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

Wetlands Ecology and Management

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 165-182

  Clare, Shari ^a   Krogman, Naomi ^a   Foote, Lee ^a   Lemphers, Nathan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b Pembina Institute   (Canada)

Author keywords

Avoidance; Compensation; Loss; Management; Mitigation; Policy; Watershed planning; Wetland

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; HABITAT MANAGEMENT; LAND USE PLANNING; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; WETLAND;

ALBERTA; CANADA;

EID: 84984581001     PISSN: 09234861     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11273-011-9209-3     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Acreman MC, Blake JR, Booker DJ, Harding RJ, Reynard N, Mountford JO, Stratford CJ (2009) A simple framework for evaluating regional wetland ecohydrological response to climate change with case studies from Great Britain. Ecohydrology 2: 1-17.
2. Alberta Water Resources Commission (AWRC) (1993) Wetland management in the settled area of Alberta. Alberta Water Resources Commission, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
3. Ando AW, Getzner M (2006) The roles of ownership, ecology, and economics in public wetland-conservation decisions. Ecol Econ 58: 287-303.
4. Armitage D (2008) Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. Int J Commons 2: 7-32.
5. Auditor General of Alberta [AGA] (2010) Report of the auditor general of Alberta April 2010. Office of the Auditor General, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
6. Austen E, Hanson A (2007) An analysis of wetland policy in Atlantic Canada. Can Water Resour J 32: 163-178.
7. Baer WC (1997) General plan evaluation criteria: an approach to making better plans. J Am Plan Assoc 63: 329-344.
8. Bedford BL (1999) Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands 19: 775-788.
9. BenDor T, Doyle M (2010) Planning for ecosystem service markets. J Am Plan Assoc 76: 59-72.
10. BenDor T, Brozovic N, Pallathucheril VG (2007) Assessing the socioeconomic impacts of wetland mitigation in the Chicago region. J Am Plan Assoc 73: 263-282.
11. BenDor T, Brozovic N, Pallathucheril VG (2008) The social impacts of wetland mitigation policies in the United States. J Plan Litt 22: 343-357.
12. Birol E, Cox V (2007) Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: the case of Severn Estuary Wetland, UK. J Environ Plan Manage 50: 363-380.
13. Boyer T, Polasky S (2004) Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 24: 244-255.
14. Brody SD, Highfield WE (2005) Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. J Am Plan Assoc 71: 159-175.
15. Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Bishop J (2004) Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land-cover maps. Environ Monit Assess 94: 9-22.
16. Brooks JS, Franzen MA, Holmes CM, Grote MN, Mulder MB (2005) Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 5: 1528-1538.
17. Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA (2006) Inventorying and monitoring wetland condition and restoration potential on a watershed basis with examples from Spring Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Manag 38: 673-687.
18. Brown S, Veneman P (2001) Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts. Wetlands 21: 508-518.
19. Burgin S (2010) 'Mitigation banks' for wetland conservation: a major success or an unmitigated disaster? Wetl Ecol Manag 18: 49-55.
20. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Liljenstolpe C (2003) Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol Econ 47: 95-103.
21. Chavan PV, Dennet K, Marchand E (2008) Behavior of pilot-scale constructed wetlands in removing nutrients and sediments under varying environmental conditions. Water, Air Soil Pollut 194: 239-250.
22. Chertok MA, Sinding K (2005) Federal jurisdiction over wetlands: "waters of the United States". In: Connolly KD, Johnson SM, Williams DR (eds) Wetlands law and policy. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 59-104.
23. Cole CA, Shafer D (2002) Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. Environ Manag 30: 508-515.
24. Costanza R, Perez-Maqueo O, Martinez ML, Sutton P, Anderson SJ, Mulder K (2008) The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37: 241-248.
25. Cowling RM, Pressey RL (2003) Introduction to systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 112: 1-13.
26. Currin CA, Delano PC, Valdes-Weaver LM (2008) Utilization of a citizen monitoring protocol to assess the structure and function of natural and stabilized fringing salt marshes in North Carolina. Wetl Ecol Manage 16: 97-118.
27. Dahl TE, Watmough MC (2007) Current approaches to wetland status and wetlands monitoring in prairie Canada and the continental United States of America. Technical note. Can J Remote Sens 33(Suppl 1): S17-S27.
28. Daley DM (2007) Voluntary approaches to environmental problems: exploring the rise of nontraditional public policy. Policy Stud J 35: 165-180.
29. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3): 260-272.
30. Ehrenfeld D (1981) The arrogance of humanism. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
