The geography of trading ecosystem services: A case study of wetland and stream compensatory mitigation markets

Harvard Environmental Law Review

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 229-296

  Womble, Philip ^a   Doyle, Martin ^b  

^a ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; CLIMATE CHANGE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; EMISSIONS TRADING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; POLLUTION TAX; REGULATORY APPROACH; TRADE-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS; WETLAND MANAGEMENT;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84861764971     PISSN: 01478257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (500)

1. BENJAMIN CASHORE ET AL., GOVERNING THROUGH MARKETS 10 (2004).
2. Sam Napolitano et al., The U. S. Acid Rain Program: Key Insights from the Design, Operation, and Assessment of a Cap-and-Trade Program, 20 ELECTRICITY J. 47 (2007).
3. A. Danny Ellerman & Barbara K. Buchner, The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: Origins, Allocation, and Early Results, 1 REV. ENVTL. ECON. & POL'Y. 66 (2007).
4. Zoé A. Hamstead & Todd K. BenDor, Overcompliance in Water Quality Trading Programs: Findings from a Qualitative Case Study in North Carolina, 28 ENV'T & PLANNING C: GOV'T & POL'Y 1 (2010).
5. J. B. Ruhl et al., A Practical Guide to Habitat Conservation Banking Law as Policy, 20 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 26 (2005).
6. CLAIRE WELTY ET AL., UNIV. OF MARYLAND-BALTIMORE CNTY COLL. OF ENG'G AND INFO. TECH., FINAL REPORT: USING AN "IMPERVIOUS PERMIT" ALLOWANCE SYSTEM TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY (2005), available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer-abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/ display.abstractDetail/abstract/7148/report/F.
7. John H. Annala, New Zealand's ITQ System: Have the First Eight Years Been a Success or a Failure?, 6 REVIEWS FISH BIOLOGY & FISHERIES 43 (1996).
8. See NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT (2001) [hereinafter NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES].
9. See Press Release, Office of the Sec'y, USDA, Secretary's Memorandum 1056-001: Establishment of the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets (Dec. 15, 2008), available at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/SM1056-001.htm;
10. Molly Peters Stanley & Katherine Hamilton, Seeds of Change for U. S. Environmental Markets, ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE (Mar. 19, 2010), http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page-id= 7500§ion=home.
11. Margaret Krudysz et al., Intra-Community Spatial Variability of Particulate Matter Size Distributions in Southern California/Los Angeles, 9 ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY & PHYSICS DISCUSSIONS 1061, 1061 (2009).
12. WILLIAM H. SCHLESINGER, BIOGEOCHEMISTRY: AN ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL CHANGE 53-60 (2d ed. 1997).
13. Research on geographic constraints for environmental markets is primarily limited to the air and water quality emissions trading contexts. See, e.g., R. Scott Farrow et al., Pollution Trading in Water Quality Limited Areas: Use of Benefits Assessment and Cost-Effective Trading Ratios, 81 LAND ECON. 191, 191-205 (2005);
14. Ming-Feng Hung & Daigee Shaw, A Trading-Ratio System for Trading Water Pollution Discharge Permits, 49 J. ENVTL. ECON. & MGMT. 83, 83-102 (2005);
15. Frank C. Krysiak & Patrick Schweitzer, The Optimal Size of a Permit Market, 60 J. ENVT'L ECON. & MGMT. 133, 133-43 (2010);
16. Jonathan Remy Nash & Richard L. Revesz, Markets and Geography: Designing Marketable Permit Schemes to Control Local and Regional Pollutants, 28 ECOLOGY L. Q. 569, 569-661 (2001);
17. Tom Tietenberg, Tradeable Permits for Pollution Control When Emission Location Matters: What Have We Learned? 5 ENVTL. & RESOURCE ECON. 95, 95-113 (1995).
18. See, e.g., Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008) [hereinafter Corps Mitigation Rule];
19. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 98 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008) [hereinafter EPA Mitigation Rule];
20. James Boyd et al., Trading Cases: Five Examples of the Use of Markets in Environmental and Resource Management, in THE RFF READER IN ENVTL. AND RESOURCE POLICY 56, 58 (Wallace E. Oates ed., 2d ed. 2006);
21. LEONARD SHABMAN & PAUL SCODARI, RESOURCES FOR THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF WETLANDS CREDIT SALES 22(2004), available at http://www.rff.org/ documents/RFF-DP-04-48.pdf;
22. Todd BenDor, Joel Sholtes, & Martin Doyle, Landscape Characteristics of a Stream and Wetland Mitigation Program, 19 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 2078, 2088-90 (2009).
23. James Salzman & J. B. Ruhl, Currencies and the Commodification of Environmental Law, 53 STAN. L. REV. 607, 626-29 (2000).
24. Pub. L. No. 101-529, 104 Stat. 2468 (1990)
25. (codified in scattered sections of 42 U. S. C. (2006)).
26. U. S. C. § 7511 (a) (1990) (designating areas exceeding National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone).
27. U. S. C. § 7503 (c) (1990);
28. ARNOLD W. REITZE, JR., AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 57 (2001);
29. THOMAS H. TIETENBERG, EMISSIONS TRADING: AN EXERCISE IN REFORMING POLLUTION POLICY 61-62 (1985).
30. See, e.g., Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulation: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion, 29 J. ENVTL. ECON. & MGMT. S43, S60-63 (1995);
31. Scott R. Milliman & Raymond Prince, Firm Incentives to Promote Technological Change in Pollution Control, 17 J. ENVTL. ECON. & MGMT. 247, 260-61 (1989).
32. 2 Emissions Trading Program: Cost Savings Without Allowance Trades, CONTEMPORARY ECON. POL'Y, July 1996, at 79, 81. Indeed, a substantial portion of the cost savings associated with the ARP is attributed to competition-induced technological innovation.
33. Winston Harrington, Richard O. Morgenstern, & Peter Nelson, on the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates, 19 J. POL'Y ANALYSIS & MGMT. 297, 309-10 (2000). Proponents of entrepreneurial aquatic resource mitigation banking also assert that a "competitive market [for wetland and stream offsets]⋯ may encourage innovation in creation and restoration approaches."
34. Lisa M. Schenck, Wetlands Protection: Regulators Need to Give Credit to Mitigation Banking, 9 DICKINSON J. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 103, 138 (2000). The effect of trading zone size on technological innovation has received little academic attention. However, it is well acknowledged that larger trading zones create more competitive markets.
35. See, e.g., Josh Shaffer, Proposal to Remove Dam Raises Concerns, RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER, Apr. 22, 2010, available at http://www.newsobserver.com/ 2010/04/22/448772/in-fight-over-dam-sides-askwhats.html.
36. David A. Malueg & Andrew J. Yates, Bilateral Oligopoly, Private Information, and Pollution Permit Markets, 43 ENVTL. & RESOURCE ECON. 553, 553-65 (2009).
