Regulatory and ecological risk under federal requirements for compensatory wetland and stream mitigation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study
Wetlands, 2009
With the recent Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule by the US Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency, wetland mitigation banking has been designated as the preferred means of compensatory mitigation after avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Permits and supporting documents were reviewed and site visits conducted at 29 Florida wetland mitigation banks to assess their permit-based success. Just over half of the banks included three or more ecological criteria in permit success requirements. Release of a majority of potential credits (60-75%) was strongly based on completion of activities (e.g. conservation easement, financial assurance, ditch filling). A review of bank compliance suggested that over 40% of banks had reached final success criteria or were clearly trending towards success, but that 17% of the banks were not trending towards success. Most banks were deemed successful according to permit criteria and compliance considerations, although permit criteria were not explicitly tied to ecological considerations. While permit success criteria may have been met, it was unclear what level of functional performance wetland mitigation banks provided.
2022
Recent revisions to the definition of the "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) have considerably altered how wetlands are federally regulated under the Clean Water Act. The two most recent modifications to WOTUS, the Clean Water Rule (CWR) and the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), represent two opposing approaches to the federal wetland policy. Despite their implementation, the impacts of these rules on the regulation of wetlands have as of yet been poorly characterized at broad spatial scales. Using New York State (NYS) as a case study, we evaluated the jurisdictional statuses of more than 373,000 wetlands under the CWR and the NWPR to assess the landscape-scale effects of WOTUS re-definitions. We found that statewide and within each of NYS's hydrologic regions, the NWPR protects fewer wetlands and less total wetland area than the CWR. The efficacy of the two regulations varied considerably in space across NYS, highlighting the need for comprehensive, nationwide assessments of wetland policy outcomes. We also observed that both rules produced non-uniform patterns in jurisdiction across a range of landscape positions and wetland sizes, preferentially protecting large wetlands close to the stream network. This effect was particularly pronounced under the NWPR, which excludes all geographically isolated wetlands from protection. Our findings in NYS emphasize the existence of unique patterns in protected wetlands across spatial scales, highlighting the value in applying geospatial analyses to evaluate environmental policy.
2002
Recent changes to the federal wetland permitting process increase the time and effort required of applicants to obtain needed permits. Using a combination of survey and government data, the cost of the reform is calculated at over $300 million annually. This cost is shown to be large relative to the number of wetland acres affected. It is also argued that these changes to the wetland permitting process are inefficient in that they fail to discriminate among wetlands of different quality. Further, it is observed that other, nonregulatory federal programs protect wetlands at a fraction of the cost of the reform package, raising questions about the consistency of the licensing program with other governmental efforts. Finally, this article addresses the issues of federalism and intergovernmental relations raised by the changes.
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...
2006
Correlation of coefficients for total permitted wetland fill 161 7.3 Linear regression results for total permitted wetland fill 163 7.4 Linear regression results for general permitted wetland fill 166 7.5 Analysis of variance table for general wetland fill linear regression 168 7.6 Linear regression results for standard permitted wetland fill 169 7.7 Analysis of variance table for standard wetland fill linear regression 171 7.8 Linear regression results for non-tidal permitted wetland fill 172 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 7.9 Analysis of variance table for non-tidal wetland fill linear regression 174 7.10 Linear regression results for tidal permitted wetland fill 175 7.11 Analysis of variance table for tidal wetland fill linear regression 176 7.12 Correlation analysis of permitted wetland fill categories 177 7.13 Multivariate analysis of variance table for all wetland fill types 177 7.14 Linear regression results for total no. of wetland fill permits 179 7.15 Analysis of variance table for total no. of permits linear regression 180 7.16 Correlation analysis between permit no. and permitted fill amount 181 7.17 Multivariate analysis of variance table for wetland permit activity 182 7.18 Linear regression results for no. of general wetland fill permits 183 7.19 Linear regression results for no. of standard wetland fill permits 183 7.20 Analysis of variance table for no. of general permits linear regression 186 7.21 Analysis of variance table for no. of standard permits linear regression 186 7.22 Correlation analysis of no. of permit categories Evaluation of the Intergovernmental Relationships between National and State Wetland Regulatory Agencies within Wetland Regulatory Units The following chapters describe how this study seeks to determine if these areas of increased protections can be explained by the types of programs states have introduced to deal with wetlands and the types of relationships these programs create with the national government. The results will provide answers to questions of both students of the discipline of intergovernmental relations and to wetland managers alike.
Determinants of spatial and temporal patterns in compensatory wetland mitigation
Environmental Management, 2007
Development projects that impact wetlands commonly require compensatory mitigation, usually through creation or restoration of wetlands on or off the project site. Over the last decade, federal support has increased for third-party off-site mitigation methods. At the same time, regulators have lowered the minimum impact size that triggers the requirement for compensatory mitigation. Few studies have examined the aggregate impact of individual wetland mitigation projects. No previous study has compared the choice of mitigation method by regulatory agency or development size. We analyze 1058 locally and federally permitted wetland mitigation transactions in the Chicago region between 1993 and 2004. We show that decreasing mitigation thresholds have had striking effects on the methods and spatial distribution of wetland mitigation. In particular, the observed increase in mitigation bank use is driven largely by the needs of the smallest impacts. Conversely, throughout the time period studied, large developments have rarely used mitigation banking, and have been relatively unaffected by changing regulatory focus and banking industry growth. We surmise that small developments lack the scale economies necessary for feasible permittee responsible mitigation. Finally, we compare the rates at which compensation required by both county and federal regulators is performed across major watershed boundaries. We show that local regulations prohibiting cross-county mitigation lead to higher levels of crosswatershed mitigation than federal regulations without cross-county prohibitions. Our data suggest that local control over wetland mitigation may prioritize administrative boundaries over hydrologic function in the matter of selecting compensation sites.