This study explores the spatial-temporal patterns of Section 404 permitting program under the Clean Water Act and examines its impact on mean and peak annual streamflow. The study area consists of 47 sub-basins that are delineated based on USGS streamflow gauges. These sub-basins span from the southern portion of coastal Texas to the easternmost portion of coastal Texas. Descriptive, spatial and spatial-temporal statistical methods are used to explore patterns in Section 404 permitting between 1996 and 2003. The effects of Section 404 permit types on mean and peak annual streamflow over the same 8 year period are also statistically modeled with a host of other relevant control variables. Exploratory analyses of Section 404 permits demonstrated characteristics that were indicative of suburban and, to a larger extent, exurban development. Explanatory analyses of the effects of Section 404 permitting on mean and peak streamflow showed that Section 404 permits increase both measures. These increases were minimal on a per-permit basis but have the ability to accumulate over time and result in much larger increases. Section 404 permits also displayed an ordered effect based on the permit type. Permit types that represent larger impacts had larger effects. The effects of permits of streamflow followed a descending pattern of Individual permits, Letters of Permission, Nationwide permits, and General permits. This “type of permit impact” supports the use of this measure as an indicator of wetland impact and loss and corroborates previous studies that have incorporated this measure.

This thesis is an interdisciplinary analysis of humans' relationship to the natural environment, specifically how wetlands are reflected in our legislative decisions. Our perceptions of wetlands and our relationship to the environment are influenced by our locality, history, and inter-generational relationships. These perceptions shape decision-making within a community. Our relationship to the natural environment and the way we interact with it can be explained through psychological and geographical theories. Historical trends reveal our consistently negative perspectives of wetlands in the United States and a rapid decline in wetlands acreage. At the federal, state, and local level, Americans have attempted to agree upon regulations that protect both essential wetland functions and private property rights. Literature, academic discourse, newspaper articles, local voices, county employees, and legislation help reveal the relationship between perceptions of wetlands and the regulations that affect these ecosystems. Hillsborough County's wetland controversy exemplifies a debate between differing public attitudes toward wetlands similar to that seen across the state and country. Pressure from landowners and developers encouraged the Hillsborough Environmental Protection Commission to vote to eliminate the county wetland protection division in the summer of 2007. Public concern following this decision led to debate about the significance of local wetland regulations. The decision to eliminate the wetland protection division was placed on hold for further discussion. In the first four chapters I examine the historical, social and psychological roots of our relationship to wetlands. Then, chapters five and six address wetland regulations on the federal and state levels. Chapter seven is a case study of Hillsborough County's wetlands controversy that arose in summer 2007 with a commission vote to do away with the county wetlands protection. Finally, in chapter eight I attempt to bring together all sides of the wetlands conversation into towards finding a solution to what position county governments should take in regulating wetland impacts and use.