37. Michael J. Bean & Lynn E. Dwyer, Mitigation Banking as an Endangered Species Conservation Tool, 30 ENVTL. L. REP. 10537, 10547 (2000).
38. See, e.g., Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008);
39. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008).
40. Todd K. BenDor & Martin W. Doyle, Planning for Ecosystem Service Markets, 76 J. AM. PLANNING ASS'N 59, 60 (2010).
41. Lauraine G. Chestnut & David M. Mills, A Fresh Look at the Benefits and Costs of the U. S. Acid Rain Program, 77 J. ENVTL. MGMT. 252, 255 (2005).
42. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 38500-38599 (West 2007).
43. Palmer Hough & Morgan Robertson, Mitigation Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where It Comes From, What It Means, 17 WETLANDS ECOLOGY & MGMT. 15, 15-33 (2009);
44. J. B. Ruhl, Stacking and Bundling and Bears, Oh My!, NAT'L WETLANDS NEWSL. (Envtl. Law. Inst., Washington, D. C.), Jan.-Feb. 2010, at 24-25. The first mitigation banks were actually established in the 1980s, preceding the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that initiated the ARP, but trades in the mitigation program were isolated and fairly local in comparison to the nationwide ARP. Indeed, the 2008 Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule represents the first federal codification of the aquatic resource mitigation program.
45. See generally, e.g., NATURE'S SERVICES: SOCIETAL DEPENDENCE ON NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS (Gretchen C. Daily ed., 1997);
46. THE NEW ECONOMY OF NATURE: THE QUEST TO MAKE CONSERVATION PROFITABLE (Gretchen C. Daily & Katherine Ellison ed., 2002);
47. Robert Costanza et al., The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, 387 NATURE 253, 253-60 (1997);
48. See Morgan M. Robertson, Emerging Ecosystem Service Markets: Trends in a Decade of Entrepreneurial Wetland Banking, 4 FRONTIERS ECOLOGY & ENV'T 297, 297-98 (2006).
49. See, e.g., Michael Jenkins et al., Markets for Biodiversity Services: Potential Roles and Challenges, 46 ENV'T 32, 32-42 (2006).
50. See, e.g., J. B. Ruhl & R. Juge Gregg, Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetland Mitigation Banking, 20 STAN. ENVTL. L. J. 365, 365-92 (2001).
51. See, e.g., Todd BenDor, Nicholas Brozoric, & Vorkki George Pallathucheril, The Social Impacts of Wetland Mitigation Policies in the United States, 4 J. PLAN. LITERATURE 341, 341-57 (2008).
52. See, e.g., Martin W. Doyle & Andrew J. Yates, Stream Ecosystem Service Markets Under No Net Loss Regulation, 69 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 820, 820-27 (2010).
53. See, e.g., Douglas J. Spieles, Meagan Coneybear, & Jonathan Horn, Community Structure and Quality After 10 Years in Two Central Ohio Mitigation Bank Wetlands, 38 ENVTL. MGMT. 837, 837-52 (2006).
54. See Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 715-18 (2006);
55. Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. v. U. S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U. S. 159, 159-61 (2001). Notably, after the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Rapanos civil case, a settlement required the plaintiff (John A. Rapanos) to provide compensatory mitigation for the 54 acres of wetlands he filled without Corps authorization. At a cost of approximately $750, 000, Rapanos agreed to create or restore at least 100 acres of wetlands, including a buffer zone. Rapanos also agreed to preserve 135 acres of wetlands and paid a $150, 000 civil penalty.
56. See Consent Decree, United States v. Rapanos (No. 94-CV-70788-DT, E. D. Mich., Dec. 29, 2008), available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ decrees/civil/cwa/rapanos-cd.pdf;
57. Press Release, U. S. Dep't of Justice, John Rapanos Agrees to Pay for Clean Water Act Violations (Dec. 29, 2008), available at http://www.justice.gov/ opa/pr/2008/December/08-enrd-1152.html.
58. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.2 (2008);
59. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 92 (2008).
60. William J. Mitsch & James G. Gosselink, The Value of Wetlands: Importance of Scale and Landscape Setting, 35 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 25, 27 (2000);
61. Joy B. Zedler, Wetlands at Your Service: Reducing Impacts of Agriculture at the Watershed Scale, 1 FRONTIERS ECOLOGY & ENV'T 65, 65-72 (2003).
62. See Dennis M. King & Luke W. Herbert, The Fungibility of Wetlands, NAT'L WETLANDS NEWSL., Sept.-Oct. 1997, at 10-13;
63. JAMES BOYD & LISA WAINGER, RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, MEASURING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS: THE USE OF LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE ENVIRONMENTAL TRADES AND COMPENSATION 3(2003), available at http://ageconsearch. umn. edu/bitstream/10738/1/dp020063.pdf;
64. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. §§ 332.2, 332.3 (d) (2008);
65. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. §§ 230.92, 230.93 (d) (2008).
66. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.2;
67. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R § 230.92.
68. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. §§ 332.2, 332.3 (d);
69. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. §§ 230. 92, 230.93 (d).
70. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b);
71. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b).
72. Our research identified mitigation bank service area requirements or preferences for all Corps districts and states with compensatory mitigation siting preferences. Corps or state regulatory practices with respect to mitigation bank service areas are often undocumented, or provide flexibility to deviate from documented service area preferences on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, after we reviewed mitigation bank service area sizes set in published Corps district regulatory guidelines, memoranda of agreement between the Corps and other federal or state agencies, state regulations, state statutes, and state regulatory preferences, we subsequently conducted phone and e-mail interviews with knowledgeable regulatory personnel to clarify or acquire service area procedures. These phone and e-mail interviews are catalogued in Appendix II: Citations for Telephone and E-mail Interviews with U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory District, State, and other Interagency Review Team Representatives (available online at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/ elr/vol36-1/appendix2.pdf). Citations to these interviews in this Article are cited directly to their location in Appendix II.
73. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. §§ 325, 332;
74. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.
75. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c);
76. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (c);
77. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 140-49.
78. GÖRAN I. ÅGREN & ERNESTO BOSATTA, THEORETICAL ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY 6 (1996).
79. David M. Post, Martin W. Doyle, & John L. Sabo, The Problem of Boundaries in Defining Ecosystems: A Potential Landmine for Uniting Geomorphology and Ecology, 89 GEOMORPHOLOGY 113 (2007).
80. See Jordan S. Rosenfeld, Logical Fallacies in the Assessment of Functional Redundancy, 16 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 837, 837 (2002).
81. Brander et al., The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature, 33 ENVTL. & RESOURCE ECON. 223, 226 (2006).
82. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (2) (ii) (2008);
83. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (2) (ii) (2008).
84. Matthew A. Wilson & Stephen R. Carpenter, Economic Valuation of Freshwater Ecosystem Services in the United States: 1971-1997, 9 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 772, 772-83 (1999).
85. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 46-47.
86. Barbara L. Bedford, The Need to Define Hydrologic Equivalence at the Landscape Scale for Freshwater Wetland Mitigation, 6 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 57, 59 (1996).
87. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 47-48;
88. Mark M. Brinson, Changes in the Functioning of Wetlands Along Environmental Gradients, 13 WETLANDS 65, 65-74 (1993);
89. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 46-59.
90. LUNA B. LEOPOLD & THOMAS MADDOCK, JR., U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ("USGS"), THE HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY OF STREAM CHANNELS AND SOME PHYSIOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS 1-57 (1953).
91. S. A. Schumm & R. W. Lichty, Time, Space, and Causality in Geomorphology, 263 AM. J. SCI. 110, 112 (1965).
92. Richard B. Alexander et al., Effect of Stream Channel Size on the Delivery of Nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico, 403 NATURE 758, 758-61 (2000);
93. Joel Sholtes & Martin Doyle, Impact of Stream Restoration on Flood Waves, 137 J. HYDRAULIC ENG'G, 196, 202-06 (2010).
94. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 46-59.
95. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 51.
96. William F. Fagan, Connectivity, Fragmentation, and Extinction Risk in Dendritic Metapopulations, 83 ECOLOGY 3243, 3246 (2002).
97. F. Willson & Karl C. Halupka, Anadromous Fish as Keystone Species in Vertebrate Communities, 9 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 489, 495 (1995).
98. Tracy Boyer & Stephen Polasky, Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Review of Non-Market Valuation Studies, 24 WETLANDS 744, 745 (2004);
99. Christopher J. Walsh et al., Effects of Urbanization on Streams of the Melbourne Region, Victoria, Australia. I. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, 46 FRESHWATER BIOLOGY 535, 547 (2001).
100. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 36-37.
101. Martin W. Doyle et al., Hydrogeomorphic Controls on Phosphorus Retention in Streams, 39 WATER RESOURCES RES. 1147, 1157 (2003).
102. J. B. Ruhl et al., Implementing the New Ecosystem Services Mandate of the Section 404 Compensatory Mitigation Program: A Catalyst for Advancing Science and Policy, 38 STETSON L. REV. 251 (2009).
103. Bruce Hannon, Sense of Place: Geographic Discounting by People, Animals, and Plants, 10 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 157, 158 (1994);
104. Charles Perrings & Bruce Hannon, An Introduction to Spatial Discounting, 41 J. REGIONAL SCI. 23, 23-26 (2001). Environmental effects often do not decay "smoothly, continuously, and monotonically" over space. For instance, effluent discharged into rivers or streams may become particularly concentrated in sinks below the original point source. However, in general, the assumption that environmental effects decrease as they disperse over space is valid.
105. Frank Lupi, Jr., Theodore Graham-Tomasi, & Steven J. Taff, A Hedonic Approach to Urban Wetland Valuation 21 (Univ. Minn. Dep't Agric. & Applied Econ., Staff Paper P91-8, 1991), available at http://ageconsearch.umn. edu/bitstream/13284/1/p91-08.pdf.
106. Cheryl R. Doss & Steven J. Taff, The Influence of Wetland Type and Wetland Proximity on Residential Property Values, 21 J. AGRIC. & RESOURCE ECON. 120, 128 (1996).
107. Brent L. Mahan, Stephen Polasky, & Richard M. Adams, Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach, 76 LAND ECON. 100, 106-09 (2000).
108. Carol F. Streiner & John B. Loomis, Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method, 5 RIVERS 267, 267 (1995).
109. C. Patrick Heidkamp, A Theoretical Framework for a 'Spatially Conscious' Economic Analysis of Environmental Issues, 39 GEOFORUM 62, 69 (2008).
110. However, it is encouraging to note the development of several prominent multi-ecosystem service valuation tools; some of these tools operate on geospatial platforms, model the spatial extent at which specified ecosystem services operate, and use the human populations affected by a service to estimate their value. These tools could feasibly be used in future permit decisions to model spatial effects of ecosystem service trading. See SISSEL WAAGE, EMMA STEWART, & KIT ARMSTRONG, BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, MEASURING CORPORATE IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEMS: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF NEW TOOLS 10-16(2008), available at http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR-EMI-Tools-Application. pdf.
111. Luke M. Brander, Raymond J. G. M. Florax, & Jan E. Vermatt, The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature, 33 ENVTL. & RESOURCE ECON. 223, 237-41 (2006).
112. see generally Paul C. Sutton & Robert Costanza, Global Estimates of Market and Non-Market Values Derived from Nighttime Satellite Imagery, Land Cover, and Ecosystem Service Valuation, 41 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 509 (2002).
113. Nancy E. Bockstael et al., On Measuring Economic Values for Nature, 34 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 1384, 1385 (2000);
114. James Boyd & Lisa Wainger, Landscape Indicators of Ecosystem Service Benefits, 84 AM. J. AGRIC. ECON. 1371, 1373 (2002).
115. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1251-1387 (2006) [hereinafter Clean Water Act]. The geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, including which wetlands and streams are considered "waters of the United States", is a highly contentious issue for which the legal scholarship is vast.
116. See, e.g., Jonathan H. Adler, Reckoning with Rapanos: Revisiting 'Waters of the United States' and the Limits of Federal Wetland Regulation, 14 MO. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 1 (2006);
117. James Murphy, Muddying the Waters of the Clean Water Act: Rapanos v. United States and the Future of America's Water Resources, 31 VT. L. REV. 355 (2007).
118. Clean Water Act § 301 (a)
119. U. S. C. § 1311 (a) (2006);
120. Clean Water Act § 404
121. U. S. C. § 1344.
122. Clean Water Act § 404 (b) (1)
123. U. S. C. § 1344 (b) (1);
124. Clean Water Act § 404 (c)
125. U. S. C. § 1344 (c).
126. lean Water Act § 101 (a)
127. U. S. C. § 1251 (a) (2006).
128. See, e.g., Kevin L. Erwin, Wetland Evaluation for Restoration and Creation, in WETLANDS CREATION AND RESTORATION: THE STATUS OF THE SCIENCE 239 (Jon A. Kusler & Mary E. Kentula eds., 1990);
129. Margaret Seluk Race, Critique of Present Wetlands Mitigation Policies in the United States Based on an Analysis of Past Restoration Projects in San Francisco Bay, 9 ENVTL. MGMT. 71, 71 (1985).
130. William L. Kruczynski, Mitigation and the Section 404 Program: A Perspective, in WETLANDS CREATION AND RESTORATION: THE STATUS OF THE SCIENCE, supra note 144, at 549, 551.
131. Fed. Reg. 9210, 9211-12 (Mar. 12, 1990) [hereinafter 1990 Mitigation MOA];
132. See Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.2 (2008);
133. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.92 (2008).
134. See James Murphy et al., New Mitigation Rule Promises More of the Same: Why the New Corps and EPA Mitigation Rule Will Fail to Protect our Aquatic Resources Adequately, 38 STETSON L. REV. 311, 315 (2009).
