MBI Timelines 2024 Update
Building on previous Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) | Ecological Restoration Business Association research from 2023 (here and here), EPIC analyzed new US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) data to see if timelines on mitigation banks were meeting the federally mandated approval time limit of 225 days.
Federal Processing Time Continues to Exceed 225 Days
The study found that the average project took 1.5x longer than required “on the regulator’s desk.” Mandatory federal processing of a mitigation bank instrument takes 336 days on average - 1.5 times longer than required in regulations. There is a decrease in average federal processing of 17 days when we isolate the new data from 2022-2023, however this is not a statistically significant trend.
Sponsor, Additional, and Total Processing Times Are Increasing
The full timeline for project approval - including back and forth between the Corps and applicants - takes an average of 1149-1195 days, an increase of 51-97 days from the previous analysis. The range reflects analyzing the data with and without some dubious data records.
Additionally, the study revealed a statistically significant trend of an additional 18-27 days being added to the total approval timeline each year, and 15-17 days for sponsor processing.
District-Level Findings
In the updated dataset, eight Districts averaged less than less than 225 days for mandatory federal processing of MBIs (Mobile, Tulsa, St. Louis, Rock Island, Louisville, Sacramento, Alaska, and Chicago). The red line marks the 225-day target timeline, "x" indicates the mean, and the number in parentheses shows the number of records per District.
This graph at right shows the total average timeline in order of longest (top) to shortest timeline, with indication of mandatory federal processing time, additional, and sponsor processing. The fastest Districts by total processing times were Pittsburgh, Tulsa, Memphis, and Rock Island, Tulsa, and Memphis (these were the same Districts in the fastest quartile in the previous analysis). The Districts with the slowest quartile total processing days (e.g., > 1506 days) were: Norfolk, Seattle, Savannah, Charleston, Detroit, Galveston, Los Angeles, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Kansas City, and San Francisco.
For Most Districts, It’s Too Early to Tell if Timelines are Trending Faster or Slower
Districts that had 9 or more added records are indicated here, as these are more appropriate to review for trends over time. The colored bars in the graph represent only new data (2022-2023), while the gray bars represent the old data (2014-2021). In terms of total processing time, Nashville reduced times by more than 20%; and New Orleans and Omaha increased times by more than 20%. For federal processing (dark blue), Huntington, Nashville, and Rock Island reduced times by more than 20%; and New Orleans, Omaha, and Pittsburgh have increased federal processing times by more than 20%.
Credit Release Timeline Analysis
We also for the first time analyzed the time it takes for credit release requests to get reviewed. A mitigation bank cannot sell credits until specific steps are approved by USACE, typically including an initial release, interim releases tied to milestones, and a final release when the site meets ecological standards. However, USACE does not track 'timestamp' data for credit releases or have a performance metric for timely approvals. EPIC compiled the first national dataset of 608 records on credit release request and approval dates, covering 20 Districts. The 2008 Rule sets a 45-day target for reviewing credit release requests, which can be extended for site visits. With the caveat that the data do not indicate site visits, the range of processing times was 1 - 1,829 days, with an average of 92 days. Timeframes varied by District, as seen in the graph at right (the red line marks the 45-day target timeline, "x" indicates the mean, and the number in parentheses shows the number of records per District).
New Corps Guidance
In a timely development, Corps leadership recently issued new guidance in September 2024 (16-Sept memo and 19-Sept principles document), which closely aligns with the study's findings and recommendations. The documents acknowledge the current state of delays and provide direction / guidance to staff to make changes for a more efficient review process (EPIC | ERBA’s past research was cited in the references of the ASA memo!). Because of the relevance to the timelines research, we added a summary of the documents to the report (p.28-29) and plan a detailed blog soon. For now, we highlight several key points:
Timeline Compliance: USACE reaffirmed its commitment to the 2008 regulations, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established timelines for wetland and stream mitigation projects.
Streamlining Interagency Review: The guidance stresses that reviews by multiple agencies should not create process bottlenecks, echoing EPIC's recommendations to improve the Interagency Review Team (IRT) process.
Focus on Ecological Performance: USACE is shifting focus towards achievable ecological outcomes rather than worrying over “the perfect plan,” potentially addressing some of the delays identified in the study.
Standardization of Processes: The development of national and district-level templates for various aspects of the approval process aims to increase consistency and predictability, addressing district-level variations highlighted in the report.
Study the Causes of Delays: While EPIC’s research quantified delays in the process, Corps headquarters is committing to investigating underlying causes.
It's encouraging to see Corps leadership taking steps that align with our research findings. The new guidance addresses many of the bottlenecks we've identified and could significantly improve the efficiency of the mitigation bank approval process. While the changes announced by the Corps are promising, their implementation and impact will need to be monitored over time. EPIC will use this research as a baseline to track whether the Corps guidance has an effect in future studies.
Resources
Link to full report: The Time It Takes for Restoration 2024 Update
Previous 2023 EPIC | ERBA quantitative analysis of MBI timelines: The Time it Takes for Restoration: An Analysis of Mitigation Banking Instrument Timelines (2023)
Pervious 2023 EPIC | ERBA qualitative analysis of bottlenecks and solutions: The Time it Takes for Restoration: A Qualitative Analysis of Factors that Speed and Slow Mitigation Banking Approval Timelines (2023)
The Restoration Economy Center, housed in the national nonprofit Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), aims to increase the scale and speed of high-quality, equitable restoration outcomes through policy change. Email becca@policyinnovation.org if interested in learning more, sign up for our newsletter, or consider supporting us!
