skip to main content
Environmental Review Toolkit

In-Lieu Fee Programs

September 19, 2017

PDF Version [7.7 MB]

Table of Contents

Eco-Logical Introduction

Slide 1: In-Lieu Fee Programs

Eco-Logical Webinar Series
September 19 ,2017


  • Tim Baumgartner, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
  • Judy Gates, Maine Department of Transportation
  • Mike Ruth, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review

Learn more about Eco-Logical at the FHWA website.

Image: Collage of colored photographs of a bridge, a deer, a fish, and a curved rural road from the cover of the Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects report
Image: The U.S. Department of Transportation logo

Slide 2: What is Eco-Logical?

  • An ecosystem methodology for planning and developing infrastructure projects
  • Developed by eight Federal agency partners and four State DOTs
  • Collaboration between transportation, resource, and regulatory agencies to integrate their plans and identify environmental priorities across an ecosystem

Images: Logos of the following U.S. agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Park Service (NPS), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (USFS), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Slide 3: The Integrated Eco-Logical Framework (IEF)

  1. Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships
  2. Integrate natural environment plans
  3. Create a Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF)
  4. Assess effects on conservation objectives

Share Data
Analyze Effects

  1. Establish and prioritize ecological actions
  2. Develop crediting strategy

Identify key sites and actions

  1. Develop programmatic consultation, biological opinion, or permit
  2. Implement agreements, adaptive management, and deliver projects
  3. Update REF


Slide 4: Mitigation in the IEF (REF)

  • REF (Step 3) is a cornerstone of the Eco-Logical approach
  • By integrating resource data with transportation data, the REF helps transportation and environmental agencies identify joint needs and priorities
  • Data in the REF is used to build a mitigation approach
    • Identify sites
    • Set priority sites
  • Mitigation approaches can help implement and organize the needs and priorities identified through the REF

Slide 5: Step 6: Develop a Crediting Strategy

  • Step 6 seeks to integrate tools and strategies for environmental crediting into the Eco-Logical process.
  • In-Lieu Fee (ILF) mitigation is one type of mitigation that can be used to compensate for unavoidable impacts. In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party instead of conducting project-specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank.

Slide 6: Contact Information

  • Tim Baumgartner, Director, Division of Mitigation Services, North Carolina DEQ
    (919) 707-8543
  • Judy Gates, Director, Environmental Office, MaineDOT
    (207) 624-3100
  • Mike Ruth, Ecologist, FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review
    (202) 366-9509

Return to top ↑

North Carolina DEQ Presentation

Many of the slides in this presentation are branded with North Carolina’s Nothing Compares’ “NC” logo.

Slide 7: Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services: Eco-Logical Webinar

Image: Photo of a lighthouse on a flat wetland
Image: Photo of a large city with many buildings

Slide 8: Who We Are…

  • Mission Statement: Provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that benefit North Carolina’s water resources.
  • * Fee based – No appropriated funds.
  • Began in…
    • 1997 - Wetlands Restoration Program
    • 2003 - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
    • 2016 - Division of Mitigation Services

Slide 9: What We Do

  • Supports transportation and development:
    • Cost controls
    • Regulatory acceptance
  • Compensatory Mitigation for stream, wetland, nutrient offset, and riparian buffer
  • Leverages mitigation investments to the benefit of the state’s natural resources
  • Partners
    • Landowners
    • Contractors
    • Investors
    • Engineers
    • Cities & Counties

Image: Photo of a calm river in the woods
Image: Photo of a construction crew with a backhoe constructing a barrier with dirt
Image: Photo of a fisherman baiting his pole while standing on large rocks alongside a swift-running river
Image: Photo of two men in a large green, grassy field

Slide 10: Volume of Mitigation

  • $1.4 Billion in mitigation credit assets (replacement value)
  • 228 Active projects
  • 890 Total projects

Slide 11: Our Partners/Customers…

  • NC Department of Transportation
    • Advanced Mitigation
  • Other Customers
    • Small Impacts
    • Developers

Slide 12: DMS’s Mitigation Programs

Image: Diagram of four circles (“ Riparian Buffer ILF,” “Nutrient Offset ILF,” “Statewide Stream & Wetland ILF,” and “NCDOT Stream & Wetland ILF”) surrounding a larger circle (“DMS”). The smaller circles have arrows pointing from them to the larger circle.

Slide 13: Credit Procurement Methods

Image: Diagram of a four-tiered upside-down pyramid, labeled from top to bottom: Mitigation Bank Credits, Full Delivery, Design Build, and Design Bid Build

Slide 14: Considerations for a successful In Lieu Fee program?

Image: The slide background is a photograph of a clear shallow stream surrounded by lush vegetation and yellow wildflowers.