31. Ehrenfeld J (2000) Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restor Ecol 8: 2-9.
32. Ellis WB (2005) The EPA veto and related matters. In: Connolly KD, Johnson SM, Williams DR (eds) Wetlands law and policy. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, pp 283-304.
33. Environmental Law Institute (ELI) (2006) The status and character of in-lieu fee mitigation in the United States. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.
34. Environmental Law Institute (ELI) (2009) Wetland avoidance and minimization in action: perspectives from experience. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.
35. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009) Advanced identification (ADID), fact sheet 28. http://www. epa. gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact28. html. Accessed 29 Nov 2010.
36. Erwin KL (2009) Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetl Ecol Manag 17: 71-84.
37. Fluet C, Krogman N (2009) The limits of integrated resource management for Alberta for aboriginal and environmental groups: the Northeast Slopes sustainable resource and environmental management strategy. In: Adkin LE (ed) Environmental conflict and democracy in Canada. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp 123-139.
38. Groves C (2003) Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner's guide to planning for biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
39. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot R, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57: 209-228.
40. Hough P, Robertson M (2009) Mitigation under section 404 of the clean water act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetl Ecol Manag 17: 15-33.
41. Hudson SJ (2001) Challenges for environmental education: issues and ideas for the 21st century. BioScience 51: 283-288.
42. Huppes G, Midden CJ (1991) Regulations and incentives as solutions to the social dilemma in wetland management. Landsc Urban Plan 20: 197-204.
43. Hurd B, Leafy N, Jones R (1999) Relative regional vulnerability of water resources to climate change. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35: 1399-1409.
44. Johnson WC, Werner B, Guntenspergen GR, Voldseth RA, Millett B, Naugle DE, Tulbure M, Carroll R, Tracy J, Olawsky C (2010) Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate. BioScience 60: 128-140.
45. Kentula ME, Sifneos JC, Good JW, Rylko M, Kunz K (1992) Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environ Manag 16: 109-119.
46. Koontz T, Thomas C (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Adm Rev 66: 111-121.
47. Krogman N (1996) Frame disputes in wetland policy. Sociol Spectr 16: 371-400.
48. Krogman N (1999) Bureaucratic slippage in organizations responsible for protecting the environment: the case of wetland regulations. Res Soc Probl Public Policy 7: 163-181.
49. Kruczynski WL (1990) Mitigation and the section 404 program: a perspective. In: Kusler JA, Kentula ME (eds) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 137-143.
50. LaPeyre MK, Reams MA, Mendelssohn IA (2001) Linking actions to outcomes in wetland management: an overview of US state wetland management. Wetlands 21: 66-74.
51. Lovell ST, Sullivan WC (2006) Environmental benefits of conservation buffers in the United States: evidence, promise, and open questions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112: 249-260.
52. Malakoff D (1998) Restored wetlands flunk real-world test. Science 280: 371-372.
53. Mann R, Goldman-Carter J (2008) Avoidance: still the best solution to the compensatory mitigation challenge. Natl Wetl Newsl July/Aug: 8-10.
54. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253.
55. Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management (MDWM) (2008) Massachusetts year 2008 integrated list of waters final listing of the condition of Massachusetts' water pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Division of Watershed Management Watershed Planning Program, Worcester, MA, USA. www. mass. gov/dep/water/resources/08list2. doc. Accessed 28 Nov 2010.
56. Matthews J, Endress A (2008) Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environ Manag 41: 130-141.
57. Meffe G (1992) Techno-arrogance and halfway technologies: salmon hatcheries on the Pacific coast of North America. Conserv Biol 6: 350-354.
58. Meyer S, Konisky DM (2007) Local institutions and environmental outcomes: evidence from wetlands protection in Massachusetts. Policy Stud J 35: 481-502.
59. Minns CK, Kelso JRM, Randall RG (1996) Detecting the response of fish to habitat alterations in freshwater ecosystems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(Suppl 1): 403-414.
60. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol Econ 35: 25-33.
61. Mitsch WJ, Wilson RF (1996) Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration know-how, time, and self-design. Ecol Appl 6: 77-83.
62. Moeltner K, Woodward R (2009) Meta-functional benefit transfer for wetland valuation: making the most of small steps. Environ Resour Econ 42: 89-108.
63. Murphy J, Goldman-Carter J, Sibbing J (2009a) Avoidance avoided: how the new rule fails to adequately promote avoidance and places difficult-to-replace systems at risk. Natl Wetl Newsl March-April: 14-15.
