Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mitigation Grants Arm Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State ARM Fund outlines 2025 grant round, urges towns to identify local mitigation projects
Summary
Representatives of New Hampshire’s Aquatic Resource Mitigation (ARM) Fund described how in‑lieu fees are collected and awarded, outlined eligible project types, and announced an early‑April call for pre‑proposals for the Salmon Falls/Piscataqua service area.
Emily Nichols, the ARM Fund program manager, and Sarah Betzel, an ARM project manager, presented to the Redwood Conservation Commission on the ARM (Aquatic Resource Mitigation) in‑lieu fee program and the 2025 grant round.
The presenters said the ARM Fund accepts payments from permittees who cannot avoid or fully mitigate impacts to aquatic resources, pools payments by watershed service area, and uses those funds to sponsor larger restoration, enhancement, creation or permanent protection projects. "We are an in lieu fee program that provides sustainable compensatory mitigation to offset losses and degradation of aquatic resources in New Hampshire that are authorized by state and federal permit decisions," Nichols said.
Nichols and Betzel explained why the in‑lieu fee model now has priority under state rules and federal guidance: pooled funds make larger, landscape‑scale projects more feasible than small, permittee‑led efforts that have often failed. The presenters described the nine ARM service areas and said Brentwood is in service area 4 (Salmon Falls/Piscataqua). "We received over $736,000 in payments within this watershed," Nichols said, noting that unspent funds carry over and can accumulate until suitable projects are found.
Why it matters: conservation commissions and planning boards can influence how mitigation funds are used in their towns if they prepare a local list of mitigation priorities and engage early with applicants. Under ARM and state permitting procedures, conservation commission recommendations submitted in writing are incorporated into permit review and the permitting record.
What projects qualify: ARM staff listed eligible project categories—wetland or stream restoration, enhancement (improving function without acreage increase), creation (constructing wetlands where none existed), and preservation (acquisition or conservation easement to remove development threat). Preservation projects must meet a high bar (e.g., minimum 100‑foot buffer, demonstrable long‑term protection, and state third‑party enforcement instrument) and compete with restoration projects for ARM grants.
Money and ratios: Nichols said the ARM calculator—based on statute and adjusted annually—produces the in‑lieu fee by accounting for land value, design and construction costs, monitoring and a 20% administration charge. For example, state mitigation ratios for preservation may require a 1:10 acreage multiplier (impacting 10,000 sq ft could require preserving 100,000 sq ft), though federal ratios differ.
Timeline and next steps: ARM staff said the 2025 grant round materials will be released in early April. ARM will request pre‑proposals, hold an office hour on April 16, and accept pre‑proposals through May 31; full proposals will be due in September. Final recommendations will go to the New Hampshire Wetlands Council and then to Governor and Council for fund allocation. ARM staff offered to screen potential projects early and to meet with towns before pre‑proposal submission.
Local advice from ARM staff: develop a prioritized list of local mitigation projects; coordinate early with planning boards and applicants; identify willing landowners and any town‑owned parcels suitable for easement or restoration; and prepare natural resource inventories and preliminary project materials before the grant cycle opens.
Commission reaction and follow up: Commission members asked for clarification on payment calculations, timeframes for spending awarded funds (ARM staff said funds are typically spent within three years but carry over with some flexibility), and whether dam removal projects could trigger ARM payments—ARM staff said the permitting process, not ARM, determines whether mitigation payments apply and that dam removal outcomes vary (some wetlands may transition rather than be eliminated).
ARM staff said they will circulate slides and announcement materials and encouraged the commission to contact ARM staff for early eligibility screening and to consider possible local projects for the Salmon Falls/Piscataqua service area.
