{
  "id": "97-849",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-849",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105007,
      "date": "1997-09-12",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:57:44.060941",
      "title": "Wetland Mitigation Banking: Status and Prospects",
      "summary": "Wetland protection is controversial because the federal government regulates activities on\nprivate\nlands and because the natural values at some of these regulated sites are being debated. This\ncontroversy pits property owners and development interests against environmentalists and others\nwho seek to protect the remaining wetlands. Mitigation banking, which allows a person to degrade\na wetland at one site if a wetland at another site is improved, has been identified as a potential\nanswer to this shrill and seemingly intractable debate. \n  Mitigation banking is relatively new, and federal mitigation banking policies continue to\n evolve. \nIt was first endorsed by the Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration subsequently\nendorsed the concept in 1993, and the Corps and EPA issued detailed direction to field staff\nconcurrently. Five federal agencies published final guidance in the  Federal Register  in\nNovember\n1995 providing a framework to support a functioning banking system. In addition, many states have\ninitiated or are considering banking programs.\n  \n  Banking can occur only after three steps are taken in the federal process for protecting wetlands. \n First, wetland development must be avoided if possible; second, when this it is unavoidable, \nimpacts must be minimized; and third, impacts that can not be minimized to an acceptable level must\nbe mitigated. Mitigation banking is an option only when mitigation on-site is not possible. Bank\nsponsors create wetland \"credits\" at a bank site that can be acquired by those who fall within the\npurview of these two programs and are required to offset wetland losses, or \"debits,\" at other sites. \n \n  Congressional interest is building because mitigation banking appears to be a promising\napproach for offsetting wetland degradation and implementing an overall policy goal of \"no net\nloss.\" While the recent growth in the number of mitigation banks suggests expanded interest and\nsupport for this approach, several years or more may elapse before success (or failure) at individual\nsites can be determined.\n  This time lapse is one reason why mitigation banking is controversial. Supporters claim that\nmitigation banking, when compared with mitigation on-site, provides better-organized planning, an\nimproved regulatory climate, greater commitment to long-term wetland protection, and more\nconsolidation of habitat. Opponents are concerned that banking is a loophole and endorses\nadditional wetland destruction, that some types of wetlands are difficult to create or restore as\nthriving ecosystems, and that wetland losses are sometimes allowed before the bank is fully\nfunctional. More generally, supporters view policy flexibility as critical to success, especially for\ncommercial banks, while critics worry that flexibility will lead to unacceptable losses of wetland\nfunctions and values. Congress is hearing about these benefits and concerns as it considers how\nmitigation banking might be incorporated into future wetland protection laws and programs.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-849",
          "sha1": "940be25aa42af912e2cd1af105de2c49d0ce3461",
          "filename": "files/19970912_97-849_940be25aa42af912e2cd1af105de2c49d0ce3461.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19970912_97-849_940be25aa42af912e2cd1af105de2c49d0ce3461.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}