135. See Margaret Seluk Race & Donna R. Christie, Coastal Zone Development: Mitigation, Marsh Creation, and Decision-making, 6 ENVTL. MGMT. 317, 318 (1982).
136. See BECCA MADSEN ET AL., ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE, STATE OF BIODIVERSITY MARKETS: OFFSET AND COMPENSATION PROGRAMS WORLDWIDE 12(2010), available at http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf.;
137. Press Release, EPA, Clean Water Action Plan (Feb. 19, 1998), available at http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/cwa/03.html;
138. cf. EPA & U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, NATIONAL WETLANDS MITIGATION ACTION PLAN 1(2002), available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ map1226withsign.pdf (discussing the Bush administration's goal to "begin increasing the overall functions and values of our wetlands" in the near future).
139. Morgan M. Robertson, The Neoliberalization of Ecosystem Services: Wetland Mitigation Banking and Problems in Environmental Governance, 35 GEOFORUM 361, 368 (2004);
140. See Phillip H. Brown & Christopher L. Lant, The Effect of Wetland Mitigation Banking on the Achievement of No Net Loss, 23 ENVTL. MGMT. 333, 343-44 (1999).
141. Todd BenDor et al., Assessing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Wetland Mitigation in the Chicago Region, 73 J. AM. PLANNING ASS'N 263, 275-76 (2007).
142. See Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.2 (2008);
143. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.92 (2008).
144. See TODD BENDOR, J. ADAM RIGGSBEE, & GEORGE HOWARD, A NATIONAL SURVEY OF FEDERAL MITIGATION REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON WETLAND AND STREAM BANKING 5(2009), available at http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/cms- documents/Mitigation-Survey-Analysis-Distribute-Final-11-13-09.pdf.
145. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (o);
146. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 98 (o).
147. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b) (2);
148. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (b) (2).
149. Morgan M. Robertson, Discovering Price in All the Wrong Places: The Work of Commodity Definition and Price Under Neoliberal Environmental Policy, 39 ANTIPODE 500, 518 (2007).
150. William W. Sapp, The Supply-Side and Demand-Side of Wetlands Mitigation Banking, 74 OR. L. REV. 951, 971-81 (1995).
151. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, Notice of Final Policy, 46 Fed. Reg. 7644, 7656-60 (Jan. 23, 1981);
152. FWS, Interim Guidance on Mitigation Banking, Ecological Service Instructional Memorandum No. 80 (June 1983);
153. see CATHLEEN SHORT, FWS, MITIGATION BANKING, BIOLOGICAL REPORT 88(41), at 39-42 (1988).
154. See generally, e.g., Wendy P. Elliot, Implementing Mitigation Policies in San Francisco Bay: A Critique, 4 SYMPOSIUM ON COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT 920 (1985);
155. Palmer Hough & Lynda Hall, EPA, The History and Status of Wetland Mitigation Banking and Water Quality Trading, Presentation at the National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking (July 11, 2005), available at http://www.eli.org/Program-Areas/events/wqt-forum.cfm.
156. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 58, 605, 58, 610 (Nov. 28, 1995) [hereinafter 1995 Banking Guidance].
157. ENVTL. LAW INST., BANKS AND FEES: THE STATUS OF OFF-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES 14 (2002).
158. Rebecca Lave, Morgan M. Robertson, & Martin W. Doyle, Why You Should Pay Attention to Stream Mitigation Banking, 26 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 287, 287 (2008).
159. JESSICA WILKINSON & JARED THOMPSON, ENVTL. LAW INST., 2005 STATUS REPORT ON COMPENSATORY MITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES 7 (2006).
160. Royal C. Gardner, Money for Nothing? The Rise of Wetland Fee Mitigation, 19 VA. ENVTL. L. J. 1, 18-37 (2000);
161. See 1995 Banking Guidance, 60 Fed. Reg. 58, 605, 58, 613 (Nov. 28, 1995).
162. See Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits, Notice, 64 Fed. Reg. 39, 252, 39, 272-73, 39, 368 (July 21, 1999);
163. Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits, 63 Fed. Reg. 36, 040, 36, 045, 36, 051, 36, 053-54, 36, 063, 36, 075 (July 1, 1998);
164. Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits, 61 Fed. Reg. 65, 874, 65, 922 (Dec. 13, 1996);
165. Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits, 61 Fed. Reg. at 65, 910.
166. James E. Shiffer, Pay-and-pave System Leaves Wetlands Behind, RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER, Jan. 20, 2002 (on file with authors).
167. Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu Fee Arrangements for Compensatory Mitigation Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 65 Fed. Reg. 66, 914 (Nov. 7, 2000) [hereinafter 2000 ILF Guidance].
168. Scott R. Templeton, Christopher F. Dumas, & William T. Sessions, Estimation and Analysis of Expenses of Design-Bid-Build Projects for Stream Mitigation in North Carolina 19-20 (Dep't of Applied Econ. & Statistics, Clemson Univ., Research Report RR 08-01, 2008), available at http://cherokee.agecon. clemson. edu/curr0801.pdf.
169. See U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, Notice of Final Policy, 46 Fed. Reg. 7644, 7644, 7656, 7659 (Jan. 23, 1981).
170. John Studt & Robert D. Sokolove, Federal Wetland Mitigation Policies, in MITIGATION BANKING: THEORY AND PRACTICE 37, 40 (Lindell L. Marsh, Douglas R. Porter, & David A. Salvesen eds., 1996);
171. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, Notice of Final Policy, 46 Fed. Reg. at 7657-58.
172. ENVTL. LAW INST. & INST. FOR WATER RES., NATIONAL WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING STUDY: WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING 15-16, 161, 169 (1994).
173. ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 202, at 161;
174. see also U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, Notice of Final Policy, 46 Fed. Reg. at 7651, 7657-58.
175. ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 202, at 161;
176. see also U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, Notice of Final Policy, 46 Fed. Reg. at 7658.
177. 1995 Banking Guidance, 60 Fed. Reg. 58, 611 (Nov. 28, 1995).
178. 1990 Mitigation MOA, 55 Fed. Reg. 9210, 9212 (Mar. 12, 1990).
179. 1995 Banking Guidance, 60 Fed. Reg. at 58, 608-09, 58, 611.
180. 1995 Banking Guidance, 60 Fed. Reg. at 58, 611.
181. 2000 ILF Guidance, 65 Fed. Reg. 66, 914, 66, 917 (Nov. 7, 2000).
182. See 2000 ILF Guidance, 65 Fed. Reg. at 66, 915-16.
183. Clean Water Act § 404 (g) - (1)
184. U. S. C. § 1344 (g) - (l) (2010).
185. ENVTL. LAW INST., STATE WETLAND PROTECTION: STATUS, TRENDS & MODEL APPROACHES 11 (2008).
186. Clean Water Act § 401
187. U. S. C. § 1341 (2006).
188. See ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 225, at 6.
189. 531 U. S. 159 (2001).
190. 547 U. S. 715 (2006).
