* Executive Editor, 1999–2000, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review.
1 See Michael Lenetsky, Comment, President Clinton and Wetlands Regulation: Boon or Bane to the Environment? 13 Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 81, 81 n.1 (1994) (citing Wetlands: Will Clinton Be Bush?, N.Y. Times, Aug. 28, 1993, § 1, at 18). This approximate figure applies only to the wetlands originally found in the continental United States; the lack of a uniform method of wetlands delineation contributes to the inconsistent figures for the exact amount of wetlands. See id. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when European settlers first arrived, total wetlands acreage was more than 220 million acres in the lower 48 states, or about 5% of total land area. See Jeffrey A. Zinn & Claudia Copeland, 97014: Wetlands Issues in the 105th Congress (last modified Sept. 14, 1998) <http:// www.cnie.org/nle/wet-5.html> [hereinafter Wetlands Issues]. By 1980, total wetlands acreage was estimated at 104 million acres. See id. Losses continue, although the rate of loss has slowed considerably during the past decade. See id. Recent losses have been concentrated in the lower Mississippi River Valley, the upper Midwest, and the Southeast. See id. The Clinton Administration policies embodied five principles: 1) supporting no overall net loss of the Nation’s remaining wetlands together with increasing the quality and quantity of wetlands as a long-term goal; 2) making regulatory programs fair, flexible, and predictable; 3) encouraging options to regulatory programs; 4) expanding partnerships to protect and restore wetlands in an ecosystem/watershed context; and 5) basing wetlands policies on the best scientific data available. See id.
2 See Michael C. Blumm, The Clinton Wetlands Plan: No Net Gain in Wetlands Protection, 9 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 203, 203–04 (1994).
3 See Jonathan Silverstein, Comment, Taking Wetlands to the Bank: The Role of Wetlands Mitigation Banking in a Comprehensive Approach to Wetlands Protection, 22 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 129, 129 (1994).
4 See infra text accompanying notes 18–24.
5 See, e.g., Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133; Oliver A. Houck, Ending the War: A Strategy to Save America’s Coastal Zone, 47 Md. L. Rev. 358, 358 (1988). “No net loss” of wetlands is a wetlands resource conservation and management principle, under which, over the long term, loss of wetlands area or functional capacity is offset by gains in wetlands area or functional capacity due to wetlands restoration, enhancement, preservation, or creation. U.S. Department of Transportation Proposed Rules for Mitigating Wetlands Losses to Private Lands, 23 C.F.R. § 777.2 (1999).
6 See Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (1994); CWA Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. § 230 (1998).
7 See Virginia C. Veltman, Comment, Banking on the Future of Wetlands Using Federal Law, 89 Nw. U. L. Rev. 654, 657 (1995).
8 See id. at 658.
9 See, e.g., Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133.
10 See William W. Sapp, Mitigation Banking: Panacea or Poison for Wetlands Protection, 1 Envtl. L. 99, 103, 108 (1994); Silverstein, supra note 3, at 145–46.
11 See Lawrence R. Liebesman & David M. Plott, The Emergence of Private Wetlands Mitigation Banking, 13 Nat. Resources & Env’t 341, 371 (1998).
12 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 108.
13 See, e.g., Liebesman & Plott, supra note 11, at 371 (1998).
14 See Protecting America’s Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible, and Effective Approach, White House Off. on Envtl. Pol’y (Aug. 24, 1993).
15 See Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 55 Fed. Reg. 9210, 9211–13 (Mar. 12, 1990) [hereinafter MOA].
16 See Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 58605, 58609–14. (Nov. 28, 1995) [hereinafter Federal Guidance].
17 See, e.g., Liebesman & Plott, supra note 11, at 341; Veltman, supra note 7, at 683.
18 See Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 23 U.S.C.A. § 103 (1998) [hereinafter TEA-21].
19 See id.; Forecast ‘99, Engineering News-Rec., Jan. 25, 1999, at 49, 50.
20 See Don Merwin & Kathleen Lundy Springuel, TEA 21 Brews a Mix of Money and Balance, Engineering News-Rec., Oct. 19, 1998, at E-3.
21 See generally Michael G. LeDesma, Note, A Sound of Thunder: Problems and Prospects in Wetlands Mitigation Banking, 19 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 497, 497 (1994); Veltman, supra note 7, at 683 (indicating the need for clear regulatory support of wetlands mitigation banking).
