Why Use A Wetland Bank

Why go to a wetland bank instead of doing it yourself?

Preference Hierarchy for Mitigation Army Corp of Engineers(33 cfr 332.3(b))

1. Mitigation Bank Credits
2. In-lieu Fee Program Credits
3. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
4. On-site and/or in-kind permittee-responsible mitigation
5. Off-site and/or out-of-kind permittee-responsible mitigation

In 2008 there was a rule introduced into the mitigation process that required all mitigation to fullfill these 12 items in full.

1. Objectives

7. Maintence Plan

2. Site Selection
8. Performance Standards
3. Site Protection
9. Monitoring Requirements
4. Baseline Info
10. Long - Term Management
5. Credit Determination
11. Adaptive Management Plan
6. Work Plan
12. Financial Assurances


Here at Valencia Wetland Mitigation Bank we have fullfilled all the 12 requirements for you.

Here are eight more reasons why going to a mitigation bank is more effective.

1. Fully complies with the Law.

2. When all costs are taken into account mitigation banks are more cost effective and predictable.

3. The wetland bank assumes full legal liability and responsibility.

4. Permitting time is reduced by 50%.

5. Work can begin immediately after purchasing credits from the mitigation bank.

6. Eliminates engineering design, construction, years of maintenance, and the expense of hiring a wetland professional to perform 5 to 10 years of annual monitoring.

7. Removes the obligation to obtain a conservation easement to protect the mitigation site, as the wetland bank has done this as part of their certification.

8. Without a wetland bank you would be responsible to assemble and apply extensive financial resources, planning, and scientific expertise not always available to many permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation proposals.

In its 2001 critique of compensatory mitigation, the National Research Council (NRC) concluded that third-party compensatory mitigation such as mitigation banks offer advantages over permittee-responsible mitigation in the fulfillment of regulatory goals.

One such advantage identified by NRC is the consensus-driven, interagency review process used to approve banks.

The 2002 National Mitigation Action Plan acknowledges that more expertise and collaboration should be brought to bear on the Section 404 mitigation process. The 2008 Corps/EPA compensatory mitigation regulations codify the consensus-based interagency review team approach endorsed by the NRC. NRC also noted that banks are more likely than traditional compensatory mitigation to achieve desired long-term outcomes and to create mitigation sites that are protected in perpetuity by organizations dedicated to resource conservation.