191. Todd BenDor & Nicholas Brozovic, Determinants of Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Compensatory Wetland Mitigation, 40 ENVTL. MGMT. 349, 350-51 (2007).
192. See WIS. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES. ET AL., GUIDELINES FOR WETLAND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION IN WISCONSIN 10, 35(2002), available at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/publications/wetland-mitig.pdf; Appendix II, note 65.
193. Pub. L. No. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1430 § 314 (2003).
194. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.1 (f) (2008);
195. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 91 (e) (2008).
196. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.1 (c);
197. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.91 (c).
198. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 73 Fed. Reg. 19, 594, 19, 616 (Apr. 10, 2008);
199. Palmer Hough & Mark Sudol, New Regulations to Improve Wetland and Stream Compensatory Mitigation, NAT'L WETLANDS NEWSL., July-Aug. 2008, 1, 3.
200. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 73 Fed. Reg. at 19, 616;
201. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.4 (c);
202. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.94 (c).
203. See Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.2;
204. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R § 230.92; 1995
205. Banking Guidance, 60 Fed. Reg. 58, 605, 58, 610 (Nov. 28, 1995);
206. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b);
207. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (b).
208. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. §§ 332. 3 (b) (2), 332.8 (m);
209. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. §§ 230. 93 (b) (2), 230.98 (m).
210. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332. 3 (b) (2);
211. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (b) (2).
212. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b) (3);
213. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (b) (3).
214. See, e.g., 1995 Banking Guidance, 60 Fed. Reg. at 58, 607;
215. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 82-83.
216. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b) (3), (6);
217. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (b) (3), (6).
218. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332. 3 (b);
219. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (b).
220. Todd BenDor et al., A Survey of Mitigation Banker Perceptions and Experiences Under the 2008 Federal Mitigation Regulations, NAT'L WETLANDS NEWSL., Mar.-Apr. 2010, at 11, 12.
221. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c);
222. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (c).
223. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c);
224. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c);
225. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 4.
226. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c);
227. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (c).
228. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 9.
229. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c);
230. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c).
231. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (2) (iv);
232. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (2) (iv).
233. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (2) (i);
234. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (2) (i).
235. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (2) (i);
236. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (2) (i).
237. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (2) (iii);
238. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (2) (iii).
239. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (2) (ii);
240. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (2) (ii).
241. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b);
242. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (b);
243. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 9.
244. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b) (4) - (6);
245. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (b) (4) - (6).
246. 1990 Mitigation MOA, 55 Fed. Reg. 9210, 9212 (Mar. 12, 1990).
247. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c);
248. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c).
249. See Royal C. Gardner et al., Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (Redux): Evaluating the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Regulation, 38 STETSON L. REV. 213, 223 (2009) ("It is essential to identify the watershed scale that best suits the mitigation process.").
250. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.2;
251. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.92.
252. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 15;
253. NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, NEW STRATEGIES FOR AMERICA'S WATERSHEDS 37-38 (1999) [hereinafter NRC, NEW STRATEGIES].
254. see also, Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.2;
255. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.92.
256. NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 39.
257. James M. Omernik & Robert G. Bailey, Distinguishing Between Watersheds and Ecoregions, 33 J. AM. WATER RESOURCES ASS'N 935, 937 (1997).
258. NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 40;
259. ENVTL. LAW INST., Compensatory Wetland Mitigation and the Watershed Approach: A Review of Selected Literature, in NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPENSATORY MITIGATION AND THE WATERSHED APPROACH 82(2004), available at http://www.eli.org/pdf/wsSymposium/selectedliterature.pdf;
260. NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 42-43.
261. NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 41;
262. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (2) (i) (2008);
263. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (2) (i) (2008);
264. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8;
265. NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 37-38, 41-47;
266. Karen A. Poiani et al., Biodiversity Conservation at Multiple Scales: Functional Sites, Landscapes, and Networks, 50 BIOSCIENCE 133, 134-36 (2000).
267. Eric M. Preston & Barbara L. Bedford, Evaluating Cumulative Effects on Wetland Functions: A Conceptual Overview and Generic Framework, 12 ENVTL. MGMT. 565, 571 (1988).
268. See, e.g., NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 41;
269. Timothy William Brass, Who is Affected by Wetland Mitigation Banking? A Social and Geographic Evaluation of Wetland Mitigation Banking in Benton, Lane, Linn and Polk Counties, Oregon 14-15 (June 2009) (unpublished M. C. R. P. thesis, University of Oregon), available at http://scholarsbank.uoregon. edu/jspui/bitstream/1794/9853/1/Brass-Timothy-William-mcrp2009sp.pdf.
270. NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 37-47;
271. Barbara L. Bedford & Eric M. Preston, Developing the Scientific Basis for Assessing Cumulative Effects of Wetland Loss and Degradation on Landscape Functions: Status, Perspectives, and Prospects, 12 ENVTL. MGMT. 751, 756 (1988).
272. NRC, COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES, supra note 8, at 144.
273. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (c) (4);
274. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (c) (4).
275. See, e.g., Dean Djokic & Zichuan Ye, DEM Preprocessing for Efficient
276. USGS & NRCS, Federal Guidelines, Requirements, and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset, in U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TECHNIQUES AND METHODS BOOK 11, COLLECTION AND DELINEATION OF SPATIAL DATA (2009), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm11a3/pdf/TM11-A3.pdf;
277. Peter T. Wolter, Carol A. Johnston, & Gerald J. Niemi, Land Use Land Cover Change in the U. S. Great Lakes Basin 1992 to 2001, 32 J. GREAT LAKES RES. 607, 611 (2006);
278. River Basin Water Supply Planning, DIV. OF WATER RES., N. C. DEP'T OF ENVTL. & NATURAL RES., http://www.ncwater.org/basins/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library);
279. Conservation Areas in the Upper Bolin Creek Watershed, TOWN OF CARRBORO, http://www.ci.carrboro.nc.us/gis/downloads/printmap/Conservation.pdf (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
280. See, e.g., Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A);
281. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (6) (ii) (A);
282. James M. Omernik, Ecoregions of the Coterminous United States, 77 ANNALS ASS'N AM. GEOGRAPHERS 118 (1987).
283. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. §§ 332.3 (c) (4), 332.8 (b) (4), 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A);
284. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. §§ 230.93 (c) (4), 230.98 (b) (4), 230.98 (d) (6) (ii) (A).
285. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A);
286. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (6) (ii) (A).
287. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (v) (1);
288. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (v) (1).
289. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (v) (2);
290. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (v) (2);
291. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (i);
292. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (i).
293. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (c) (2) (i);
294. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (c) (2) (i).
295. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (c) (2);
296. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (c) (2).
297. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b), (d) (7), (d) (8);
298. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b), (d) (7), (d) (8).
299. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b);
300. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b);
301. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (7), (d) (8), (m);
302. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (7), (d) (8), (m).
303. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33. C. F. R. § 332.8 (g);
304. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (g).
305. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b) (2);
306. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b) (2).
307. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (4);
308. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (4).
309. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b) (1);
310. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b) (1).
311. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b) (4), (e);
312. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b) (4), (e).
313. Jon Cannon, Choices and Institutions in Watershed Management, 25 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 379, 379 (2000);
314. Jody Freeman & Daniel A. Farber, Modular Environmental Regulation, 54 DUKE L. J. 795, 826, 876-77 (2005);
315. Andrea K. Gerlak, Federalism and U. S. Water Policy: Lessons for the Twenty-First Century, 36 PUBLIUS: J. FEDERALISM 231, 242-46 (2005);
316. Bradley C. Karkkainen, Collaborative Ecosystem Governance: Scale, Complexity, and Dynamism, 21 VA. ENVTL. L. J. 189, 217-19 (2003).
317. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b) (2008);
318. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b) (2008);
319. See Eric Biber, Too Many Things to Do: How to Deal with the Dysfunctions of Multiple-Goal Agencies, 33 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 1, 41-60 (2009);
320. See J. R. DeShazo & Jody Freeman, Public Agencies as Lobbyists, 105 COLUM. L. REV. 2217 (2005).
321. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (b) (3) (2008);
322. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (b) (3) (2008).
323. Geographic service areas are part of a draft instrument. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A);
324. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (6) (ii) (A).
325. See Clean Water Act § 404
326. U. S. C. § 1344 (2006). One example of a state using this authority to institute geographic restrictions on the location of compensatory mitigation is Missouri.
327. See WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM, MO. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES., STATE OF MISSOURI AQUATIC RESOURCES MITIGATION GUIDELINES (1998), available at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/401/mitigation-guidelines.pdf; Appendix II, note 52.
328. Chronology of 404 (c) Actions, EPA, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/ guidance/wetlands/404c.cfm (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
329. See MINN. R. 8420.0117, 8420.0522(4), 8420.0522(7), 8420.0544 (2011);
330. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008);
331. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008);
332. See, e.g., MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281.951 (c), (k), (m) (2011);
333. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281.956(3), (4) (2011).
334. See, e.g., MINN. R. 8420.0522 subpart 7 (2011);
335. Hydrologic Unit Maps, USGS, http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
336. See, e.g., Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) in New Jersey, N. J. DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROT., http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/hucmap. htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
337. see ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 279, at 82.
338. James M. Omernik, Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States, 77 ANNALS ASS'N AM. GEOGRAPHERS 118 (1987);
339. Ecoregion Maps and GIS Resources, EPA, http://www.epa. gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library);
340. EPA, supra note 348;
341. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States, EPA, http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level-iii-iv. htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
342. 1995 Banking Guidance, 60 Fed. Reg. 58, 605, 58, 611 (Nov. 28, 1995);
343. Robert G. Bailey, Delineation of Ecosystem Regions, 7 ENVTL. MGMT. 365, 365 (1983);
344. See, e.g., MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281.951 (c), (k), (m) (2011);
345. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281.956(3), (4) (1997).
346. DENNIS A. ALBERT, USFS, REGIONAL LANDSCAPE ECOSYSTEMS OF MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, AND WISCONSIN: A WORKING MAP AND CLASSIFICATION (1995), available at http://nrs. fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr-nc178.pdf.
347. ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 279, at 82.
348. NRC, NEW STRATEGIES, supra note 273, at 40;
349. ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 279, at 82;
350. ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 279, at 82;
351. James M. Omernik, The Misuse of Hydrologic Unit Maps for Extrapolation, Reporting, and Ecosystem Management, 39 J. AM. WATER RESOURCES ASS'N 563, 564 (2003).
352. ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 279, at 82;
353. ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 279, at 82.
354. Michael S. Rolband et al., Wetland Mitigation Banking, in APPLIED WETLANDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 181, 193-94 (Donald M. Kent ed., 2d ed. 2000);
355. JOHN R. MIRON, THE GEOGRAPHY OF COMPETITION: FIRMS, PRICES, AND LOCALIZATION 237 (2010).
356. Adam Riggsbee & Martin Doyle, Environmental Markets: The Power of Regulation, 326 SCIENCE 1061, 1061 (2009).
357. See Margaret A. Palmer & Solange Filoso, Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets, 325 SCIENCE 575, 575 (2009).
358. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.5 (2008);
359. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.95 (2008).
360. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, Environmental Policy, Compliance, and Innovation, 38 EUR. ECON. REV. 555, 557 (1994);
361. See Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 73 Fed. Reg. 19, 594, 19, 599-600 (Apr. 10, 2008).
362. J. B. Ruhl & James Salzman, The Effects of Wetland Mitigation Banking on People, NAT'L WETLANDS NEWSL., Mar.-Apr. 2007, at 1, 10-11.
363. see also Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b) (2), (3) (2008);
364. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (b) (2), (3) (2008);
365. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. §§ 332.3 (b) (2), 332.8 (m) (2008);
366. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. §§ 230.93 (b) (2), 230.98 (m) (2008).
367. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (o) (8);
368. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (o) (8);
369. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (f) (2) (2008);
370. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (f) (2) (2008);
371. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (f) (2);
372. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (f) (2);
373. See ENVTL. LAW INST., STATE WETLAND PROTECTION: STATUS, TRENDS & MODEL APPROACHES: A 50-STATE STUDY BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE (2008);
374. ENVTL. LAW INST., STATE WETLAND PROGRAM EVALUATION: PHASE 1 (2005);
375. ENVTL. LAW INST., STATE WETLAND PROGRAM EVALUATION: PHASE II (2006);
376. ENVTL. LAW INST., STATE WETLAND PROGRAM EVALUATION: PHASE III (2007);
377. ENVTL. LAW INST., STATE WETLAND PROGRAM EVALUATION: PHASE IV (2007).
378. The complete results of our national compilation of Corps and state regulatory requirements and preferences for mitigation bank service areas are available in Appendix I of this Article, which is available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol36-1/appendix1.pdf. Appendix I presents a comprehensive catalog of the geographic service area boundary type (s) required or preferred for mitigation banks by Corps regulatory districts, with state regulatory requirements or preferences provided for each of the Corps districts to which they apply. Appendix I includes citations to all source material used for our research on mitigation bank service areas, including published Corps district regulatory guidelines, MOAs between the Corps and other federal or state agencies, state regulations, state statutes, state regulatory preferences, and phone or e-mail interviews, with interviews cited to Appendix II.
379. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.8 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008);
380. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.98 (d) (6) (ii) (A) (2008);
381. MINN. R. 8420.0117, 8420.0522(4), 8420.0522(7), 8420.0544 (2009);
382. N. J. ADMIN. CODE §§ 7:7A-15.5, 7:7A-15.6, 7:7A-15.25 (b) (v), 7:7E-3.15 (h) (2009);
383. WIS. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES. ET AL., supra note 232, at 10, 35;
384. Freshwater Wetland Mitigation Banks, N. J. DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROT., http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/fww/mitigate/wmas-map. htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Appendix II, notes 35, 51, 54-55, 65.