The nation's Section 404 permitting program, of the Clean Water Act (CWA), represents one of the longest regulatory histories of designing and implementing credit trading programs to satisfy regulatory requirements. The role and the function of in-lieu fee (ILF) programs in supporting this regulatory structure have undergone a substantial change. For the first time in the history of the Sec. 404 program, 33 CFR Part 332 and 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart J (the "2008 mitigation rule" or "rule"), prioritizes the use of off-site mitigation over on-site-mitigation. Additionally, the rule prioritizes advanced, third-party mitigation; especially as achieved through mitigation banks; over any off-site compensatory mitigation provided by ILF programs (33 CFR 332.3(b)(1)). This new regulatory environment favors the use of commercial mitigation bank credits while acknowledging that the limited permittee demand of off-site mitigation credits, in particular areas, justifies the continuing need for ILF programs (Corps and EPA 2008, p.19606,19611). This research examines how regulatory officials use ILF programs under the 2008 mitigation rule, and, it determines the extent to which ILF programs are capable of fulfilling the role envisioned for them under the 2008 mitigation rule. Simulation results indicate that commercial mitigation banks cannot meet risk adjusted returns under limited credit demand conditions. ILF programs offer some additional financial capacity to fill the void in commercial bank coverage; but, this potential is limited in low demand conditions. Furthermore, empirical case studies of a Virginia and Georgia provide evidence that regulatory officials rely on ILF programs to provide off-site compensatory mitigation almost exclusively in the absence of private credit supply, as intended in the 2008 rule. Evidence in Georgia and Virginia also indicate that, in some situations, ILF programs face difficulties in providing mitigation under the constraints of limited demand and more stringent regulatory requirements. / Master of Science / National permitting programs require people that impact wetlands or streams to offset unavoidable, adverse impacts by improving wetlands or streams elsewhere, a process called compensatory mitigation. A new regulatory rule, approved in 2008 (33 CFR Part 332 and 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart J), prioritizes that mitigation is provided at larger projects off-site of the impact. Key policy questions of “who should provide the mitigation?” and “when the mitigation should be provided” were an important part of the debate during the rule’s development. Wetland and stream mitigation may be provided by commercial (for profit) businesses, called mitigation banks. Commercial banks make wetland/stream improvement projects before permitted (adverse) impacts occur in anticipation of selling wetland/stream “credits” (quantified levels of improvement). Off-site mitigation may also be provided by in-lieu fee (ILF) programs operated by the government or nonprofit organizations. ILF programs first accept funds from permittees and then construct mitigation projects once sufficient funds have been collected, thus creating a lag between adverse impact and compensatory mitigation. The 2008 regulatory rule favors the use of commercial mitigation bank credits over ILF credits, but allows regulatory officials, under certain circumstances, to use ILF credits when commercial bank credits of the appropriate type are unavailable. This research examines how regulatory officials use ILF programs, and it investigates the extent to which ILF programs are financially capable of providing off-site mitigation in situations where the appropriate commercial credits are unavailable. A financial simulation model is developed to examine the feasibility of mitigation projects under different costs and credit demand conditions. Results indicate that commercial mitigation banks cannot meet financial objectives under limited credit demand conditions. ILF programs offer some additional financial capacity to fill the void in commercial bank coverage, but ILF programs also face financial limitations under conditions with low demand for credits. Empirical case studies of Virginia and Georgia provide evidence that regulatory officials rely on ILF programs to provide off-site compensatory mitigation almost exclusively in the absence of a private credit supply, as intended in the 2008 rule. However, evidence in Virginia and Georgia also affirm that ILF programs face difficulties in providing mitigation in some situations of limited demand and stringent regulatory requirements.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) antogs i USA som ett svar på deredovisningsskandaler som uppdagades under 2000-talets början. Lagengäller även exteritorriellt och därför har flera svenska bolag varit tvungna attfölja lagstiftningen, vilket även påverkat de svenska revisorernas arbete.SOX:s främsta syfte är att se till att VD:n och ledningen tar ett större ansvarför bolagets finansiella rapporter och att se till att de upprätthåller en godintern kontroll. Det är Section 404 i SOX som behandlar den internakontrollen och ställer dessa krav på ledningen.Uppsatsen syfte är att beskriva samt att öka förståelsen för hur revisornsgranskning av de berörda bolagens interna kontroll, utifrån de svenskarevisorernas perspektiv, har påverkats i och med införandet av Section 404.Syftet är vidare att ta reda på om revisorns oberoende enligt Section 201påverkats och i sådana fall i vilken bemärkelse det har påverkats. Vi har valtatt tillämpa en kvalitativ metod med aktörssynsätt. För att få en ökadförståelse för problemet genomförde vi intervjuer med revisorer som harbetydande kunskaper och arbetar aktivt inom området.I studien har det framkommit att revisorer idag måste granska den internakontrollen mer på detaljnivå än vad de gjort tidigare, för att ta reda på vilkakontroller som är väsentliga för bolagets interna kontroll. Studiensrespondenter anser att SOX bidrar till att öka revisionens kvalitet då bolagenidag har mer kontroller samt dokumentation. Detta ger revisorn en bättreöverblick av bolagets verksamhet och därmed ett bättre underlag för eneffektivare och grundligare revision.Section 201 förbjuder revisorer att utföra icke-revisionstjänster för sinabefintliga revisionsklienter. Men bolagen har idag sällan någon annan änrevisorn att vända sig till för eventuella råd avseende SOX. Revisorn fårdock aldrig vara en del av sin klients interna kontrollstruktur. Detta dårevisorn måste vara noga med att bibehålla sin roll som en skeptisk ochobjektiv granskare för att inte oberoendet skall ifrågasättas av intressenterna.Det har i uppsatsen framkommit att revisorernas oberoende påverkats i enpositiv bemärkelse men inte enbart på grund av SOX, utan även från ökadekrav från marknaden. Investerarna har blivit mer kritiska och kräver mer avrevisorer för att de skall kunna lita på bolagens finansiella information. Föratt revisorernas granskning skall ses som legitim måste intressenterna serevisorn som oberoende. Om revisorn inte uppfattas som oberoende avintressenterna förlorar revisionen sitt värde. / Uppsatsnivå: D

