Answer guide
Public Comment on Florida's Mitigation Banking Rules
Submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on July 22, 2026, concerning the proposed amendments to Chapter 62-342, F.A.C., Mitigation Banks.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on the July 2026 draft of Chapter 62-342, F.A.C.
My principal concern involves the use of mitigation-bank credits to offset wetland impacts in South Walton. Santa Rosa Beach and the surrounding area south of Choctawhatchee Bay constitute a distinct coastal environment. Wetlands in this area provide localized functions—including flood storage, water-quality protection, habitat connectivity, and hydrological support for Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf coastal system.
Florida DEP mitigation-bank ledgers show that credits from the Devil’s Swamp and Nokuse mitigation banks have been used for projects in Santa Rosa Beach. Those banks are off-site and are not contiguous with the impacted properties or their immediate coastal ecosystems.
I understand that Rule 62-342.600 establishes mitigation service areas based on where a bank can reasonably be expected to offset adverse impacts. I also understand that section 373.4136(6), Florida Statutes, now permits limited use of out-of-service-area credits and applies numerical multipliers when mitigation crosses regional-watershed boundaries or involves out-of-kind replacement.
My concern is that inclusion within a broad regional watershed—or the application of a numerical multiplier—does not necessarily establish that mitigation will replace the ecological and hydrological functions lost at a particular South Walton impact site. Protecting or restoring one type of wetland elsewhere in the region may not compensate the affected community for the loss of flood attenuation, water-quality treatment, wildlife habitat, or hydrological connectivity at the development site.
I respectfully request that the Department strengthen or clarify the rule in the following respects:
-
Require a written, project-specific finding explaining how the proposed credits will replace the ecological and hydrological functions lost at the impact site.
-
Require the analysis to address the impacted wetland type, receiving water body, flood-storage function, water-quality function, habitat connectivity, and the ecological or hydrological connection between the impact site and the mitigation bank.
-
Clarify that being located within the same regional watershed or mitigation service area does not, standing alone, establish ecological equivalence.
-
Prioritize local and in-kind mitigation. Out-of-service-area or out-of-kind credits should be used only after the Department documents the absence of sufficient appropriate local credits and explains why the proposed substitute is functionally suitable.
-
Require public disclosure of the credit-availability determination, the bank and credit type selected, the applicable proximity or out-of-kind multipliers, and the Department’s functional-equivalency analysis before final approval of the impact permit.
-
Ensure that the purchase of mitigation credits does not substitute for the applicant’s obligation to avoid and minimize wetland impacts or to satisfy the permitting criteria in section 373.414, Florida Statutes.
I also request clarification as to whether the Department intends to revise Rule 62-342.600 further to implement the amendments to section 373.4136 that became effective July 1, 2026. If further revisions are contemplated, I respectfully request an additional public workshop or hearing addressing the effects of out-of-service-area and out-of-kind mitigation on geographically distinct coastal communities such as South Walton.
Mitigation should replace the functions that are actually lost—not merely produce a sufficient number of credits somewhere within a broad regulatory geography. I appreciate the Department’s consideration of these comments and request that they be included in the rulemaking record.
Official sources
Related: the ecosystem ·AI for Good podcast ·work with me.