Estimation and Analysis of Expenses of In-Lieu-Fee Projects that Mitigate Damage to Streams from Land Disturbance in North Carolina (original) (raw)
Related papers
Environmental Science & Policy, 2011
In 2008, federal regulators issued formal regulations governing wetland and stream mitigation in an effort to improve ecological quality and reduce uncertainty during the mitigation process. In this article, we explore how the federal regulations (“the Rule”) reduce compliance risks assumed by regulators when issuing permits that require wetland and stream mitigation under the U.S. Clean Water Act. Regulatory risk involves the timeliness and adequacy of mitigation provided for permitted impacts. The Rule attempts to accomplish this by requiring more consistent implementation of compensatory mitigation projects in general, largely through a series of provisions that create equivalent ecological and mitigation standards for all sources of mitigation (mitigation banks, permittees and in-lieu fee programs). Between April–May 2009, we administered a national, web-based survey of mitigation bankers and other mitigation professionals (N = 156 responses; 47.7% response rate). Our results reveal banker perceptions that several Corps districts have incompletely implemented equivalent standards, and therefore a variety of barriers to abating regulatory risk continue to exist 1 year after the regulations took effect. Qualitative analysis of respondent comments revealed the reasoning behind these perceptions, including perceptions that regulatory conflicts of interest involving close relationships with in-lieu fee (ILF) programs, as well as regulatory preference for NGO and government sponsored mitigation. Based on our results, it appears that Rule clarification may be necessary to further reduce regulatory uncertainty and promote high quality compensation.
Towards a National Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Sites: A Proposed Study Methodology
2013
Each year more than 40,000 acres of wetlands are restored, established, enhanced, and preserved to compensate for the approximately 20,000 acres of losses permitted through the federal wetlands regulatory program. Nationwide, an estimated $2.9 billion is spent annually on these compensatory mitigation projects. However, it is not clear whether this significant investment in compensation yields projects that are effectively replacing lost wetlands. State and regional studies on wetland compensatory mitigation suggest that a significant proportion of compensation sites are failing to meet administrative and ecological performance standards. In response, some studies have suggested that consolidating mitigation at fewer larger mitigation banks may help improve overall mitigation success; however, this assertion has never been rigorously tested. A national study is needed to comprehensively evaluate compensatory mitigation. Here we present a protocol, developed by a team of wetland expe...
2016
Statement of Critical State Water Problem: Illinois faces historically and geographically differentiated water quality impacts. Urbanization threatens water quality in the greater-Chicago region (Wilson and Weng 2011), widespread, intensive agriculture and tile drainage in East-Central Illinois has dramatically altered water quality as far away as the Gulf of Mexico (David et al. 2010), and coal mining poses unique challenges to water quality protection in southern Illinois (Kravits and Crelling 1981). Additionally, widespread channelization and ditching of agricultural streams is associated with conversion of wetland and prairie to farmland (Hergert 1978; McCorvie and Lant 1993), and these impacts are irreversible by natural processes alone (Urban and Rhoads 2003). While in 1820 there were 22 million acres of prairie in Illinois, this total plunged to a mere 2,300 acres by 1978 (IDNR). Thus, significant historical and contemporary land use dynamics in Illinois have degraded water q...
Conservation Biology, 2004
Human activities continue to eliminate or degrade wetlands that provide rich habitat for many species. Compensatory mitigation, including creation of new wetlands, restoration of previously degraded wetlands, or preservation of existing wetlands, is one policy option that seeks to maintain no net loss of wetland habitat. Public support of wetland mitigation is essential because the public incurs the cost for many mitigation projects in the form of higher taxes. Therefore, public preferences should be considered when decisions are made about wetland mitigation options. We used a contingent-choice survey in Rhode Island to identify factors affecting public support for different types of compensatory wetland mitigation. Results were based on 640 survey responses. The amount of wetland lost during the original development project had no significant effect on the preferred mitigation alternative. Preferences for preservation, restoration, and no-action alternatives varied according to respondents' gender, education, and income. Certain general considerations applied, however, regardless of mitigation type. Respondents were willing to incur increases in taxes and fees for most mitigation projects. The larger the mitigation project and the lower the cost, the more likely it was to gain public support. The presence of endangered species contributed to public support, but less significantly than public access. Public access can be critical to public support, particularly if the size of the wetland is small or the cost is high. If the cost of providing public access, such as a boardwalk or viewing tower, is relatively small, the gain in public support for mitigation expenditures may well allow a substantial expansion of the area involved in mitigation projects and thus a greater increase in the amount of habitat conservation.