22 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 131–32.
23 See id. at 131. Many of America’s urban areas and farmlands were once wetlands. See id. The first legislation on wetlands, the Swamp Lands Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860, conveyed to 16 states all swamp and flood lands so the states could convert these lands to agricultural use. See Hearing on Federal Wetlands Regulations: Hearing Before the Comm. on Small Business, 102d Cong. 54 (1991) (statement of Elizabeth Raisbeck, Senior Vice President, National Audubon Society).
24 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 132.
25 See, e.g., LeDesma, supra note 21, at 497–98; Veltman, supra note 7, at 655. Wetlands are now recognized as important for: the conveyance and storage of floodwater; the prevention of erosion and saltwater intrusion; sediment control; habitats for fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and other wildlife; habitats for endangered species; recreation; water supply and water quality maintenance; food production; timber production; archeological research; educational and research value; and open space and aesthetic value. See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 497–98. Nearly 35% of all rare and endangered species live in or rely upon wetlands. See Veltman, supra note 7, at 654.
26 See, e.g., LeDesma, supra note 21, at 498; Veltman, supra note 7, at 655. In 1991, the Boston Globe reported that if the United States loses just its “drier-end” wetlands (not commonly associated with designations like swamps or bogs), the public would incur costs of up to $75 billion for advanced waste water treatment to offset the impact from the loss of filtering functions provided by these wetlands. See Diane Dumanoski, Heavy Toll Seen If “Drier” Wetlands Are Developed, Boston Globe, Dec. 10, 1991, at 1.
27 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 656.
28 See id. Early laws tended to focus on waterfowl nesting and breeding (e.g., the Wetlands Loan Act of 1961, amendments to the Migratory Bird Stamp Act of 1934, and the Water Bank Act of 1970). See id. Congress has since recognized the broader importance of wetlands, and has attempted to enact more thorough legislation. See id. For example, the Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 denies federal funding for development of certain coastal barriers, many of which are wetlands; the Swampbuster Provision of the Food Security Act of 1985 prohibits government subsidies to farmers who grow crops on drained wetlands; and the Clean Water Act requires a permit for dredging and filling wetlands. See id.
29 See 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (1994); CWA Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. § 230 (1998).
30 See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). The CWA defines “pollutants” broadly, including dredged spoil and fill material, material used to increase a wetlands’ surface elevation. See id.
31 See Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. The Corps has had jurisdiction over dredging and filling since the River and Harbor Act of 1899. See Veltman, supra note 7, at 661.
32 See Peter A. Buchsbaum, Federal Regulation of Land Use: Uncle Sam the Permit Man, 25 Urb. Law. 589, 593–94 (1993); Lawrence R. Liebesman & Philip T. Hundemann, Regulatory Standards for Permits Under the Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Program, in The Natural Resources Law Manual 3, 3 (Richard J. Fink ed., 1995) (interpreting CWA to include adjacent wetlands).
33 See Wetlands Issues, supra note 1.
34 See, e.g., LeDesma, supra note 21, at 499. The Bush administration failed to achieve this goal because complicated issues surrounding wetland delineation delayed wetland protection. See id.
35 See id.
36 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 657.
37 See U.S. Dep’t of Transp. Proposed Rules for Mitigating Wetland Losses to Private Lands, 23 C.F.R. § 777.2 (1999).
38 See id.
39 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 657.
40 See id.
41 See Protecting America’s Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible, and Effective Approach, White House Off. on Envtl. Pol’y (Aug. 24, 1993).
42 See, e.g., LeDesma, supra note 21, at 499.
43 See Wetlands Issues, supra note 1; see also 58 Fed. Reg. 47,719–21 (1994) (referring to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidance letter implementing the President’s policy initiative).
44 See Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)(1) (1994).
45 See CWA Guideline, 40 C.F.R. § 230.10–.12 (1994).
46 See id. § 230.10(a), (d) (1994) (prohibiting discharge of dredged or fill material if there is a practicable alternative with a “less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem” and prohibiting discharge of dredged or fill material unless adverse impacts are minimized). The CWA Guidelines were subsequently clarified by the Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement. See MOA, supra note 15.
