Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA

Brown, Stephen C.; Veneman, P. L. M.

doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0508:eocwmi]2.0.co;2

Cited by 71 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Offset success has also been shown to be contingent on the implementation of an effective compliance regime (Brown and Veneman, 2001;Kentula, 2000;Robertson and Hayden, 2008). In marine contexts, compliance is complicated not only by the diffuse nature of impact pathways and connectivity between ecological components but also often by the "horrendogram" of existing laws and policies governing environmental protection in many countries, and the absence of clearly defined property rights (Boyes and Elliott, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Niner

Milligan

Jones

et al. 2017

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used in policy frameworks to regulate the environmental impacts of development including projects located in marine environments. Scientific knowledge gaps and other practical challenges have necessitated flexibility concerning the manner in which key offsetting principles are implemented in policy frameworks relevant to such environments. The potential tradeoff of such flexibility is that consequent marine offsetting practice may not be compatible with the ultimate objective of no net loss of biodiversity. Here we present a systematic review of marine and coastal development projects in Australia, examining how offsetting is being implemented in practice. Forty-two (42) projects were assessed, predominantly located in Queensland and Western Australia and associated with the development and operation of ports. We find that application of key biodiversity offsetting principles (e.g. ecological equivalence) was frequently incomplete or absent. For approximately 50% of reviewed projects we were unable to identify public information concerning how offsetting requirements were established. The current environmental outcomes of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia are unclear but there are indications that it is unlikely to achieve no net loss of biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Niner

Milligan

Jones

et al. 2017

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there are clearly enforcement problems in many jurisdictions, there is also a growing need for ''back-end'' monitoring to ensure that compensation sites are performing adequately and are meeting the conditions set out in the permit. The list of studies documenting non-compliance in the United States is long (for example, see Reiss et al 2009;Brown and Veneman 2001;Turner et al 2001;Zedler and Callaway 1999), and clearly articulate the general failure of permit holders to replace wetland functions through off-site compensation (Burgin 2010;Cole and Shafer 2002;Malakoff 1998;Roberts 1993;Spieles 2005;Zedler 1996). The lack of government oversight to follow-up and ensure that the conditions of approvals for wetland losses are met over an appropriate timeframe reinforces the preference for compensation over avoidance; if permit holders are not held accountable, then compensation is much easier and economical than avoidance.…”

Section: Wetlands Are Economically Undervaluedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

Clare

Krogman

Foote

et al. 2011

Wetlands Ecol Manage

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many jurisdictions in North America use a ''mitigation sequence'' to protect wetlands: First, avoid impacts; second, minimize unavoidable impacts; and third, compensate for irreducible impacts through the use of wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, or protection. Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision-making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented. This paper draws on literature published between 1989 and 2010, as well as 33 semi-structured, key-informant interviews carried out in 2009 and 2010 with actors intimately involved with wetland policy in Alberta, Canada, to address key reasons why ''avoidance'' as a policy directive is seldom effective. Five key factors emerged from the literature, and were supported by interview data, as being central to the failure of decision-makers to prioritize wetland avoidance and minimization above compensation in the mitigation sequence: (1) a lack of agreement on what constitutes avoidance; (2) current approaches to landuse planning do not identify high-priority wetlands in advance of development; (3) wetlands are economically undervalued; (4) there is a ''techno-arrogance'' associated with wetland creation and restoration that results in increased wetland loss, and; (5) compensation requirements are inadequately enforced. Largely untested but proactive ways to re-institute avoidance as a workable option in wetland management include: watershed-based planning; comprehensive economic and social valuation of wetlands; and long-term citizen-based monitoring schemes.

show abstract

“…Few have examined relationships between long-term site monitoring and ecological conditions (Brown and Veneman 2001;Cole and Shafer 2002;Matthews and Endress 2008). This is an important gap because quality wetland development takes years, yet rates of site monitoring and agency followup are frequently low (Spieles and others 2006).…”

Section: Michigan's Wetland Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many studies of U.S. compensatory wetlands, sites have been found to possess serious design flaws that limit their functions and values, including unsuitable hydrology and a lack of topographic variability (Brown and Veneman 2001;Campbell and others 2002;Cole and Shafer 2002;Morgan and Roberts 2003;Stolt and others 2000). These flaws may result in the creation of the wrong wetland type, a wetland smaller than specified in the permit, or no wetland at all.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance with Wetland Mitigation Standards in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA

Kozich

Halvorsen

2012

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States has lost about half its wetland acreage since European settlement, and the effectiveness of current wetland mitigation policies is often questioned. In most states, federal wetland laws are overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but Michigan administers these laws through the state's Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Our research provides insight into the effectiveness of the state's implementation of these laws. We examined wetland mitigation permit files issued in Michigan's Upper Peninsula between 2003 and 2006 to assess compliance with key MDEQ policies. Forty-six percent of files were out of compliance with monitoring report requirements, and forty-nine percent lacked required conservation easement documents. We also conducted site assessments of select compensatory wetland projects to determine compliance with MDEQ invasive plant species performance standards. Fifty-five percent were out of compliance. We found no relationship between invasive species noncompliance and past site monitoring, age of mitigation site, or proximity to roads. However, we found wetland restoration projects far more likely to be compliant with performance standards than wetland creation projects. We suggest policy changes and agency actions that could increase compliance with wetland restoration and mitigation goals.

show abstract

Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA

Cited by 71 publications

References 1 publication

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

Compliance with Wetland Mitigation Standards in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About