Current stream restoration science is not adequate to assume high rates of success in recovering ecosystem functional integrity. The physical scale of most stream restoration projects is insufficient because watershed land use controls ambient water quality and hydrology, and land use surrounding many restoration projects at the time of their construction, or in the future, do not provide sufficient conditions for functional integrity recovery. Reach scale channel restoration or modification has limited benefits within the broader landscape context. Physical habitat variables are often the basis for indicating success, but are now increasingly seen as poor surrogates for actual biological function; the assumption ''if you build it they will come'' lacks support of empirical studies. If stream restoration is to play a continued role in compensatory mitigation under the United States Clean Water Act, then significant policy changes are needed to adapt to the limitations of restoration science and the social environment under which most projects are constructed. When used for compensatory mitiga-tion, stream restoration should be held to effectiveness standards for actual and measurable physical, chemical, or biological functional improvement. To achieve improved mitigation results, greater flexibility may be required for the location and funding of restoration projects, the size of projects, and the restoration process itself.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2007
This article describes a concept variously termed prospective environmental restoration, restoration up front, or restoration banking. Briefly, the concept centers on the ability of an entity, public or private, to gain durable credits for undertaking proactive restoration activities. Once obtained, these credits can be applied to an existing liability, held in the event of a future liability, or traded or sold to others that might have need for the credits. In the case of a natural resource damage claim or response action, possessing or applying the credits does not negate the need for responsible entities to clean up spills or releases of hazardous substances or oil or to address their clean-up requirements under applicable federal and state statutes. Concepts similar to prospective environmental restoration/restoration up front include wetlands mitigation banking, conservation habitat banking, and emissions trading. Much of the concept and details provided herein stem from the practice of natural resource damage assessment, although that is not the sole driver for the concept. The concept could also apply where the credits could be used to offset other environmental liabilities, for example, to provide habitat mitigation where development is being planned. The authors believe that the concept, if widely applied, could reduce the time and costs associated with restoration and perhaps lead to an increase in voluntary restoration and conservation nationally. Currently, there are no state or federal regulations or policies that directly provide for this approach.
Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program
Ecological Applications, 2009
In the United States, stream restoration is an increasing part of environmental and land management programs, particularly under the auspices of compensatory mitigation regulations. Markets and regulations surrounding stream mitigation are beginning to mirror those of the well-established wetland mitigation industry. Recent studies have shown that wetland mitigation programs commonly shift wetlands across space from urban to rural areas, thereby changing the functional characteristics and benefits of wetlands in the landscape. However, it is not yet known if stream mitigation mirrors this behavior, and if so, what effects this may have on landscape-scale ecological and hydrological processes. This project addresses three primary research questions. (1) What are the spatial relationships between stream and wetland impact and compensation sites as a result of regulations requiring stream and wetland mitigation in the State of North Carolina? (2) How do stream impacts come about due to the actions of different types of developers, and how do the characteristics of impacts sites compare with compensation sites? To what extent does stream compensation relocate highquality streams within the river network, and how does this affect localized (intrawatershed) loss or gain of aquatic resources? Using geospatial data collected from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the Army Corps of Engineers' Wilmington District, we analyzed the behavior of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program in providing stream and wetland mitigation for the State of North Carolina. Our results suggest that this program provides mitigation (1) in different ways for different types of permittees; (2) at great distances (both Euclidean and within the stream network) from original impacts; (3) in significantly different places than impacts within watersheds; and (4) in many cases, in different watersheds from original impacts. Our analysis also reveals problems with regulator data collection, storage, and quality control. These results have significant implications given new federal requirements for ecological consistency within mitigation programs. Our results also indicate some of the landscape-scale implications of using market-based approaches to ecological restoration in general.
Assessing the size and growth of the US wetland and stream compensatory mitigation industry
PLOS ONE
Interest has focused on quantifying the size and scope of environmental markets, particularly those that offset ecosystem impacts or restore natural infrastructure to improve habitat or promote clean air and water. In this paper, we focus on the US wetland and stream compensatory mitigation market, asking: what types of firms make up the mitigation “industry”? What are the economic impacts–i.e., the “size”–of the mitigation industry? How has this industry changed over time? We present the results of a national survey of mitigation firms and construct an input-output model of the industry’s economic impacts and employment. We also develop a comparative, 2014 model of the industry using data from a previous study of the broader, ecological restoration economy. Our findings suggest that the (2019, pre-COVID) mitigation industry collects annual revenues (direct economic impacts) in excess of $3.5 billion, which, along with additional indirect (supply chain) and induced (spillover) econo...
Environmental Management, 2011
The U.S. Clean Water Act requires compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream damage through restoration of damaged aquatic ecosystems. We evaluate the North Carolina’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), a state agency responsible for compensatory mitigation. We compare communities gaining and losing aquatic resources during mitigation, finding new types of socioeconomic disparities that contradict previous studies of mitigation program behavior. We find average distances between impact and mitigation sites for streams (43.53 km) and wetlands (50.3 km) to be larger in North Carolina than in off-site mitigation programs in other regions previously studied. We also find that aquatic resources in the State are lost from urbanized areas that are more affluent, white, and highly educated, and mitigated at sites in rural areas that are less affluent, less well educated, and have a higher percentage of minorities. We also analyze the relationship between urban growth indicators and EEP accumulation of compensation sites. Growth indicators and long-term population projections are uncorrelated with both projected transportation impacts and advance mitigation acquired by the EEP, suggesting that growth considerations can be more effectively incorporated into the EEP’s planning process. We explore the possibility that spatial mismatches could develop between watersheds that are rapidly growing and those that are gaining mitigation. We make recommendations for ways that regulators incorporate growth indicators into the mitigation planning process.
This paper develops an integrated framework that combines economic, environmental and GIS modeling to evaluate the opportunity costs, in terms of foregone quasi-rents from crop production, and the sediment abatement benefits of the land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in the Lower Sangamon Watershed in Illinois. These are compared to the simulated least costs at which the same abatement benefits could have been achieved and its implications for the characteristics of the land parcels that should be targeted for enrollment in the program. It also examines the design of the rental payment instrument to achieve costeffective land retirement and the extent to which two alternative land rental instruments that would be simpler to implement would be second best. Our results show that the program has been successful in achieving its 20% sediment abatement goal in the watershed but that its costs are 75% higher than necessary. Targeting of the program could be improved by defining the eligible region for the program as a narrow buffer along the streams and tributaries of the Illinois River and designing a parcel-specific land rental payment instrument that would target parcels that are more sloping, closer to water bodies and have lower quasi-rents.