Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T17:27:15.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Breaking the Environmental Gridlock: Advance Mitigation Programs for Ecological Impacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2010

Keith Greer  and
Marina Som
Keith Greer*
Affiliation:
San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego California
Marina Som
Affiliation:
San Diego State University, San Diego, California
*
Keith Greer, San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA, 92101; (phone) 619-699-7390; (fax) 619-699-1905; (e-mail) kgr@sandag.org
Get access

Abstract

The environmental review process and the required federal and state permits for wetlands and endangered species impacts have been blamed for delays in the development of critical infrastructure projects. Many of the delays are a result of negotiations surrounding the compensatory mitigation that is included as a part of the environmental review and included in the subsequent regulatory permits. Various programs around the nation are using proactive planning and advance compensatory mitigation to reduce delays and increase the environmental benefits associated with mitigation for infrastructure development. In this article, we provide case studies of four programs that illustrate how various agencies are incorporating advance mitigation into their infrastructure planning and implementation, and provide a critical examination of the attributes and status of these programs, along with the opportunities and challenges associated with advance mitigation. We have chosen these case studies to reflect a range of advance compensatory mitigation approaches toward endangered species and wetlands at various scales from four different regions of the nation. We contend that advanced mitigation offers a more effective and efficient approach. However, challenges exist in the need for up-front capital investment, the current lack of regulatory certainty, and lack of incentives to go beyond project-level mitigation. These challenges are significant, but are being addressed in some progressive ways across the nation. We believe that advance mitigation is the most cost-effective method for streamlining regional unavoidable impacts and should be explored and in any future federal surface transportation reauthorization.

