Buddy Study: Dr. Riggsbee in Science again

Written by:

05.10.2011 Posted in RS people, Uncategorized

Stories is bursting with pride at the continuing accomplishments of Adam Riggsbee.

Adam worked at RS for a couple of years after getting his PhD at Carolina where his subject of study was dam removal. During that time Adam and his academic collaborator Todd BenDor had the bright idea (along with your’s truly) of surveying mitigation providers in 2009 following publication of the new Federal Mitigation Rule.

What we discovered was that mitigation banking “post-rule” is still a spooky business proposition. As detailed in Adam’s journal article below, and further reported this week in Science, 75% of participants believe the mitigation Rule did not lessen the financial risk of commercial compensatory mitigation.

Moreover, more than half reported that fundamental aspects of the regulation were essentially being ignored, such as the clear-cut preference for banked mitigation over Do-It-Yourself or Fee Program mitigation.

While disappointed with the results, I was not surprised. We had just returned from this year’s 2011 National Mitigation and Conservation Banking Conference in Baltimore. As in 2009, much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair was evident among the participants over Rule compliance issues. If anything the angst was more intense than when the study was performed.

As a “Silver Back” in the mitigation business, however, I was less worried and more comfortably numb. Mitigation banking is simply not for the faint of heart or impatient. It is a long-term proposition likely to yield its reward only over great spans of time (under hypoxic conditions and at great pressure).

To use a trite but nonetheless apt phrase, commercial mitigation is not a revolution — but an evolution. Regulatory thickets can be pruned here and there and encouraged to grow healthy, but bush-hoggers need not apply as mitigation bankers

Which brings me back to Adam Riggsbee. After his stint at RS, Adam and his loyal side-kick (the westerly named) Matt Jessee moseyed on down to Austin, Texas and opened their own swamp and creek shop, Riverbank Ecosystems.

I was a bit concerned for the young fellers.

How could someone as steeped in the perils of commercial mitigation as Adam Riggsbee possibly put his young family and best friend on the firing line in the Lone Star state? It has worked for us thus far at RS — but we got lucky — and nearly had our clocks cleaned at several points. What if these guys were cut down by the real world challenges of swamp swamping for profit?

Not a chance. Adam has approached the challenge of professional mitigation provision just right. He is cultivating a winning mix of hard science and good business as a corporate strategy at Riverbank Ecosystems.

As far as I can tell, there is no one else in the business who is publishing at a high level on mitigation while simultaneously negotiating land options on valuable Central Texas ranches. Adam is the best of both worlds in mitigation: A publishing businessman.

As Dr. Riggsbee joked this morning, it is now “official.” It takes longer to produce revenue from mitigation than it does to publish on the subject in a top journal.

Welcome to the rodeo, kid.

“Science” Editor’s Choice “A survey of entrepreneurial risk in stream and compensatory mitigation markets”

A survey of entrepreneurial risk in stream and compensatory mitigation markets

Vindication: NCDENR study confirms privately contracted mitigation superior to government "in-house" projects

Written by:

11.2.2010 Posted in Uncategorized

I haven’t had time to pick through this carefully, but it appears to be a win for private “Full Delivery” mitigation and mitigation banks — not to mention a damn fine academic effort. I will be back soon with more detailed commentary.

Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation in NC Evaluation of Regulatory Sucess

N&O: Residents argue that removing Milburnie Dam would ruin scenery

Written by:

04.22.2010 Posted in dam removal, interesting articles, natural history, Neuse River, stream restoration

Page A-1
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 05:36 AM
In Fight Over Dam Sides Ask: What’s Natural?

RALEIGH For more than a century, Milburnie Dam has stood 16 feet high in the middle of Raleigh, a stone wall that interrupts the Neuse River like an aquatic comma. Above it, motorboats troll through deep water; below, fishermen wade around a pounding waterfall.

Now a Raleigh firm that does environmental work wants to tear out the privately owned dam and let the Neuse flow freely, removing the only man-made obstacle between Falls Lake and Pamlico Sound. Doing so, they say, would bring shad and other fish further upriver and improve the water quality by speeding up a slowed-down Neuse.

In Fight Over Dam Sides Ask: What’s Natural?
(more…)

Letter: Eco-Advocates ask EMC to take action on Double-Dip

Written by:

01.15.2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Below is an email sent by several concerned environmental advocates to the NC EMC regarding recent policy decisions concerning Compensatory Mitigation Requirements..

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:16:07 -0500
Subject: EMC Agenda Item 10-09, Compensatory Mitigation Requirements and EBX

Dear Environmental Management Commission Members,

Given the recent press, you are probably aware of the concerns raised by the environmental community related to the double-dipping of ecological values produced by Division of Water Quality (DWQ) crediting policies.[1]  The concept of “additionality,” as used by DWQ (the gain of additional benefit without additional work), is illusory and should not be applied to the environmental laws and policies we rely upon to protect our public trust waters.

The use of acreage that has already offset stream or wetland impacts to obtain riparian buffer or nutrient offsets re-credits the same nutrient removal function already allotted to existing credits, resulting in net degradation of water quality.  This double counting of credits results in a net loss of ecosystem function, which is contrary to DENR’s purpose of preserving and protecting North Carolina’s outstanding natural resources, including water quality.  In addition, this policy allows mitigation banks-including the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)-to charge buyers for two restorations, even though only one environmentally beneficial action is created on-the-ground.

[2]  Special Report: Department of Environment and Natural Resources Wetland Mitigation Credit Determinations.  2009 December.

http://www.ncleg.net/PED/Reports/documents/Wetlands/Wetland_Report.pdf

(more…)