47 See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a); MOA, supra note 15. The CWA Guidelines specify that regulatory agencies shall presume that alternatives are available if the project is not water dependent. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(3); MOA, supra note 15, at 9212.
48 See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
49 See id. § 230.10(a)(3).
50 See id. § 230.10(d). The CWA Guidelines state that no permit shall be issued unless the applicant has taken all “appropriate and practicable steps” to “minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge.” See id. For example, a developer might schedule construction so as not to disrupt the site during the period when migratory birds nest in the area.
51 See CWA Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. § 230.75(d); MOA, supra note 15, at 9212. Although the CWA Guidelines include compensatory mitigation as part of minimization, the subsequent MOA distinguishes the two as individual steps in the sequencing process. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.75(d); MOA, supra note 15, at 9212.
52 See 40 C.F.R. § 230.75(d); MOA, supra note 15, at 9212.
53 See Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)(1); CWA Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. § 230.
54 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 661.
55 See 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b), (c). EPA accords great discretion to the Corps’ decisions regarding permit applications; as of 1995, EPA had exercised its veto power only 11 times since the inception of the CWA. See Veltman, supra note 7, at 661 n.68.
56 See 40 C.F.R. § 230; see also text at notes 43–44.
57 See National Wildlife Fed. v. Marsh, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,262, 20,264 (D.D.C. 1984).
58 See Blumm, supra note 2, at 222.
59 See Royal C. Gardner, Banking on Entrepreneurs: Wetlands, Mitigation Banking, and Takings, Iowa L. Rev. 527, 564 (1996); see also supra text accompanying notes 27–29.
60 See Lenetsky, supra note 1, at 84.
61 See id.; see also supra text accompanying notes 27–29.
62 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 536.
63 See id.
64 See id.
65 See, e.g., id. at 537; Robert D. Sokolove & Robert Thompson, The Future of Wetlands Regulation is Here, 23 Real Est. L.J. 78, 84–85 (1994).
66 See, e.g., Gardner, supra note 59, at 537; Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 84.
67 See MOA, supra note 15.
68 See id. at 9211.
69 See id. at 9211–12.
70 See id. at 9212.
71 See id.
72 See MOA, supra note 15, at 9213 & n.7; Veltman supra note 7, at 670.
73 MOA, supra note 15, at 9212.
74 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 671 (quoting Oliver A. Houck, More Net Loss of Wetlands: The Army-EPA Memorandum of Agreement on Mitigation Under the § 404 Program, 20 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,212, 10,215 (June 1990)).
75 See MOA, supra note 15, at 9215 n.7. This exception would apply to areas such as Alaska, where 45% of the state, or 174,000,000 acres, are wetlands; this comprises nearly two thirds of the nation’s remaining wetlands. Blumm, supra note 2, at 210.
76 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 671.
77 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 564.
78 See id.
79 See id.
80 See id. at 537–38.
81 See id.; see also Timothy D. Searchinger, Wetlands Issues 1993: Challenges and a New Approach, 4 Md. J. Contemp. Legal Issues 13, 36–37 (1993); Keith Schneider, Landowners Unite in Battle Against Regulators, N.Y. Times, Jan. 9, 1995, at A1.
82 See Issuance of Nationwide Permits for Single-Family Housing, 60 Fed. Reg. 38,650 (Jul. 27, 1995); U.S. EPA and U.S. Dep’t of the Army, Memorandum to the Field: Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements (Aug. 23, 1993) reprinted in 60 Fed. Reg. 13,709–11 (Mar. 14, 1995) [hereinafter Minimum Impacts Memorandum]; Gardner, supra note 59, at 538–39 (describing U.S. EPA & U.S. Department of the Army, Memorandum for the Field (Individual Permit Flexibility for Small Landowners) (March 6, 1995)).
83 See generally Minimum Impacts Memorandum, supra note 82.
84 See id. at 13,710.
85 See id.
86 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 538.
87 See id. at 539.
88 See generally Buchsbaum, supra note 2, at 596–97; 60 Fed. Reg. 38,650 (Jul. 27, 1995).
89 See 60 Fed. Reg. 38,662.
90 See id. at 38,663; Gardner, supra note 59, at 539.
91 See 60 Fed. Reg. 38,663 (stating that discharges “must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site, unless the D[istrict] E[ngineer] has approved a compensatory mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.”). This provision appears to contradict the preamble to the NWP issuance, which states that “[c]ompensatory mitigation will generally not be accepted in lieu of on-site avoidance and minimization.” Id. at 38,654.
