Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back

Proposed Wetland Mitigation Rules Not Ready For Prime Time

Written by: Gregory H. Smith

In an effort to simplify the wetland permitting process and enhance predictability for applicants engaged in this process, the Department of Environmental Services (DES) is currently (Fall 2003) developing new wetland mitigation rules.

It is standard practice to provide mitigation compensation in the form of conservation easements or wetland replication in connection with permitted dredging and filling. Under the DES proposal, dated October 1st, "compensatory mitigation" means creation of a new wetland, restoration of a wetland, or preservation of land to offset the impact of a project by replacing or partially replacing wetlands functions and values lost due to the project, or by substituting the value added to a wetland or wetland system for the functions or values lost.

In conjunction with this, DES has proposed a formulaic approach and a table of Compensatory Mitigation Ratios which requires the applicant to calculate the amount of compensatory mitigation that must be provided to the State for ultimate permit approval.

Although this table is designed to make the process simpler, clearer and more predictable, there are serious concerns whether or not this is the best approach for New Hampshire.

Advocates from the business community have supported the mitigation table approach believing it eliminates the need for negotiations with DES officials over the size and nature of the mitigation on projects which meet the table's criteria. According to this view, the table will work for both small and large projects, under all types of environmental conditions, and make mitigation criteria consistent across the State for all projects.

Environmental advocates, however, have expressed a different view, suggesting the science of wetland creation is still not fully developed or understood and the proposed mitigation table is premature until the results of long-term projects are better understood scientifically. These groups believe the formulaic, table approach can not adequately account for site specific assessment of functions and values. Moreover, they argue, these ratios should only serve as a guide to project developers. These groups have requested the Department conduct more stakeholder meetings and receive more public input before these rulemaking proceedings are completed.

Currently State and federal policy sets an objective of "no net loss" of wetlands functions and values, by development projects which involve dredging and filling of wetlands. This does not automatically translate into a 1:1 areal formula. In order to meet this goal, the Department should be very careful to develop an approach which emphasizes analysis of function and values over strict quantitative comparison of the area. The Department should ensure that wetlands are viewed within their ecological context, and not simply in a "one size fits all" formulaic approach. The size of a proposed wetland impact should not be the primary or driving criteria for determining necessary mitigation.

The proposed mitigation table is an ill-advised policy development for several reasons. Beyond the scientific reasoning advanced above, there are serious constitutional weaknesses in such an approach. The primary reason is it may be unconstitutional in its current format. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has struck down attempts to provide similar mathematical formulas or numerical assessments in the past. Impact fees assessed at 7.5% of the total acreage of any proposed subdivision as a condition of subdivision approval is illegal. Instead, mitigation of land development impacts must be tailored to the specific burdens of the project.

The table does not provide a complete evaluation of wetland functions, and could result in increased confusion rather than simplification, or simply produce unfair or wrong results in individual cases. In recognition of these concerns, the federal mitigation program uses case by case comparisons of functions and values lost to proposed mitigation. This is more scientifically sound and legally defensible. Like our State Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such assessments against private interests must bear a nexus with the burden on public interest to be mitigated.

In conclusion, although the proposed mitigation table may give the appearance of simplicity, it will have an inevitable tendency to produce unfair or inadequate results. The evaluation of wetlands is a qualitative exercise, not a quantitative one. There is no clear relationship between the functions and values assessment process and the ratios provided in DES' proposed mitigation table.

McLane is New Hampshire’s largest law firm with over 70 lawyers, nineteen of which are recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® in a wide range of specialties. Gregory H. Smith chairs McLane’s Government Relations Practice, and its Environmental Practice Group. He can be reached at 603/226-0400 or by email at [email protected]. Timothy Fortier is governmental relations advisor with McLane, and represents business interests before the State Legislature and various State agencies. Tim can be reached at 603-230-4411 or by email at [email protected].

Integrity and trust

At McLane Middleton we establish and maintain long-standing relationships with our clients to help us better achieve their unique goals over time. This approach to building trust requires that our esteemed lawyers and professionals use their broad, in-depth knowledge and work together with integrity to ascertain sound resolutions to legal matters for their clients.

Strength in numbers

McLane Middleton is made up of more than 105 attorneys who represent a broad range of clients throughout the region, delivering customized solutions. As a firm we are recognized as having the highest legal ability rating. The firm is rated Preeminent by Martindale Hubbell and is recognized as one of the nation's leading law firms in Chambers USA. Our attorneys are distinguished leaders in their respective practice areas.

Meet Our People

Commitment and collaboration

McLane Middleton's versatile group of attorneys and paralegals become trusted authorities on each case through collaboration. We work with our clients to learn their individual needs first and foremost and, together, we develop comprehensive solutions to their specific legal matters. This approach helps us exceed our clients' expectations efficiently and effectively, client by client, case by case.

Practice Areas

A history of excellence

McLane Middleton was established in 1919 in New Hampshire, and has five offices across two states. However, deep historical roots don't allow you to become innate. Our firm is organized, technological, and knowledgeable. Our history means we are recognized. But our reputation is built on the highest quality of service and experience in very specific areas of law.

The Firm

Intelligence paired with action

Our team continuously seeks opportunities to enhance their professional development and put key learnings to action. The pursuit of further insight guides us to volunteer service opportunities, speaking engagements, and teaching roles. Our lawyers are sought after thought leaders across their industries, and recipients of leadership awards throughout the region.