Slide 15: Size, Service, Scope

Image: Cartoon drawing of the words “big” and “small,” sized accordingly
Image: Cartoon drawing of two men playing tug-of-war with a bag of money, atop a pile of bags of money

Slide 16: The People

Image: Cartoon drawing of four lightning bolts emanating from a brain that is hovering in the air above four people sitting at a table

Slide 17: Managing Costs

  • Mitigation Costs
    • Project Costs
      • Land
      • Design
      • Construction
      • Monitoring
      • Stewardship
    • Admin Costs
    • Inventory Overhead

Image: Drawing showing various costs funneling down to “Mitigation Costs.” The costs are listed above.

Slide 18: The Contractual Processes

  • Mitigation Bank Credits
  • Full Delivery
  • Design Build
  • Design Bid Build

Image: Cartoon image of a contract document
Image: Diagram of a four-tiered upside-down pyramid, labeled from top to bottom: Mitigation Bank Credits, Full Delivery, Design Build, and Design Bid Build

Slide 19: Managing Risk

Image: Stack of alphabetical blocks that spell the word “risk”
Image: A green seedling growing out of a stack of coins and transit tokens

Slide 20: Agency Agreement

Image: Two photos with a large “vs” between them. The first shows a site that is unmitigated: the stream is not flowing naturally, there are few trees, and the earth is in piles. The second shows a site that is mitigated: the stream flows, there are trees lining the stream bank, and the earth piles have been leveled out.

Slide 21: Long Term Property Management

Image: Aerial photo of a dried stream bed in a rural setting

Slide 22: Site Selection is Important

Image: Google Earth satellite photo of a suburban neighborhood with an inset photograph of an eroded stream embankment

Slide 23: 2008 Federal Mitigation Rule

Image: Two drawings with a large “vs” between them. The first is a group of circles enclosed by a rectangle and is labeled “Programmatic.” The second is a group of circles which is not enclosed and is labeled “Case by Case.”

Slide 24: The End Game…More Important than the Start

Image: Drawing of a pair of crisscrossed checkered flags

Slide 25: Technology to Manage Costs

Image: Photo of a drone in flight
Image: Photo of a weather-resistant camera used to monitor sites

Slide 26: Any Questions?

Tim Baumgartner, Director
NC Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Return to top ↑

MaineDOT Presentation

Many of the slides in this presentation are branded with the MaineDOT logo.

Slide 27: Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Four years, Three Agencies, Two Funding Sources, and One Endangered Fish Change the World

Judy Gates, Director
MaineDOT Environmental Office
September 19, 2017

Image: Reproduction of a water color painting of a cross section of a whitewater river showing Atlantic Salmon below the water’s surface and spawning up river

Slide 28: The Winding Road

  • The Timeframe: 2013-2017
  • The Agencies
    • FHWA
    • USFWS
    • MaineDOT
  • The Funding
    • SHRP2
    • Maine Highway Fund
  • The Fish

Slide 29: Atlantic salmon

Image: Map of Maine with three sections outlined and labeled: Merrymeeting Bay, Penobscot, and Downeast

Slide 30: …mysteriously anadromous

Image: Image showing the stages of life of an Atlantic Salmon: eggs, fry, parr, smolts, and adult
Image: Map of the North Atlantic showing the migration of the Atlantic Salmon from New England to Newfoundland to Greenland and back

Slide 31: Why now?

  • Missing “Capstone” performance measures: ≥85% on time & ≥90% on budget
  • Consultation overload: 50 needed vs. 7 completed
  • “Pushing back\” led to strained relationships inside and out
  • Staff caught in the middle = stress

Slide 32: Avoiding mediocrity

Image: Three panel Dilbert comic strip about mediocrity

Slide 33: MaineDOT saw…

Image: Computer-generated image of a boy with his finger in a dike, labeled “MaineDOT saw…”
Image: Photo of a young man dousing his face with a strong stream of water from a hose, labeled “USFWS saw…”

Slide 34: The vehicle

Image: Photo of a young Atlantic Salmon in the palm of a hand

Slide 35: What’s covered

  • Stream Crossing Replacements
  • Bridge Removal
  • Culvert End Resets/Extensions
  • Bridge Scour Countermeasures
  • Bridge Maintenance: Grout Bag Installation and Concrete Repair
  • Temporary Work Access and Temporary Bridges
  • Invert Line and Slipline Culvert Rehabilitation
  • Pre-project Geotechnical Drilling

Image: Photo of rocks in a culvert under a bridge

Slide 36: Quality matters

  • Tier 1 Habitat:
    DPS (Distinct Population Segment), critical habitat or likelihood of species presence
  • Tier 2 Habitat:
    DPS but presence unlikely
  • Tier 3:
    not within DPS

Image: Map of Maine shaded to show Atlantic Salmon DPS and Critical Habitat with arrows pointing to the three Tiers listed above

Slide 37: Translating quality to expectations using science

  • Tier 1:
    1.2 x bank full width + habitat connectivity design + AMMs (Avoidance and Minimization Measures)
    NO invert or slip lining
  • Tier 2:
    1.0 x bank full width + mitigation + AMMs
  • Tier 3:

Image: Same map and arrows as in previous slide, with different Tier details listed (above)

Slide 38: AMMs/BMPs

  • Hydro-acoustic monitoring
  • Habitat connectivity design

Image: Photo of a construction crew installing a new round cement culvert
Image: Photo of a calm, shallow stream under a bridge
Image: Photo of a bridge being constructed over water. There are five large poles being drilled into the ground that will support the bridge.