92 See generally Federal Guidance, supra note 16; see also Liebesman & Plott, supra note 11, at 342.
93 See Federal Guidance, supra note 16, at 58,607.
94 See id.
95 See id. at 58,610.
96 See id.
97 See id. at 58,610, 58,613.
98 See Federal Guidance, supra note 16, at 58,610.
99 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 567.
100 See Liebesman & Plott, supra note 11, at 343.
101 See Federal Guidance, supra note 16, at 58,612. No early credits may be used unless: 1) the MBRT has approved the bank and mitigation plan; 2) the bank sponsor has obtained the mitigation site; and 3) the banking instrument contains “appropriate financial assurances.” Id. These early credits will be subject to higher mitigation ratios. See id.
102 See Liebesman & Plott, supra note 11, at 343.
103 See id.
104 See Federal Guidance, supra note 16, at 58,612.
105 See Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319 (1994) (identifying criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement procedures and penalties).
106 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 569.
107 Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133.
108 See supra text accompanying notes 69–72.
109 See infra text accompanying notes 116–23.
110 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133; Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 80.
111 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 672–73.
112 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 506; Veltman, supra note 7, at 673.
113 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 116. The attempted mitigation projects studied had only a 27% success rate. See id. Two other Florida studies show even lower success rates. See id.
114 See Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 80, 81; Veltman, supra note 7, at 673.
115 See Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 79.
116 See id.
117 See Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 79; Veltman, supra note 7, at 673.
118 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133.
119 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 541–42 (discussing U.S. EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Interagency Follow-Through Investigation of Compensatory Wetlands Mitigation Sites 1, 16 (May 1994) [hereinafter EPA & FWS Investigation]).
120 See id. at 541, 542.
121 See id. at 541–42.
122 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133; Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 80.
123 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133.
124 See id. Silverstein references Leonard Shabman et al., who called the process “paper mitigation.” See id. at n.37; see also Veltman, supra note 7, at 676 (quoting Roy R. Lewis, III, prominent wetlands restorer, who argued that the mitigation noncompliance is due to a lack of a “wetland police,” and to a lack of adequate funds and personnel properly to monitor mitigation projects).
125 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 676.
126 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 542 (discussing EPA & FWS Investigation, supra note 119, at 16).
127 See Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 80–81.
128 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 542 (discussing EPA & FWS Investigation, supra note 119, at 16); Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 80–81.
129 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 542 (discussing EPA & FWS Investigation, supra note 119, at 16).
130 See id.; Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 80–81.
131 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 133.
132 See id.
133 Gardner, supra note 59, at 542.
134 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 677.
135 See id. at 658.
136 See id.
As defined by the Association of State Wetland Managers, mitigation bank usually refers “to a moderate size to large wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement project undertaken by a single developer (public or private) or a consortium of developers to not only compensate for wetland impacts from a particular project but to act as a ‘bank’ with credits to compensate for future wetland projects and impacts.” Thus, credits are granted for mitigation efforts in advance of development, which can then be withdrawn as needed to compensate when development occurs.
Id. at 658 (citing Jon Kusler, Mitigation Banks and Joint Projects: A National Perspective on Issues, in Mitigation Banks and Joint Projects in the Context of Wetland Management Plans 1 (Association of State Wetland Managers, June 24–27, 1992)).
137 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 108–09.
138 See id. at 110; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 134. According to a 1993 Environmental Law Institute Report, 75% of all single-user banks are operated by state departments of transportation, port authorities, or local governments. See Sapp, supra note 10, at 110.
139 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 108.
140 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 500.
141 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 559; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137; Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 81.
142 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 559; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137; Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 82.
143 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 558–59; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137; Sokolove & Thompson, supra note 65, at 81.
144 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137.
145 See id. at 135.
146 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 506.
147 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 558; Veltman, supra note 7, at 658, 678.
148 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 558; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 135–36; Veltman, supra note 7, at 658, 678.
149 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 135.
150 See supra text accompanying notes 116–23.
151 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 678.
152 See id.
153 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 113, 115; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137–38.
