhancing a degraded wetland, creating a new wetland, or preserving an existing wetland. Such mitigation efforts can occur under the following three types of arrangements: (1) mitigation banks, under which for-profit companies restore wetlands under Army Corps of Engineers agreements and then sell credits for these wetlands to developers; (2) in-lieu-fee arrangements under which developers pay public or non-profit organizations fees for establishing wetland areas, usually under formal Corps agreements; and (3) ad hoc arrangements, under which developers pay individuals or companies to perform the mitigation. This report, determines the extent to which (1) the in-lieu-fee option has been used to mitigate adverse impacts to wetlands, (2) the in-lieu-fee option has achieved its intended purpose of mitigating such impacts, and (3) in-lieu-fee organizations compete with mitigation banks for developers' mitigation business. This report also discusses the use of ad hoc arrangements as a mitigation option. Most of the arrangements were designed to use fees received from developers to restore, enhance, or preserve wetlands, with a few arrangements designed to allow wetlands to be created. During fiscal years 1998 through 2000, developers used the in-lieu-fee option to fulfill mitigation requirements for more than 580 acres of adversely affected wetlands, and paid more than $39.5 million to in-lieu-fee organizations. The extent to which the in-lieu-fee option has achieved its purpose of mitigating adverse impacts to wetlands is uncertain. Although Corps officials in 11 of the 17 districts with the in-lieu-fee option said that the number of wetland acres restored, enhanced, created, or preserved by in-lieu-fee organizations equaled or exceeded the number of wetland acres adversely affected, data submitted by more than half of those districts did not support these claims. Officials in 9 of the 17 districts said that functions and economic values lost from the adversely affected wetlands were replaced at the same level or better through in-lieu-fee mitigation, but officials in more than half of those districts also acknowledged that they have not tried to assess whether mitigation efforts have been ecologically successful. As a result, the Corps cannot be certain that in-lieu-fee mitigation has been effective. Corps district officials in 9 of the 17 districts with the in-lieu-fee option said that organization and mitigation banks were competing with each other by providing similar mitigation services in the same geographic area. No competition existed in 5 of the 17 districts because either no mitigation banks were available, or in-lieu-fee organizations and mitigation banks provided different services, or served different geographic areas. GAO found that hoc arrangements typically were for one-time projects without a formal agreement. Oversight of mitigation affairs was lacking in almost half of the districts using such arrangements. Corps districts disagreed on whether responsibility for the ecological success of ad hoc mitigation rests with the ad hoc fund recipient or the developer. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325.pdf GAO-01-325 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-325 Other Written Product GAO-01-325; Wetlands Protection: Assessments Needed to Determine Effectiveness of In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation; Environmental monitoring Environmental policies Water resources conservation Clean Water Action Plan Title 33 Section 1344 33 U.S.C. 1344