Newly planted willow on a stream and wetland mitigation project in the mid-Atlantic. (photo by Trout Headwaters, Inc)
Imagine you’re an environmental regulator, and you have two projects on the board. One project proposes to fill in and pave over a 10-acre wetland, and the other proposes to restore the ecological function of a damaged 10-acre wetland. Which project should have the easier, shorter, permitting process?
After all, lead scientists around the world have just told us this year, through a clear United Nations Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, that more than 85 percent of the world’s wetlands have been eliminated over the past three centuries, while the amount of land designated as “urban” has doubled just since 1992.
When nearly all of our wetlands, that provide critical habitat, plus store and filter our freshwater, have been eliminated, it seems like a no-brainer that the wetland improvement project should be fast-tracked.
But the way environmental permitting works today, all projects get dropped into the same regulatory permitting funnel. What our two example projects have in common is that they both involve working in and around a defined wetland, and the permit is really a permit to impact waters of the United States (including wetlands). But does it make sense for these two projects, with essentially opposite intentions, to be run through the same regulatory permitting process?
“The fastest, most responsible way to fill a compensatory mitigation need is to buy a bank credit, “ reasons Mike Sprague, founding member of the National Environmental banking Association (NEBA) and past president of the National Mitigation Banking Association. Sprague’s company, Trout Headwaters, Inc., based in Livingston, Mont. offers mitigation banking and other ecological restoration services to its clients.
The 2008 Mitigation Banking Rule prioritizes mitigation banking as the best choice for meeting mitigation needs. Two other forms of compensatory mitigation, in-lieu-fee programs and permittee responsible mitigation are falling short of the mandate for “no net loss” of wetlands because among other things, environmental offset actions come after, not before, the wetland impact occurs.
“Bank credits answer the environmental mitigation need immediately and in advance,” says Sprague. “What if we actually started to prioritize environmental restoration and mitigation projects? Then there’s a ready-built answer for any impact project that comes along that needs a (compensatory mitigation) offset and the environment has gained – not suffered. And, even more importantly, these banks are to be managed and protected in perpetuity. It’s a clear win and a clear path for everyone.”
The new administration should issue orders to streamline, expedite, and green-light environmental permits for ecological restoration and mitigation projects. This would unleash private investment in preservation, enhancement and restoration of vital natural resources to immediately, directly and effectively begin combatting climate change.
The National Environmental Banking Association (NEBA) stands as the leading national voice for the environmental and mitigation banking industry in the United States. Formed to represent professionals and companies engaged in mitigation, conservation, and environmental credit markets, NEBA advocates for market-based solutions that deliver measurable, science-driven ecological outcomes. At its core, NEBA supports the
The National Environmental Banking Association (NEBA) recently submitted formal comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the proposed update to the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS). These comments reflect NEBA’s continued commitment to regulatory clarity, consistency, and workable implementation for mitigation bankers, landowners, and project sponsors nationwide. In its submission,