154 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 115; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137.
155 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 136.
156 See id.; Veltman, supra note 7, at 673.
157 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 136; Veltman, supra note 7, at 673.
158 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 136.
159 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 560; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137; Veltman, supra note 7, at 658–59.
160 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137.
161 See id.; Veltman, supra note 7, at 658–59.
162 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 138–39.
163 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 111; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 138–39; Veltman, supra note 7, at 658–59.
164 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 508.
165 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 111.
166 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 138–39.
167 See id.
168 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 112.
169 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 679. Currently, developers forced to mitigate on-site will opt for the easiest and least expensive option allowed by their permit. See id.
170 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 519.
171 See id. at 505.
172 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 141.
173 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 508.
174 See id. at 502.
175 See id.
176 See id.
177 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 682.
178 See id. at 682–83.
179 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 505. The FWS observed that “making mitigation easier . . . will accelerate the destruction of original wetlands and let them be replaced by artificial wetlands that do not have the normal balance of species.” Id.
180 See Silvertein, supra note 3, at 140–41 (quoting Otis Wollan of the Placer County, CA Water Agency).
181 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 141.
182 See id. The Federal Guidance expresses a preference for restoration projects because of their greater likelihood of success. See Federal Guidance, supra note 16, at 58,608. Creation projects are authorized, but discouraged. See id. Simple preservation of existing wetlands may generate mitigation credits, but only in exceptional circumstances. See id. Furthermore, except in exceptional circumstances, preservation is only to be used in conjunction with other restoration, enhancement, or creation projects. See id. Preservation projects do offer some advantages, however, including permanent protection, removal from the set of potentially permitted destruction, and previously-achieved success. See Gardner, supra note 59, at 553.
183 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 508.
184 See, e.g., TEA-21, supra note 18, § 103(b)(6)(M) (specifying that development must be within service area of mitigation bank in order to use mitigation credits to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements).
185 See Federal Guidance, supra note 16, at 58,611.
186 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 682–83.
187 See id. at 683.
188 See id.
189 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 577; LeDesma, supra note 21, at 502.
190 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 577.
191 See id. at 578–79.
192 See Federal Guidance, supra note 16.
193 See TEA-21, supra note 18.
194 See Howard Stusman & Tom Ichniowski, Tea Time Moves to the Fast Lane, Engineering News-Rec., July 27/Aug. 3, 1998, at 87, 87.
195 See Forecast ‘99, supra note 19, at 50. The U.S. Department of Transportation and lawmakers report that of the $217 billion, an estimated $198 billion is guaranteed, and another $19 billion is possible if fuel-tax revenue is high enough and congressional appropriators agree to spend it. See Janice I. Dixon, TEA-21: Action Shifts to States, Engineering News-Rec., Oct. 19, 1998, at 32.
196 See Forecast ‘99, supra note 19, at 50.
197 See id.
198 See Stusman & Ichniowski, supra note 194, at 88.
199 See id.
200 See TEA-21, supra note 18, § 103(b)(6)(M). Congress first embraced wetlands mitigation banking in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 by authorizing the use of federal-aid highway funds to establish banks for use by state highway departments. See Pub. L. No. 102–240, § 1006(d)(13), 105 Stat. 1914, 1926 (1991) (replaced by TEA-21, supra note 18).
201 See TEA-21, supra note 18, § 103(b)(6)(M). The Act states:
With respect to participation in a natural habitat or wetland mitigation effort related to a project funded under this title that has an impact that occurs within the service area of a mitigation bank, preference shall be given, to the maximum extent practicable, to the use of the mitigation bank if the bank contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks . . . or other applicable Federal law (including regulations).
Id. This provision supports mitigation banking not just for wetland loss, but also for natural habitat efforts. See id.
202 See Can Agencies Pass Swampbuilding 101?, Engineering News-Rec., Apr. 18, 1994, at 16, 16.
203 See Foster J. Beach, III, TEA 21 Paves the Way for Faster Environmental Reviews and Single-Contractor Procurements, Engineering News-Rec., Oct. 19, 1998, at E-12.
