Hello Everyone,

 I hope that you have noticed the new APA website, newly designed as of last October. We're working on posting great photographs, and can use your help on this. We're looking for photos from across the Commonwealth, with great scenery and some relation to planning, architecture, landscape architecture, or great community settings - with people is even better! The photos should not be copyright protected so that we can use them freely. The photos should ideally be 780px by 110px and should be in JPG format. 

 I also know that planners. citizen planners, environmentalists, architects, consultants, landscape architects, students and everyone else I haven't mentioned involved with planning are getting new positions, moving, transitioning, etc. This is a call to have you let us know where you are and what you're doing. I'd love to have a new section on what's happening across the state. Please e-mail me with info at pioneervplanner1@yahoo.com.

 Thanks!

Sabine Prather, Newsletter Editor 

Sustainable Wetlands? Developers will learn a difficult lesson in environmental linguistics and laws when their projects impact wetlands. Often they find themselves applying their land acquisition, due diligence, and permitting skills to properties they never wanted to buy for habitat projects they never wanted to implement. They are required to help the nation avoid the loss of wetlands.

The federal Clean Water Act requires compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States. This compensation typically involves mitigation projects that entail the creation or restoration off wetland habitat. Adverse effects on species listed by the Endangered Species Act will often also be addressed through a compensating project that provides habitat conservation and enhancement.

Studies of past mitigation projects have revealed poor performance. The National Research Council (NRC) published the book, “Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act” with the conclusion that the Clean Water Act mitigation program has failed to meet the nation’s goal of no net loss of wetlands. The study noted several contributing factors, including inadequate location and planning of the compensating wetlands: “... required compensation actions were poorly designed or carelessly implemented,” and “...the location of the mitigation site within the watershed could not provide the necessary hydrological conditions and hence the desired plant and animal communities, including buffers and uplands, necessary to achieve the desired wetland functions.”

The NRC study proffered several recommendations and observed that “Third-party compensation approaches (mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs) offer some advantages over permittee-responsible mitigation.” Potential improvements outlined include improved institutional systems and expanded watershed planning programs.

Planning Improvements In response to the NRC study, and other critiques of mitigation effectiveness, the federal government is proposing new rules for mitigation (“Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources,” Federal Register: March 28, 2006, Volume 71, Number 59). While many guidelines have been issued over the years since the adoption of the Clean Water Act, the proposed rules, once adopted, will be the first comprehensive revision to the regulations governing compensatory wetland mitigation.

A key planning principle is at the heart of the new rules -- that of land use compatibility. In the language of the new rules, this concept is expressed as the “watershed perspective.” The watershed perspective is a mandate for mitigation planners to consider the entire landscape in which the mitigation project is proposed, including the compatibility of the wetlands with existing and future land uses. “Site selection is a critical planning step for compensatory mitigation projects, and the watershed approach in the proposed rule is intended to focus on choosing appropriate locations for compensatory mitigation activities.”

In the past, individual project-by-project mitigation seldom had a site selection process; mitigation was inherently a reactive process, where the mitigation site location was determined by the location of the development project causing the impact. In many cases, the landscape setting and scale of the resulting piecemeal mitigation will preclude the sustainability of the mitigation habitats.

Another fundamental planning principle within the watershed approach of the new mitigation rules is decision- making based on a plan created with public participation: “Ideally, the watershed approach is based on a formal watershed plan, developed by Federal, state, and /or local environmental managers in consultation with affected stakeholders.”

Implementation measures in the new rules include the preparation of a mitigation plan with baseline information, clear objectives, site selection criteria, legal protections for the site, financial assurances of success, monitoring, and remediation.

Mitigation Banks: a Planning and Implementation Tool for Sustainable Wetlands Wetland mitigation banking is a forerunner of the new watershed planning approach. Mitigation banks are large sites where wetlands are restored in anticipation that future development projects will need compensation. In exchange for planning, permitting, and constructing wetlands, wetland mitigation banks are allowed to sell credits that compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetland in neighboring locations.