Environmental Practice 12:227–236 (2010)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 227 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2003). Causes and Extent of Environmental Delays in Transportation Projects. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 28 pp. Available at http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNEPA/ReNepa.nsf/docs/9F32CD757AADB70D85256FC100111AB0?opendocument&Group=Environmental%20Streamlining%20and%20Stewardship&tab=REFERENCE (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Byrne, M. (2005). Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report Tool. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 23 pp.Google Scholar
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). Available athttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/ (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Davis, M.A., and Palumbo, M.G.. 2009. The Price of Residential Land in Large US Cities. Journal of Urban Economics 63(1):352–384; data located at Land and Property Values in the US, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, http://www.lincolninst.edu/resources/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Ignazio, J., and McDermott, K.. 2004. North Carolina's Ecosystem Enhancement Program: Mitigation for the Future, 18 pp. Available athttp://www.nceep.net/pages/TRB_Paper_North_Carolina_EEP_Final_7-30-04.pdf (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Dobson, A.P., Rodriguez, J.P., Roberts, W.M., and Wilcove, D.S.. 1997. Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States. Science 275(5299):550–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eco-Logical. 1995. Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 85 pp. Available at http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp (accessed January 25, 2010).Google Scholar
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 2009. Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report, 2009. EEP, Raleigh, NC, 31 pp. Available at http://www.nceep.net/news/annualreport/2009/EEP-annual-report(2009)_web.pdf (accessed January 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). 2010. Ecosystem Enhancement Program: Overview of Program and Presentation of Interim Budget, Board of Transportation. EEP, Raleigh, NC, 50 pp. Available at http://www.nceep.net/pages/BOT%20Presentation%20May%202010.pdf (accessed June 17, 2010).Google Scholar
Greenways. 2007. North Carolina—Leading the Way in Advanced Mitigation. Greenways 1(4):1–4.Google Scholar
Kiesecker, J.M., Copeland, H., Pocewicz, A., and McKenney, B.. 2010. Development by Design: Blending Landscape Level Planning with the Mitigation Hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(5):261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, R.C., and Taylor, W.A.. 1996. Washington's Wetland Resources. US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2425. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 16 pp. Available at http://wa.water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc/wetlands/ (accessed January 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Leonard, B. 2006. Wetland Mitigation Banking & WSDOT. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 3 pp. Available at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3864665/WETLAND-MITIGATION-BANKING-WSDOT-September-How-is-mitigation-banking-different (accessed August 2, 2010).Google Scholar
Marble, A., and Riva, X.. 2002. Guidelines for Selecting Compensatory Wetlands Mitigation Options. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 482. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 37 pp. Available at http://ttap.colostate.edu/Library/TRB/nchrp_rpt_482.pdf (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2003. Ecosystem Enhancement Program Mission Statement. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC, 1 p. Available at http://www.nceep.net/pages/Mission_Statement.htm (accessed June 17, 2010).Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2010. NCDOT and NCDENR-EEP. NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Raleigh, NC. Available at http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/NEU/NEUProcedures/NCDOT_EEP.html (accessed June 17, 2010).Google Scholar
Risenhoover, K.L. 2009. The Advance Environmental Mitigation Revolving Account (AEMRA) “Use It or Lose It.” Briefing to the State Environmental Managers, August. Unpublished report obtained from Ken Risenhoover, Wyoming Department of Transportation, on January 29, 2010.Google Scholar
Rutledge, D.T., Lepczyk, C.A., Xie, J., and Liu, J.. 2001. Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Endangered Species Hotspots in the United States. Conservation Biology 15(2):475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2004. Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Mitigation for Transportation Projects under the TransNet Extension Ordinance Environmental Mitigation Program. SANDAG no. 5000879. SANDAG, San Diego, 11 pp. Available at http://www.sandag.org/uploads/committeeid/committeeid_78_9098.pdf (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2009. Financial Market Update and Revision to FY 2010 TransNet Revenues and Transportation Development Act Apportionment. Agenda item no. 09-11-11. SANDAG, San Diego, 8 pp. Available at http://www.sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_2230_10450.pdf (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010. Land Use & Regional Growth: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. SANDAG, San Diego. Available at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=355&fuseaction=projects.detail (accessed February 14, 2010).Google Scholar
Thorne, J.H., Girvetz, E.H., and McCoy, M.C.. 2009. Evaluating Aggregate Terrestrial Impacts of Road Construction Projects for Advanced Regional Mitigation. Environmental Management 43(5):936–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (40 CFR Part 230): Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70):19593–19705. Available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-6918.htm (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link between Land and Water. EPA no. 843K95001. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC, 16 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/vital/wetlands.pdf (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Wyoming Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), November 7. Letter to Galen W. Hesterberg, USFWS, Washington, DC, 89 pp. Available athttp://environment.transportation.org/pdf/proj_delivery_stream/wyfhwa_programmcompr.pdf (accessed on August 2, 2010).Google Scholar
Venner, M. 2005. Early Mitigation for Net Environmental Benefit: Meaningful Off-setting Measures for Unavoidable Impacts. NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 10. Report prepared for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on the Environment.Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 84 pp. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/25-25(10)_FR.pdf (accessed February 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 1994. Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Bank Program Memorandum of Agreement, February 15. WSDOT, Olympia, 56 pp. Available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D2CB4169-FC69-4422-BC99-B65E7FD4F6A6/0/WetlandMOAFinal1994.pdf (accessed on August 2, 2010).Google Scholar
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. WSDOT Use of Private Mitigation Bank Credits Summary 4-1-2008. Internal report, April 1.WSDOT, Olympia, 3 pp. Unpublished report obtained from Ken Risenhoover, WYDOT, on January 29, 2010.Google Scholar
White, P.A., and Ernst, M.. 2003. Second Nature: Improving Transportation without Putting Nature Second. Defenders of the Wildlife, Washington, DC, 70 pp. Available at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/45b3r257 (accessed February 14, 2010).Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J.B, McElfish, J.M. Jr., Kihslinger, R., Bendick, R., and McKenney, B.A., Institute, for the Nature Conservancy & Environmental Law. 2009. The Next Generation of Mitigation: Linking Current and Future Mitigation Programs with State Wildlife Action Plans and Other State and Regional Plans. Environmental Law Institute and the Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, 5 pp. Available at http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11359 (accessed February 14, 2010).Google Scholar
Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). 2009. Incidental Take for FY 2008 Highway Construction Projects. WYDOT, Cheyenne, 1 p. Unpublished report obtained from Thomas Hart, WYDOT, on January 14, 2010.Google Scholar
Zedler, J., Shabman, L., Alvarez, V., Evans, R.O., Gardner, R.C., Gibbons, J.W., Gilliam, J.W., Johnston, C.A., Mitsch, W.J., Prestegaard, K., Redmond, A.M., Simenstad, C., and Turner, R.E.. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 322 pp.Google Scholar