Slide 39: Why mitigate?

Fully accessible structure → 1.2 bank full width + natural substrate

Image: Poster with the words “You can’t always get what you want.”

Slide 40: Why in lieu fee?

  • State-wide emphasis on repairing stream barriers
  • Acknowledgement that ideal isn’t always possible
  • Letting the experts decide on restoration
  • Synergy with US Army Corps of Engineers
  • Successful track record wetland in lieu fee program
    (Maine Natural Resource Conservation Program)

Slide 41: Barriers?

  • Roadblock: ILF sponsor can’t be a federal agency or applicant
    Solution: recruit Maine DMR
  • Roadblock: No head count
    Solution: transfer position from MaineDOT mid-stream
  • Roadblock: Not the right fit
    Solution: change job classification
  • Roadblock: Empty bank account
    Solution: Lots of math!

Image: Photo of Atlantic Salmon swimming across a flooded road

Slide 42: The nitty-gritty

SHRU Cost Per Habitat Unit
Merrymeeting Bay $4855.52
Penobscot $3408.02
Down East $6346.80

Image: Map of Maine with three sections outlined and labeled: Merrymeeting Bay, Penobscot, and Downeast

Slide 43: The Math

Total lineal feet of crossing structures x cost per lineal foot to upgrade to 1.2 bfw (USFWS stream barrier surveys and EFC cost study)
number of blocked rearing habitat units (ATS recovery plan)

SHRU Cost Per Habitat Unit
Merrymeeting Bay $4855.52
Penobscot $3408.02
Down East $6346.80

Slide 44: 2017-2018-2019 Work Plan

SHRU Estimated In Lieu Fee
Merrymeeting $111,677
Penobscot $112,464
Merrymeeting 0
Merrymeeting $3,046,839
Penobscot $6,816
Total $3,277,796

Slide 45: Still on the table…

  • Can in lieu fees be prorated?
    (SHRUs accessible post-project - SHRUs accessible pre-project) x Z habitat unit cost
  • Re-scope project or pay in lieu fees?
  • Is Habitat Connectivity Design effective enough?
  • Will ability to deliver offset increased costs?

…Stay tuned!!

Image: Drawing of an Atlantic Salmon

Slide 46: Costs By the Numbers

Activity Cost
SHRP2 lead adopter grant award $250,000
Maine state highway funding $120,000
Overall time investment Four years
Direct time investment 1.68 years
Design changes 1.2bfw ~3X cost of in kind replacement
Adaptive management $5-10,000 per project
Crossing design training $30,000+
Mitigation >$700,000 per year?

Image: Photo of two gentle streams flowing from small circular culverts in a stone wall

Slide 47: Benefits By the Numbers

Activity Before MAP/ILF After MAP/ILF
Document length 50-100 pages 1 page
Biologist preparation 40 hours 1-2 hours
USFWS Review 26 weeks average 1-2 weeks
Consultations completed ‘on time’ 8% 100%
Design changes Minimal None
BMPs Added cost/hours Incorporated in estimate
Mitigation Unpredictable Incorporated in estimate
Habitat Units ‘benefited’ 0 ~685 per 3-yr workplan
Number of large culverts X 2X

Image: Photo of a calm stream flowing under a wide rectangular concrete culvert

Slide 48: What moved the mountain?

  • A committed advocate
  • FHWA support
  • An engaged resource agency
  • Several benevolent experts
  • Quantified tradeoffs
  • Reasonably positive attitudes
  • A shift at MaineDOT

Image: Line drawing of two stick figures, one sitting and one carrying a mountain

Slide 49: 2016 USFWS Recovery Champions Region 5

  • Cindy Callahan, FHWA biologist
  • Patrick Dockens, USFWS liaison
  • Judy Gates, MaineDOT ENV Director
  • Cassie Chase, FHWA ENV Engineer
  • David Bernhardt, MaineDOT Commissioner
  • Joyce Taylor, MaineDOT Chief Engineer
  • Anna Harris, USFWS Field Office Director
  • Christopher DeVore, USFWS liaison
  • Eric Ham, MaineDOT biologist


  • Kristen Chamberlain
  • David Gardner
  • Peter Lamothe
  • Paul Pfifer
  • Glenn Smith
  • Cheryl Martin…

Image: Photo of the 2016 Region 5 USFWS Recovery Champions

Slide 50: Thank you!

Signed Maine’s Salmon & Traveling Public

Image: Reproduction of a painting of two Atlantic Salmon spawning upstream

Return to top