%PDF-1.3
%
1 0 obj
<><><>]/ON[34 0 R]/Order[]/RBGroups[]>>/OCGs[34 0 R]>>/PageMode/UseNone/Pages 2 0 R/Type/Catalog>>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/Fields 38 0 R>>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
2013-03-25T15:18:51-04:00
2012-05-21T11:38:36-04:00
2013-03-25T15:18:51-04:00
application/pdf
uuid:d764a84b-68f7-4e43-88a6-d814a6cf88b5
uuid:38bb0ef0-3403-4be1-b0df-83efbbe187b0
endstream
endobj
2 0 obj
<>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
22 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
24 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
164 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 10 Tf
51 747 Td
(Full Cost Accounting in Environmental Decision-Making)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 51 745 cm
0 0 m
510 0 l
510 -1 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 51 744 cm
0 0 m
510 0 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 51 745 cm
0 0 m
0 -1 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 51 745 cm
0 0 m
510 0 l
510 -1 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 51 744 cm
0 0 m
510 0 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 51 745 cm
0 0 m
0 -1 l
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 10 Tf
553 747 Td
(8)Tj
/T1_1 9 Tf
-502 -27 Td
(Table 1. )Tj
/T1_0 9 Tf
(Full Cost Accounting in Action: Wetlands Permitting in Florida)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 51 409 cm
0 0 m
472 0 l
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 9 Tf
58 692 Td
( In July 2000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers \(Corps\) issued a\
formal evaluation* of the national )Tj
0 -12 TD
(dredge-and-fill wetland-permitting program. The evaluation was a respons\
e to concerns about rapid development )Tj
T*
(in critical areas of the western Everglades. However, the scope of the e\
valuation was broad and contained )Tj
T*
(recommendations that would affect the way wetlands are treated throughou\
t the state of Florida. The Corps )Tj
T*
(followed the first few steps of FCA analysis by defining alternative act\
ions and identifying stakeholder groups. )Tj
T*
(Unfortunately, though, at least two stakeholder groups have expressed co\
ncern over the Corps' interpretation of )Tj
T*
(changes in values predicted in the third FCA step.)Tj
T*
( A development interest group retained a private consultant to cri\
tique the Corps' preliminary plans for wetland )Tj
T*
(protection issued in an early draft of the evaluation. The study conduct\
ed for the development group used )Tj
/T1_2 9 Tf
(impact )Tj
0 -11 TD
(analysis)Tj
/T1_0 9 Tf
( techniques to predict the expected changes in stakeholder value associa\
ted with the Corps' )Tj
0 -12 TD
(recommended wetland/development allocations. The study suggested that th\
e Corps' wetland permitting plans )Tj
T*
(would limit development in Lee and Collier Counties and decrease stakeho\
lder values in Southwest Florida. This )Tj
T*
(speculated decrease in stakeholder values would be an )Tj
/T1_2 9 Tf
(opportunity cost)Tj
/T1_0 9 Tf
( of the new wetland permitting policies. In )Tj
T*
(light of the development group report, the Corps significantly modified \
their plans to allow a greater degree of )Tj
T*
(development at the expense of wetland protection.)Tj
T*
( An environmental group hired a university economist to review the\
Corps' evaluation and the development )Tj
T*
(group report.** The professor drew heavily on FCA principles in his cri\
tique. He found that both analyses focused )Tj
0 -11 TD
(exclusively on market opportunity costs of preservation and ignored non-\
market opportunity costs associated with )Tj
0 -12 TD
(filling wetlands. Similarly, neither analysis considered the potential n\
on-market benefits available from wetland )Tj
T*
(preservation. Taken together, these oversights generally tend to bias pe\
rmitting decisions towards development )Tj
T*
(and away from protection.)Tj
T*
( The Corps' final decision on the wetlands permitting process is s\
till pending. Hopefully, the comments )Tj
T*
(provided by the public, including the two critiques described above, wil\
l help the agency and the community to )Tj
T*
(better understand the full costs \(and benefits\) of any given policy.)Tj
0 -20 TD
(* The evaluation was contained in a report titled the \322Environmenta\
l Impact Statement on Improving the )Tj
0 -11 TD
(Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida.\323 Information on this projec\
t is available at )Tj
0 -12 TD
(http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/permit/swfeis/contents.htm.)Tj
T*
(** See http://www.nwf.org/everglades/corpscritique.html for a summary.)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 48 705 cm
0 0 m
477 0 l
477 -2 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 48 703 cm
0 0 m
477 0 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 48 705 cm
0 0 m
0 -2 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 48 338 cm
0 0 m
477 0 l
477 -2 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 48 336 cm
0 0 m
477 0 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 48 338 cm
0 0 m
0 -2 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 525 705 cm
0 0 m
0 0 l
0 -369 l
0 -369 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 525 705 cm
0 0 m
0 -369 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 48 705 cm
0 0 m
0 0 l
0 -369 l
0 -369 l
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 48 705 cm
0 0 m
0 -369 l
S
Q
/Artifact <>BDC
q
0.6303253 0 0 0.6303253 153 776.9067993 cm
/GS0 gs
/Fm0 Do
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
166 0 obj
<>>>/Resources 169 0 R/Subtype/Form>>stream
0 g 0 G 0 i 0 J []0 d 0 j 1 w 10 M 0 Tc 0 Tw 100 Tz 0 TL 0 Tr 0 Ts
BT
/Arial 11 Tf
0.5 g
0 -8.685 Td
(Archival ) Tj
42.179 0 Td
(copy: ) Tj
29.348 0 Td
(for ) Tj
15.893 0 Td
(current ) Tj
37.291 0 Td
(recommendations ) Tj
90.487 0 Td
(see ) Tj
20.792 0 Td
(http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu ) Tj
107.008 0 Td
(or ) Tj
12.837 0 Td
(your ) Tj
24.455 0 Td
(local ) Tj
25.679 0 Td
(extension ) Tj
50.144 0 Td
(office.) Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
167 0 obj
<>
endobj
169 0 obj
<>
endobj
170 0 obj
<>
endobj
171 0 obj
<>
endobj
172 0 obj
<>
endobj
173 0 obj
<>stream
HVyPS>7K'aSdكYY GqD@QQY-bT2VTP[ݠc^ϙ{|= .zÁ/*_B B tľ^>;'w@O eߐ`Fںr uPXJf( 7~DbFw) s1( Gq) MkuM) @π,wO ޮCZ}[ޣx7 \@u x3;MD4 żxV %x2$(~ 1,$(eNdʼnXV̓@Fд]Ń(6Kң[ cc