385. CAL. FISH & GAME CODE §§ 1779, 1779.5, 1786 (b) (2);
386. CAL. WAT. CODE § 13200;
387. IND. ADMIN. CODE 17-1-5 (c) (2005);
388. MINN. R. 8420.0117, 8420.0522(4), 8420.0522(7), 8420.0544 (2009);
389. CHI. DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AGREEMENT ON MITIGATION BANKING WITHIN THE REGULATORY BOUNDARIES OF THE CHICAGO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 24 (2008) (on file with authors);
390. WIS. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES. ET AL., supra note 232, at 10, 35;
391. CHARLESTON DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS ET AL., JOINT STATE/FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MITIGATION BANKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA 8(2002), available at http://www.sac.usace.army.mil/ assets/pdf/regulatory/mitigation/establishment-operation-mitigation-banks-SC- Sept-2002.pdf;
392. SAVANNAH DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, GUIDELINES ON THE ESTABLISHMENT, OPERATION AND USE OF WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION BANKS IN GEORGIA 6(2006), available at http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Bank%20Guidelines. pdf;
393. Regulatory Division: Bank Mitigation, SAVANNAH DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/regulatory/banking.html (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library);
394. CHARLESTON DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS ET AL., supra note 429, at 8;
395. SAVANNAH DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, supra note 429, at 7-9;
396. See NORFOLK DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, VIRGINIA OFF-SITE MITIGATION LOCATION GUIDELINES 1(2008), available at http://www.nao.usace.army. mil/technical%20 services/Regulatory%20branch/Guidance/ Virginia%20Offsite%20Mitigation%20Site%20Selection%20Guidelines.pdf; Appendix II, notes 14, 23.
397. See, e.g., N. J. ADMIN. CODE §§ 7:7A-15.5, 7:7A-15.6, 7:7A-15.25 (b) (v), 7:7E-3.15 (h) (2009);
398. OHIO ADMIN. CODE 3745:1-54 (D) (2), 3745:1-54 (E) (1) (c), 3745:1-54 (F) (2003);
399. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 6111.022, 6111.024 (West 2001);
400. PA. CODE § 105.20a (a) (3) (1991);
401. W. VA. CODE R. § 47-5A-6.2 (a) (2) (2002);
402. KAN. CITY DIST. ET AL., KANSAS STREAM MITIGATION GUIDANCE 9, 20(2008), available at http://www.kaws.org/files/kaws/rpt-SMG-021808-db.pdf;
403. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM, MO. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES., supra note 330, at 4;
404. N. J. DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROT., supra note 426;
405. See MINN. R. 8420.0117, 8420.0522(4), 8420.0522(7), 8420.0544 (2009);
406. N. J. ADMIN. CODE §§ 7:7A-15.5, 7:7A-15.6, 7:7A-15.25 (b) (v), 7:7E-3.15 (h) (2009);
407. N. J. DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROT., supra note 426;
408. see also e.g., FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 62-342. 600 (6) (2001);
409. ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 17, §§ 1090.10, 1090.50 (c) (8) (1997);
410. IND. ADMIN. CODE 17-1-5 (c) (2005);
411. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281. 956 (4) (1997);
412. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281. 925 (7) (f) (1988);
413. MINN. R. 8420.522 (2009);
414. MO. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES., supra note 330, at 4-5;
415. CHI. DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, supra note 427, at 7, 24;
416. JACKSONVILLE DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, SECTION 4 - SERVICE AREAS/IN-KIND VS. OUT-OF-KIND DETERMINATION 1(1998), available at http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/DOCS/mitigation/ jsfmbrtp-sec4.pdf;
417. LOUISVILLE DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS ET AL., INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AGREEMENT ON WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING WITHIN THE STATE OF INDIANA 4, 6(2002), available at http://www.in. gov/idem/files/indica1002.pdf;
418. MOBILE DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, PROXIMITY FACTOR METHOD 1-4(2009), available at http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/rd/reg/PN/currentPNs/ ProximityFactorMethod.pdf;
419. WILMINGTON DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, REVISED FRAMEWORK FOR MITIGATION REVIEW IN NC 6 (2008) (on file with authors).
420. MINN. R. 8420. 522 (2011);
421. see also ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 17, §§ 1090.10, 1090.50 (c) (8) (1997);
422. OHIO ADMIN. CODE 3745:1-54 (E (1) (c), 3745:1-54 (F) (1);
423. TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. 1200-04-07-. 04 (6) (c) (7) (2011);
424. TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. 1200-04-03-.06 (2008);
425. DIV. OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, TENN. DEP'T OF ENVTL. CONSERVATION, STREAM MITIGATION GUIDELINES 14(2004), available at http://www.state.tn. us/environment/wpc/publications/pdf/StreamMitigationGuidelines.pdf.
426. WILMINGTON DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS ET AL., STREAM MITIGATION GUIDELINES 15, 16(2003), available at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/ mitigation/Documents/Stream/STREAM%20MITIGATION%20GUIDELINE%20TEXT.pdf.
427. DIV. OF SURFACE WATER, OHIO ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR STREAM IMPACTS IN THE STATE OF OHIO 71-74(2004), available at http://in. gov/idem/files/headwater-oh-mitigation-guidelines.pdf.
428. LITTLE ROCK DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, STREAM METHOD 4, 13(2008), available at http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/permits/ littlerockstreammitigation0321 2008.doc.
429. see also KAN. CITY DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS ET AL., supra note 437, at 9, 20;
430. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, N. C. DEP'T OF ENV'T & NATURAL RES., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES' ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM INSTRUMENT 5(2010), available at http://www.nceep. net/pages/pdfs/interim-final-instrument-8-2-10.pdf.
431. See JESSICA B. WILKINSON, ENVTL. LAW INST., IN-LIEU FEE MITIGATION: MODEL INSTRUMENT LANGUAGE AND RESOURCES 12-17(2009), available at http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19-15.pdf.
432. See Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (b) (2) (2008);
433. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (b) (2) (2008).
434. ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 17, §§ 1090.10, 1090.50 (c) (8) (1997);
435. LA. ADMIN. CODE tit. 43, § 724 (J) (4) (d) (2002);
436. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281.925 (7) (1997);
437. MINN. R. 8420.0522(4), 8420.0522 (7) (2009);
438. N. H. ADMIN. R. ANN. Env-Wt 803.03 (2007);
439. N. J. ADMIN. CODE §§ 7:7A-15.5, 7:7A-15.6, 7:7A-15.25 (b) (v), 7:7E-3.15 (h) (2009);
440. A N. C. ADMIN. CODE 02H. 0506 (c) - (e), 02H.0506 (h) (1996);
441. A N. C. ADMIN. CODE 02H. 1305 (c) (6) (C), 02H.1305 (g) (8) (2003);
442. OHIO ADMIN. CODE 3745:1-54 (D) (2), 3745:1-54 (E) (1) (c), 3745:1-54 (F) (2003);
443. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 6111. 022, 6111.024 (West 2001);
444. PA. CODE § 105. 20a (a) (3) (1991);
445. TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. 1200-04-07-.04 (7) (b) (1) (2008);
446. CHI. DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, supra note 427, at 24;
447. HONOLULU DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, HONOLULU DISTRICT COMPENSATORY MITIGATION AND MONITORING GUIDELINES 4(2005), available at http://www.poh.usace.army.mil/pa/publicNotices/SPN2005021404-448.pdf;
448. LITTLE ROCK DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, supra note 448, at 4, 13;
449. NORFOLK DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, supra note 436, at 1-3;
450. OMAHA DIST., U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS, THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' GUIDANCE FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION AND MITIGATION BANKING IN THE OMAHA DISTRICT 13-14, available at http://www.nwo. usace.army.mil/html/od-r/ guidance-aug05.pdf;
451. ENVTL. LAW INST., STATE WETLAND PROGRAM EVALUATION: PHASE IV, supra note 421, at 98;
452. MO. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES., supra note 330, at 4-5;
453. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROGRAM, N. Y. STATE DEP'T OF ENVTL. CONSERVATION, FRESHWATER WETLANDS REGULATION GUIDELINES ON COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 4-5(1993), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife-pdf/wetlmit.pdf;
454. Wetland Planning Area Reports, ARK. MULTI-AGENCY WETLAND PLANNING TEAM, http://www.mawpt.org/plan/area-reports.asp (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
455. See, e.g., ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 17, § 1090.50 (c) (8) (1997);
456. MO. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES., supra note 330, at 4-5;
457. FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 62-342. 600 (4) (b) (2001).
458. MO. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES., supra note 330.
459. OHIO ADMIN. CODE 3745:1-54 (D) (2) (2003).
460. WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 173-700-502 (2009).
461. MINN. R. 8420. 0544 (2009).
462. VA. CODE ANN. § 62. 1-44.15:23 (A) (2008).
463. JOHN A. VOLPE NAT'L TRANSP. SYS. CTR., RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECH. ADMIN., U. S. DOT, ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: CASE STUDIES IN MEETING SAFETEA-LU SECTION 6001 REQUIREMENTS 35-36(2009), available at http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/pubcase-6001.pdf;
464. Results of the FHWA Domestic Scan of Successful Wetland Mitigation Programs, FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN., U. S. DOT, http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ ecosystems/scanrpt/oh.asp (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library);
465. Mitigation Banking, WASH. STATE DEP'T OF TRANSP., http://www.wsdot.wa. gov/Environment/Wetlands/Mitigation/alternativemitigation. htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library);
466. see also ENVTL. LAW INST., supra note 179, at 170-86;
467. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 73 Fed. Reg. 19, 594, 19, 599 (Apr. 10, 2008).
468. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. §§ 332. 3 (b) (2), 332.8 (m) (2008);
469. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. §§ 230. 93 (b) (2), 230.98 (m) (2008).
470. See, e.g., Letter from Derb S. Carter, Jr., Director, N. C./S. C. Office, S. Envtl. Law Ctr. & Geoffrey R. Gisler, Staff Attorney, S. Envtl. Law Ctr. to Todd Tugwell, Wilmington Dist., U. S. Army Corps of Eng'rs 2 (Mar. 23, 2010) (on file with authors).
471. CAL. FISH & GAME CODE § 1786 (b) (2);
472. WIS. DEP'T OF NATURAL RES. ET AL., supra note 232, at 10, 35.
473. Ecological Drainage Units, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY FRESHWATER INITIATIVE PROGRAM, http://www.2c1forest.org/atlas/metadata/edu-metadata.htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
474. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281. 956(3), 281.956 (4) (1997);
475. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281. 925 (7) (f) (1988);
476. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281. 956(3), 281.956 (4) (1997);
477. MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 281. 925 (7) (f) (1988);
478. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332. 3 (d) (2) (2008);
479. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230.93 (d) (2) (2008).
480. See, e.g., Jessica Fox, Getting Two for One: Opportunities and Challenges in Credit Stacking, in CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY BANKING: A GUIDE TO SETTING UP AND RUNNING BIODIVERSITY CREDIT TRADING SCHEMES 171, 173 (Nathaniel Carroll, Jessica Fox, & Ricardo Bayon eds., 2008).
481. Steve Martin et al., Compensatory Mitigation Practices in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 4-6 (U. S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, Working Paper, Mar. 2004), available at http://www.eli.org/pdf/mitigation-forum-2006/Mitigation-Status- 2005.pdf.
482. See Morgan Robertson & Michael Mikota, Water Quality Trading & Wetland Mitigation Banking: Different Problems, Different Paths?, NAT'L WETLANDS NEWSL., Mar.-Apr. 2007, at 1, 14.
483. 2-enriched Atmosphere, 411 NATURE 469 (2001).
484. Alfred C. Redfield, on the Proportions of Organic Derivatives in Sea Water and Their Relation to the Composition of Plankton, in JAMES JOHNSTONE MEMORIAL VOLUME 177-92 (R. J. Daniel ed. 1934).
485. FWS, GUIDANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, USE, & OPERATION OF CONSERVATION BANKS (2003), available at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/habitat- conservation-planning/conservation-banking.pdf;
486. Jonathan B. Wiener, Think Globally, Act Globally: The Limits of Local Climate Policies, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 1961 (2007).
487. The Mitigation Rule states: "[u]nder no circumstances may the same credits be used to provide mitigation for more than one permitted activity." Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332. 3 (j) (1) (ii) (2008);
488. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (j) (1) (ii) (2008).
489. Steve Martin, Mitigation: An Alternative to Unbundling Ecosystem Services, NAT'L WETLANDS NEWSL., Sept.-Oct. 2010, at 27.
490. See Cristina M. Bonilla-Warford & Joy B. Zedler, Potential for Using Native Plant Species in Stormwater Wetlands, 29 ENVTL. MGMT. 385, 386 (2002).
491. See, e.g., THE CONSERVATION FUND, VAN VLECK RANCH MITIGATION BANK (CALIFORNIA), available at http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/ CB-Van-Vleck-FINAL.pdf.
492. Cf. WILLAMETTE P'SHIP, ECOSYSTEM CREDIT ACCOUNTING PILOT GENERAL CREDITING PROTOCOL: WILLAMETTE BASIN VERSION 1. 1(2009), available at http://willamettepartnership. org/General Crediting Protocol 1.1.pdf.
493. See, e.g., THE CONSERVATION FUND, supra note 504, at 2.
494. WILLAMETTE P'SHIP, supra note 505, at 11.
495. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332. 3 (c) (2) (ii) (2008);
496. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (c) (2) (ii) (2008).
497. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332.3 (d) (2);
498. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (d) (2).
499. Corps Mitigation Rule, 33 C. F. R. § 332. 3 (j) (1) (ii);
500. EPA Mitigation Rule, 40 C. F. R. § 230. 93 (j) (1) (ii).