A predicted loss of agricultural rice-wetlands and increasing urbanization and development threatens the remaining freshwater wetlands along the upper Texas coast. To avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is directed to enforce Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1975 amendment) by administering permits for development. Furthermore, a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a national goal of no net wetland loss (NNL). My goals were to identify the frequency of occurrence of freshwater wetland loss due to dredge or fill, assess final plans to mitigate wetland loss, and verify the persistence of the created compensatory wetlands. I created a database of 96 individual, Section 404 permits issued from 1981 to 2001 in the counties of Chambers, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, and San Jacinto (Galveston District Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Descriptive statistics were calculated for permit characteristics in relation to issue date (pre- or post-NNL). Public comments received from national and state agencies were rank ordered against mitigation plan type to determine Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Coefficient. Visual identification (via site visits and 1996 aerial photos) was used to validate compensatory wetland persistence. Shoreline protection of private property and oil and gas drilling (64% of permit applicants and 59% of impacts) had the greatest effect on wetland loss in the region, particularly Chambers, Jefferson, and Montgomery counties. Overall, 79.3 ha of freshwater wetlands were gained; however, gain was overestimated due to large projects for habitat enhancement. Permits issued post-NNL were more likely to have formal mitigation plans (58% vs. 13% pre-NNL) and allowed no net wetland loss. Although agency comments recommending more formal mitigation plans increased after NNL, only a weak positive correlation was detected (Spearman's r less than or equal to 0.4). Six of seven created wetlands remained in existence through 2006 though they are freshwater ponds replacing more diverse aquatic systems. I recommend the development of a comprehensive method to track wetland loss, mitigation, and changes in watersheds over time.

A predicted loss of agricultural rice-wetlands and increasing urbanization and development threatens the remaining freshwater wetlands along the upper Texas coast. To avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is directed to enforce Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1975 amendment) by administering permits for development. Furthermore, a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a national goal of no net wetland loss (NNL). My goals were to identify the frequency of occurrence of freshwater wetland loss due to dredge or fill, assess final plans to mitigate wetland loss, and verify the persistence of the created compensatory wetlands. I created a database of 96 individual, Section 404 permits issued from 1981 to 2001 in the counties of Chambers, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, and San Jacinto (Galveston District Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Descriptive statistics were calculated for permit characteristics in relation to issue date (pre- or post-NNL). Public comments received from national and state agencies were rank ordered against mitigation plan type to determine Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Coefficient. Visual identification (via site visits and 1996 aerial photos) was used to validate compensatory wetland persistence. Shoreline protection of private property and oil and gas drilling (64% of permit applicants and 59% of impacts) had the greatest effect on wetland loss in the region, particularly Chambers, Jefferson, and Montgomery counties. Overall, 79.3 ha of freshwater wetlands were gained; however, gain was overestimated due to large projects for habitat enhancement. Permits issued post-NNL were more likely to have formal mitigation plans (58% vs. 13% pre-NNL) and allowed no net wetland loss. Although agency comments recommending more formal mitigation plans increased after NNL, only a weak positive correlation was detected (Spearman's r less than or equal to 0.4). Six of seven created wetlands remained in existence through 2006 though they are freshwater ponds replacing more diverse aquatic systems. I recommend the development of a comprehensive method to track wetland loss, mitigation, and changes in watersheds over time.

I examine three issues related to internal control reporting by non-accelerated filers. Motivation for the three studies comes from the fact that Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) continues to be controversial, as evidenced by the permanent exemption from Section 404(b) of SOX granted to non-accelerated filers by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the SEC to study compliance costs associated with smaller accelerated filers. In the first part of my dissertation, I document that the audit fee premium for non-accelerated filers disclosing a material weakness in internal controls (a) is significantly lower than the corresponding premium for accelerated filers, and (b) declines significantly over time. I also find that in the case of accelerated filers remediating clients pay lower fees compared to clients continuing to report internal control problems; however, such differences are not observed in the case of non-accelerated filers. The second essay focuses on audit report lag. The results indicate that presence of material weaknesses are associated with increased audit report lags, for both accelerated and non-accelerated filers. The results also indicate that the decline in report lag following remediation of problems is greater for accelerated filers than for non-accelerated filers. The third essay examines early warnings (pursuant to Section 302 disclosures) for firms that subsequently disclosed internal control problems in their 404 reports. The analyses indicate that non-accelerated firms with shorter CFO tenure, presence of accounting experts on the audit committee, and more frequent audit committee meetings are more likely to provide prior Section 302 warnings. Overall the results suggest that there are differences in internal control reporting between the accelerated and non-accelerated filers. The results provide empirical grounding for the ongoing debate about internal control reporting by non-accelerated filers.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.