Environmental Management

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 239–253 | Cite as

Land Use Planning and Social Equity in North Carolina’s Compensatory Wetland and Stream Mitigation Programs

Article

Abstract

The U.S. Clean Water Act requires compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream damage through restoration of damaged aquatic ecosystems. We evaluate the North Carolina’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), a state agency responsible for compensatory mitigation. We compare communities gaining and losing aquatic resources during mitigation, finding new types of socioeconomic disparities that contradict previous studies of mitigation program behavior. We find average distances between impact and mitigation sites for streams (43.53 km) and wetlands (50.3 km) to be larger in North Carolina than in off-site mitigation programs in other regions previously studied. We also find that aquatic resources in the State are lost from urbanized areas that are more affluent, white, and highly educated, and mitigated at sites in rural areas that are less affluent, less well educated, and have a higher percentage of minorities. We also analyze the relationship between urban growth indicators and EEP accumulation of compensation sites. Growth indicators and long-term population projections are uncorrelated with both projected transportation impacts and advance mitigation acquired by the EEP, suggesting that growth considerations can be more effectively incorporated into the EEP’s planning process. We explore the possibility that spatial mismatches could develop between watersheds that are rapidly growing and those that are gaining mitigation. We make recommendations for ways that regulators incorporate growth indicators into the mitigation planning process.

Keywords

Land use planning Section 404 clean water act Environmental planning Ecosystem service market Mitigation banking Ecological restoration 

