98 



MITIGATION BANKING 



The complex web of regulations and the inability of some developments to avoid detrimentally 

 impacting wetlands has led to the concept of replacing wetland in various forms or systems. Costs for 

 complying with current regulations and uncertainties over permit delays and/or approvals have 

 encouraged proposals for establishing banks of protected /restored /created wetlarw that could facilitate 

 compliance wiin the replacement requirements. In a further attempt to expedite regulatory reviews, 

 various groups have proposed establishing specific areas where wetlands are prolected/restored/created 

 and cooperating parties could receive "credits" for wetlands in the bank that would be used to offset 

 their liaSllity for detrimcnuily impacting a wetland in a new development. Developers, often caught in 

 a confusin|, seemingly interminable web of unknowns related to potentially impacting a wetland as 

 part of their overall development proposal, are leading advocates. And it is understandable that 

 developers seek a simplified solution; many simply ask that they be told what it will cost and when a 

 permit will be issued so they can factor the delay and cost into tneir project planning. 



However, current delays and lengthy regulatory processes reflect: 



1) the complexity of wetlands and our inability to adequately evaluate functional 



values and insure replacement of form and function through mitigation; and, 



2) inability of regulatory agencies to agree on and implement standardized permit 



processing procedures. 



The present regulatory quagmire serves neither to protect all wetlands or their functional 

 values accomplish no-net loss or net-gain, nor to accommcnlate economic development in an orderly, 

 cost-effective manner. Some would say that the current regulatory approach fails to provide adequate 

 protection while others fault the interminable, aistly delays and inability to plan developments. Others 

 cite the continued, often piecemeal, loss of thousands of acres of wetland and our failure to implement 

 no-net loss on a local, regional, state or national basis much less accomplish any improvements in 

 restoring wetlands and their functional values. Many examples of disparate implementation of 

 regulations have also been articulated. Forceful arguments can doubtless be made for both sides of the 

 issue. The present controversy regarding wetland protection is not surprising given the short time 

 period for an almost complete reversal of a long established drainage policy. But our poor scientific 

 understanding of wetlands has also been a contributing factor. 



Economics are part of all natural resources management and are certainly no reason to oppose 

 the concept of wetland mitigation banks. Furthermore, opposition is no longer timelv. Mitigation 

 banks and banking programs are increasing almost exponeniially and developers are leading the efforts 

 while environmentalists often find themselves on the outside in opposition. A progress report on the 

 COE mitigation banking survey QWR 1992) showed that existing banks had increased from 13 in 1988 

 to 20 in 1991 with at least 100 in active or planning status in 1992. The survey identified 37 existing 

 banks with 64 planned banks that were exnecied to become active in 1992, and an additional 5 

 mitigation trusts. Of the existing banks, 38% are on the west coast, 27% in the northern plains, with 

 16% in each of the mid Atlantic and Gulf regions. Highway construction projects were involved in 

 60% of the banks and port (14%) and industrial development (11%) were the next most common. 

 States exclusively own 50% of the banks, 20% are privately owned, and local public bodies and 

 federal ownership account for another 20%. The largest was 7000 acres but only 15% were >640 

 acres, while 51 % were >40 acres and only 5% were < 10 acres. Over two-thirds were located in the 

 same hydrologic unit. 



The relevant question now is what impact do mitigation banks have on the Nation's wetland 

 and wildlife resources and can current rigid regulatory applications be modified to achieve the goal of 

 minimizing loss, and maintaining and restoring wetland functions. Do we achieve better quality 

 management for wetland resources within the structure of mitigation banking than without it? A 

 mitigation bank, in its usual form, gambles that focusing efforts on fewer and more significant 

 wetlands will have positive results for the landscape, even though centralization of those elements, and 

 loss of peripheral elements may have some negative effects. 