Wetland mitigation banks have over a decade of experience with resource planning, including the improvements called for in the new wetland mitigation rules. Mitigation banks afford planners the ability to select the best sites in the region from a perspective of both physical capability and land use compatibility. This improved site selection, coupled with larger site size and better financial and legal protections, provides more sustainable wetlands.

City and county planners have the ability to participate in the planning of wetland mitigation banks. The Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks envisions that multiple entities, including local agencies, may participate in the review of proposed mitigation banks (Federal Register: November 28, 1995, Volume 60, Number 228). An interagency group called the Mitigation Bank Review Team is responsible for this review and coordination process. City and county planners, with their land use and community planning expertise, have much to contribute to the review of mitigation banks. Additionally, local agency planners should understand the type of credits that mitigation banks in their area offer and when these credits may be applicable to community development projects.

The Forest Hills project is the largest so-called transit-oriented development yet undertaken by the MBTA in the Boston area. Such smart-growth projects are densely packed, mixed-use complexes built atop or near transit stations - whether suburban commuter rail stops or city MBTA stations - and promoted as an antidote to sprawl, congestion, and other attendant ills of the automobile age.

See http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2008/06/15/question_of_congestion/?page=full 

for full article. 

Last week, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on broad legislation aimed at improving energy efficiency in buildings and federal housing programs and encouraging the development of green communities. The Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act (H.R. 6078) was introduced by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.). The legislation is co-sponsored by Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and House Appropriations Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation Chairman John Olver (D-Mass.).

"This legislation proves that it is easy to be green," said Perlmutter. "This bill helps revitalize our economy by making energy efficiency practices more affordable, accessible, and achievable by consumers, businesses, and government entities."

The bill aims to help local governments with green building initiatives by creating a new residential energy efficient block grant program based on the same distribution formula as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The legislation would also require HUD to overhaul energy efficiency requirements for all federal housing programs from Section 8 to HOPE VI. Residential buildings constructed with federal support would have to meet more stringent energy standards. The bill also offers incentives for housing developers to work with landscapers to plant and care for trees and outlines the requirement of a landscaping plan for assisted housing.

A major focus of the legislation is encouraging Government Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to expand and promote the use of location-efficient mortgages and energy-efficient mortgages. The legislation also amends the Community Reinvestment Act to allow financial institutions to consider energy efficiency improvements made by low-income and first-time buyers when assessing home values and loans. The aim, according to supporters, is to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers who build, buy, or remodel homes or other buildings to improve energy efficiency.

With the backing of House leaders, the bill is expected to move forward later this summer.

PROP 98 GOES DOWN IN A LANDSLIDE

California voters overwhelmingly defeated another takings initiative, Proposition 98, on June 3 by a lopsided 61 percent to 39 percent. Golden State voters instead threw support behind another, more measured approach to property fairness, Proposition 99. The defeat of Prop 98 comes less than two years after Californians rejected another takings and eminent domain measure, Proposition 90. Both Prop 90 and Prop 98 sought to limit the use of eminent domain but included a variety of unrelated provisions, such as regulatory takings and rent control. After Prop 90 was defeated in 2006 by 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent, proponents vowed to resurrect the measure.

Blunting any momentum for Prop 98 was the presence of another eminent domain measure on the ballot. Proposition 99 prevents the use of eminent domain on owner-occupied residences for the purpose of private redevelopment. The measure aims to curb potential abuse while preserving the legitimate and sometimes necessary use of eminent domain for advancing the public interest. Prop 99 was supported by a coalition of environmentalists, seniors, local governments, and others.

The defeat of Prop 98 marks another setback for advocates of regulatory takings. Last year Oregon voters largely repealed a takings initiative, Measure 37. Voters in Alaska's Mat-Su Borough crushed a ballot initiative modeled on Measure 37. In 2006, three of the four takings measures on state ballots were rejected.