204 See Can Agencies Pass Swampbuilding 101?, Engineering News-Rec., Apr. 18, 1994, at 16, 16.
205 See infra text accompanying notes 206–15.
206 See infra text accompanying notes 216–27.
207 See infra text accompanying notes 228–34.
208 See infra text accompanying notes 235–39.
209 See infra text accompanying notes 240–50.
210 See infra text accompanying notes 251–65.
211 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 506 (citing Joy B. Zedler & Rene Langis, Comparisons of Constructed and Natural Salt Marshes of San Diego Bay, Restoration and Management Notes, Summer 1991, at 21, 25).
212 See supra text accompanying notes 140–60.
213 See supra text accompanying notes 160–77.
214 See supra text accompanying notes 178–79.
215 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 141 (citing David Salvesen, Wetlands: Mitigating and Regulating Development Impacts 33 (1990)). Salvesen stated that the Corps has actually “led the nation in developing wetlands habitat.” See id. at n.16. The anti-environment attitude of the construction industry in general is also a cause for concern. See, e.g., Peter Ruane, American Road & Transportation Builders Association, Engineering News-Rec. Executive Roundtable, Feb. 1, 1998, at C-14 (stating that “the environmental community’s ‘jihad,’ or holy war, against [highway construction] is one of the biggest threats facing the transportation construction industry,” and suggesting that “an aggressive counter-offensive” is necessary to respond to the “obstructionist activities” of “overzealous environmentalists”).
216 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 686–87; see also supra text accompanying notes 140–60.
217 See supra text accompanying notes 116–23.
218 See supra text accompanying notes 180–83.
219 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 141.
220 See id. at 154, 157–58.
221 See generally Liebesman & Plott, supra note 11, at 342.
222 See Kathleen Lundy Springuel, Wetlands Banking Gets a Boost, Engineering News-Rec., Oct. 19, 1998, at E-11.
223 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 145–46.
224 See id. at 146.
225 See id.
226 See id.
227 See id.
228 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 682.
229 See id.
230 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 577–78 (discussing need for statutory affirmation of mitigation banking concept). By far, the most common type of mitigation bank is for state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). See id. at 569 n.263.
231 See generally, Gardner, supra note 59, at 578 (discussing uncertainty in absence of statutory support); Silverstein supra note 3, at 146 (discussing influence of regulatory policy on market demand for credits).
232 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 682–83.
233 See id. at 683 (stating need for regulations supporting mitigation banking).
234 See TEA-21, supra note 18, § 103(b)(6)(M).
235 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 553.
236 See id.
237 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 155.
238 See id.
239 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 682.
240 See id. at 683.
241 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 500.
242 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 660.
243 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 577. The federal guidance explicitly states:
The policies set out in this document are not final agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. The guidance is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. The guidance does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations, establish a binding norm on any party and it is not finally determinative of the issues addressed.
Federal Guidance, supra note 16, at 58,606.
244 See, e.g., Gardner, supra note 59, at 581; Veltman, supra note 7, at 684.
245 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 685.
246 See id. at 685.
247 See id. at 681.
248 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 500.
249 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 681–82.
250 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 500–01.
251 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 156.
252 See id. at 156.
253 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 505.
254 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 155.
255 See Veltman, supra note 7, at 686.
256 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 152.
257 See id. at 146–47.
258 See id. at 152.
259 See id. at 146.
260 See id.
261 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 505; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 152; Veltman, supra note 7, at 686–87.
262 See supra text accompanying notes 111–14, 153–56.
263 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 152.
264 See id.
265 See id. at 152–53.
266 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 115; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137–38.
267 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 115; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137–38.
268 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 113; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137–38.
269 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 113, 115; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137–38.
270 See LeDesma, supra note 21, at 508–09.
271 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 580. A regulatory agency that operates a mitigation bank could simultaneously compete with, and exert regulatory control over, privately operated banks. See id.
272 See Sapp, supra note 10, at 109–10; Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137.
273 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 137.
274 See Evaluation of Preservation and Fee-Based Compensation as Methods for Department of Transportation (DOT) Compensatory Mitigation, in Environmental Research Needs in Transportation, 1997–2002 (last modified May 21, 1997) <http://itre.ncsu.edu/ itre/cte/wetlands_trb.html>.
275 See id.
276 See id.
277 See Silverstein, supra note 3, at 146.
278 See id.
279 See Gardner, supra note 59, at 577.
280 See id.