References

  1. Albrecht V, Wenzel M (1996) A view from the private sector. In: Marsh LL, Porter DR, Salvesen DA (eds) Mitigation banking: theory and practice. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkon AH (2006) Where we live, work, eat and play: approaching food from an environmental justice perspective. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American sociological association. Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p103542_index.html. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  3. BenDor T, Brozovic N, Pallathucheril VG (2007) Assessing the socioeconomic impacts of wetland mitigation in the Chicago region. Journal of the American Planning Association 73(3):263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BenDor T, Sholtes J, Doyle M (2009) Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program. Ecological Applications (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Boyer T, Polasky S (2004) Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 24(4):744–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryson H, Leslie A (2008) The NC ecosystem enhancement program’s local watershed planning initiatives: public involvement in western North Carolina. Building sustainable communities for the 21st century, a roundtable conference of the southeast water forum. Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpendo S, Kramer E, Lee J, Samples K (2007) Using GIS to model the effects of potential wetland mitigation sites on water quality in Georgia. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia water resources conference, University of Georgia, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinton WJ (1994) Executive order 12898: federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/exec_order_12898.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2005
  9. Corps and EPA (1990) 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) GuidelinesGoogle Scholar
  10. Corps and EPA (2008) Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources; final rule. Federal Register. 73 Fed. Reg. 70 19593–19705Google Scholar
  11. D’Ignazio J, McDermott K, Gilmore B, Russo C (2005) North Carolina’s ecosystem enhancement program: mitigation for the future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1941:175–183Google Scholar
  12. Dye Management Group (2007) Study of the merger of ecosystem enhancement program and clean water management trust fund: final report of findings and recommendationsGoogle Scholar
  13. EEP (2005) Swift Creek detailed assessment and targeting of management report [online]. Tetra Tech, Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Swift_Creek/Swift%20Creek.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 09
  14. EEP (2007) Peachtree-Martins Creek Local watershed plan phase 3: watershed management plan. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  15. EEP (2008) Policy, process and procedures manual [Online]. Raleigh, NC. http://www.nceep.net/abouteep/PPPM2/Text%20Sections%20and%20Front%20Matter/TOC-2004-10-15.htm. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  16. EEP (2009a). Awards and recognition [Online]. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NC. http://www.nceep.net/abouteep/awards2.html. Accessed 26 April 09
  17. EEP (2009b) EEP’s targeted local watersheds [Online]. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NC. http://www.nceep.net/pages/lwp.htm. Accessed 28 April 09
  18. ESRI (2008) ArcGIS 9.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernandez L (1999) An analysis of economic incentives in wetlands policies addressing biodiversity. The Science of the Total Environment 240:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernandez L, Karp L (1998) Restoring wetlands through wetlands mitigation banks. Environmental & Resource Economics 12:323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. FHA (2001) Transportation and community and system preservation (TCSP) pilot program third-year report 2001 [Online]. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/tcsp3rdyr.htm. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  22. General Assembly of North Carolina (2008) Session law 2008-152, senate bill 1885: an act to promote compensatory mitigation by private mitigation banks, as recommended by the environmental review commission [Online]. General Assembly of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/PDF/2007-2008/SL2008-152.pdf. Accessed 9 July 09
  23. General Assembly of North Carolina (2009) Session law 2009-337, senate bill 755: an act to promote the use of compensatory mitigation banks for riparian buffer protection and nutrient offset payments, to make clarifying changes to the statutes governing compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream impacts, and to direct the department of environment and natural resources to study certain impacts that the promotion of compensatory mitigation banks may have on the ecosystem enhancement program. http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S755v7.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  24. Gilmore W (2005) North Carolina’s ecosystem-impact innovation. National Wetlands Newsletter 27(5):15Google Scholar
  25. Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 national land-cover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70(7):829–840Google Scholar
  26. Hough P, Robertson M (2009) Mitigation under section 404 of the clean water act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17(1):15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelsey H, Porter DE, Scotta G, Neet M, White D (2004) Using geographic information systems and regression analysis to evaluate relationships between land use and fecal coliform bacterial pollution. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298(2):197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King DM, Herbert LW (1997) The fungibility of wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter 19(5):10–13Google Scholar
  29. Klimek S (2010) Deficiencies documented in spatial analysis of the ecosystem enhancement program. National Wetlands Newsletter 32(4):18Google Scholar
  30. Kyratso M, Yiorgos P (2004) Defining a geographically weighted regression model of urban evolution. Application to the city of Volos, Greece [Online]. 44th European Congress of the European Regional Science Association, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (August 25–29, 2004). http://www-sre.wu-wien.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa04/PDF/507.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  31. LI E (2003) Third stakeholder forum on federal wetlands mitigation Washington. Environmental Law Institute, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Lupi F, Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP (2002) The economic equivalency of drained and restored wetlands in Michigan. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5):1355–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Madsen B, Carroll N, Moore Brands K (2010) State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation programs worldwide. [Online]. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2010
  34. Mansfield ER, Helms BP (1982) Detecting multicollinearity. The American Statistician 36(3):158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manuel PM (2003) Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: cases from the Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada. Wetlands 23(4):921–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urbana-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71(4):1232–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  39. National Wetlands Policy Forum (1988) Protecting America’s wetlands: an action agenda, the final report of the national wetlands policy forum, the conservation foundation. Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  40. N.C. Office of State Budget and Management (2009) County population estimates and projections [Online]. North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Raleigh NC. http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates.shtm. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  41. NCDOT (2008) 2009–2015 state transportation improvement program [Online]. N.C. Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. http://www.ncdot.org/PLANNING/development/tip/TIP/. Accessed 28 Dec 08
  42. NCDENR, NCDOT and Corps (2003) Memorandum of agreement among the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.C Department of Transportation and N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  43. NCDWQ (2009) Stream, wetland, and buffer mitigation [Online]. North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitigation.html. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  44. New Hanover County Local Watershed Planning (2002) For the 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Containing Burnt Mill, Upper and Lower Smith, Prince George, Ness, Dock, Spring Branch, and Sturgeon Creeks and the Northeast Cape Fear River: Local Watershed Plan. http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/new%20hanover/New%20Hanover%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  45. NRC (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the clean water act. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds JE, Regalado A (2002) The effects of wetlands and other factors on rural land values. Appraisal Journal 70(2):182Google Scholar
  47. Robertson M, Hayden N (2008) Evaluation of a market in wetland credits: entrepreneurial wetland banking in Chicago. Conservation Biology 22(3):636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodríguez D, Godschalk D, Norton RK Aytur S (2004) The connection between land use and transportation in land use plans. Report Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Project # 2003-16. Department of City and Regional Planning, Chapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruhl JB, Salzman J (2006) The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people. National Wetlands Newsletter 28(2):9Google Scholar
  50. Salzman J, Ruhl JB (2000a) Currencies and the commodification of environmental law. Stanford Law Review 53(3):607–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salzman J, Ruhl JB (2000b) Currencies and the commodification of environmental law. Stanford Law Review 53:607–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seaber PR, Kapinos FP, Knapp GL (1994) Hydrologic unit maps U.S. geological survey, water supply paper 2294 [Online]. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2294/. Accessed 20 July 09
  53. Shabman L, Scodari P (2005) The future of wetlands mitigation banking. Choices 20(1):65–69Google Scholar
  54. Shrader-Frechette KS (2002) Environmental justice: creating equality, reclaiming democracy Cambridge. Oxford University Press, MAGoogle Scholar
  55. StataCorp (2008) Stata statistical software: release 10. StataCorp, LP, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. Census (2009) The American community survey [Online]. United States Census, Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. Accessed 7 Sept 09
  57. Walsh CJ, Waller KA, Gehling J, MacNally R (2007) Riverine invertebrate assemblages are degraded more by catchment urbanization than by riparian deforestation. Freshwater Biology 52:574–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Gatti R (1997a) Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Gatti R (1997b) Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. White D, Shabman LA (1995) National wetland mitigation banking study watershed-based wetlands planning: a case study report (IWR Report 95-WMB-8). Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  61. Woodward RT, Wui Y-S (2001) The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 37(2):257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zedler JB (1996) Coastal mitigation in Southern California: the need for a regional restoration strategy. Ecological Applications 6(1):84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations