Why are We Spending ⅓ of a Restoration Project’s Funding on Permitting?
Note: This topic will be covered in-depth in an upcoming EPRI / ERBA report. Join our newsletter list to make sure you are notified when the full paper is published.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), will send as much as $9.8 billion flowing toward ecological restoration through projects like dam removals, abandoned mine remediation, flood risk reduction & resilience, and more (see table below).
Table is from the EPIC report Delivering Faster Restoration with Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding
However, the BIL only has a 5-year timeline, and environmental permitting has a poor track record for quick turnarounds:
“It took 4 years, $1 M, and actions by our local congressperson to obtain a permit to build green infrastructure. The construction work took $2 M and 8 months. Developing a [way] to streamline permitting for projects … could lower costs by almost half.” (Developer for a water treatment, flood control, and habitat restoration project; cited in Ulibarri et al., 2017)
Forests are burning while wildfire risk reduction projects sit in NEPA review processes that take from 3 -7 years (PERC, 2022).
“Sometimes, fully one-third of public funding for a restoration project goes to planning and permitting, and a project that only takes weeks to implement can take years to permit” (Cited in California’s Cutting Green Tape report).
“Capacity limitations within tribes and disadvantaged communities often require the contracting of environmental reviews and permitting services. These investments in the planning process can exacerbate environmental injustice by limiting the extent of implementation that could be otherwise attained with more efficient permitting processes.” (Santa Clara Indian Pueblo, personal communication, 2022)
Wetland and stream mitigation banks that restore and protect resources take on average 1,100 days - about 3 years - to approve (EPIC forthcoming report, based on USACE data).
California enacted legislation in 2012 (SB 1148) that adopts a maximum time frame of 270 days for approving mitigation banks, but failed to meet that timeframe 72% of the time.
Slow permitting could degrade the benefits of BIL funds focused on restoration
Regulatory agencies review development projects to identify and avoid environmental harms. But the same reviews are applied to restoration projects designed to reverse environmental degradation. Identifying and implementing permitting efficiencies for restoration projects could free up resources for more restoration.
Here are a few examples of the benefits of restoration that we’re losing out on while paperwork is sitting on desks.
Jobs. A recent analysis of the size and impact of the restoration economy estimates that restoration generates $9.5 billion in economic output annually in the United States.
Natural Capital. Other research estimated that for every dollar spent on restoring degraded lands, we gain between $7 and $30 in economic benefits including food production, water quality, recreation, etc.
Flood Damage Reduction. Researchers recently established a causal link between wetland loss and flood damages, estimating that the US incurred $600 million per year in flooding damages from the roughly 800,000 acres of wetlands lost between 2001 and 2016. On the flip side, intact marshlands prevented over $8 million in damages from Hurricane Sandy.
Slow permitting could reduce the supply of in-advance wetland and species restoration needed to offset impacts from infrastructure projects
The BIL’s spending on transportation and other physical infrastructure ($600B+) far overshadows restoration spending (see figure below). Many of these projects will expand renewable energy and bring climate mitigation benefits. At the same time, there will be impacts to wetlands, streams, and species. Compensatory mitigation is a way to allow development to advance while offsetting impacts with restoration and protection of natural resources. The EPA and USACE have a regulatory preference for mitigation banks, which restore wetlands and streams in-advance of permitted impacts. EPIC’s research of approval timelines (report forthcoming) show that mitigation bank approvals are taking 1.5x longer than required in regulation, just for the part of the process that the Feds are responsible for. The full timeframe for approval is 1,130 days on average. Slow timeframes can add to the cost of mitigation, and even disincentivize investment in restoration.
Image credit: The Brookings Institute, 2022. “THIS WILL NEED MITIGATION” added by the authors.
Pathways to Streamlined Permitting
EPIC is committed to researching and lifting up pathways to streamlined permitting for restoration projects. We’ve previously highlighted state efforts to streamline permitting (here and here), and the Clean Water Act’s Nationwide Permit 27 which fast-tracks wetland and stream restoration 404 permits. Next up, we’re digging into the data on mitigation bank approval timelines with both a quantitative analysis of USACE data (coming soon!), and qualitative interviews to provide context and insight to the results of the data analysis.
EPIC has been tracking permitting streamlining for over a year. Check out our earlier posts about state streamlining, recent streamlining efforts in California and Maryland, and an explainer on NWP 27 - a general permit that streamlines Clean Water Act wetland permitting at the national level specifically for restoration activities.
The Restoration Economy Center, housed in the national nonprofit Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), aims to increase the scale and speed of high-quality, equitable restoration outcomes through policy change. Email becca@policyinnovation.org if interested in learning more.