64. Murphy J, Goldman-Carter J, Sibbing J (2009b) New mitigation rule promises more of the same: why the new Corps and EPA mitigation rule will fail to protect our aquatic resources adequately. Stetson Law Rev 38: 311-336.
65. National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the clean water act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
66. Nichols S (2008) Enhancing wetland protection through improved avoidance and minimization. Natl Wetl Newsl Jan/Feb: 5-7.
67. Olsen S, Christie P (2000) What are we learning from tropical coastal management experiences? Coast Manag 28: 5-18.
68. Oscarson DB, Calhoun AJ (2007) Developing vernal pool conservation plans at the local level using citizen-scientists. Wetlands 27: 80-95.
69. Packman KA (2010) Investigation of reverse auctions for wetland restoration in Manitoba. MSc Thesis, University of Alberta, Department of Rural Economy, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
70. Pierce SM, Cowling RM, Knight AT, Lombard AT, Rouget M, Wolf T (2005) Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: interpretation for implementation. Biol Conserv 125: 441-458.
71. Pifher MT (2005) The section 404(b)(1) guidelines and practicable alternatives analysis. In: Connolly KD, Johnson SM, Williams DR (eds) Wetlands law and policy. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, pp 221-252.
72. Pressey RL, Bottrill MC (2008) Optimism, threats, and the evolution of systematic conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22: 1340-1345.
73. Pruetz R (2009) What makes transfer of development rights work: success factors from research and practice. J Am Plan Assoc 75: 78-87.
74. Race MS, Fonseca MS (1996) Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecol Appl 6: 94-101.
75. Reed M (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141: 2417-2431.
76. Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT (2009) Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study. Wetlands 29: 907-918.
77. Roberts L (1993) Wetlands trading is a loser's game, say ecologists. Science 260: 1890-1892.
78. Robertson MM (2000) No net loss: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature. Antipode 32: 463-493.
79. Robertson M, Hayden N (2008) Evaluation of a market in wetland credits: entrepreneurial wetland banking in Chicago. Conserv Biol 22(3): 636-646.
80. Rubec CDA, Hanson AR (2008) Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience. Wetl Ecol Manage 17(1): 3-14.
81. Ruhl JB, Salzman J (2006) The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people. FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 179, Tallahassee, FL, USA. http://papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=878331. Accessed 6 Dec 2009.
82. Ruhl JB, Salzman J, Goodman I (2009) Implementing the new ecosystem services mandate of the Section 404 compensatory mitigation program-a catalyst for advancing science and policy. Stetson Law Rev 38: 251-272.
83. Salzman J, Ruhl JB (2005) No net loss-instrument of choice in wetlands protection. Duke Law School Science, Technology and Innovation Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 1, September 2005, Durham, NC, USA. http://ssrn. com/abstract=796771. Accessed 26 May 2010.
84. Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, Moffett A, Wilson KA, Williams KJ, Williams PH, Andelman S (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31: 123-159.
85. Schulte-Hostedde BD, Walters D, Powell C, Shrubsole D (2007) Wetland management: an analysis of past practice and recent policy changes in Ontario. J Environ Manag 82(1): 83-94.
86. Seasons M (2003) Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning. J Am Plan Assoc 69: 430-440.
87. Sharpe A, Conrad CS (2006) Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: challenges and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 113: 395-409.
88. Simenstad C, Reed D, Ford M (2006) When is restoration not? Incorporating landscape-scale processes to restore self-sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecol Eng 26: 27-39.
89. Spieles DJ (2005) Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25: 51-63.
90. Stanturf JA, Schoenholtz SH, Schweitzer CJ, Shepard JP (2001) Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restor Ecol 9: 189-200.
91. Stein ED, Ambrose R (1998) A rapid impact assessment method for use in a regulatory context. Wetlands 18: 379-392.
92. Stokstad E (2008) Environmental regulation: new rule on saving wetlands push the limits of science. Science 320: 162-163.
93. Taylor WE, Geoffroy KL (2005) General and nationwide permits. In: Connolly KD, Johnson SM, Williams DR (eds) Wetlands law and policy. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, pp 151-190.
94. ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R (2004) Biodiversity offsets: views, experience, and the business case. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd, London.
95. Turner RK, van den Bergh JCJM, Soderqvist T, Barendregt A, van der Straaten J, Maltby E, van Ierland EC (2000) Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol Econ 35: 7-23.
96. Turner R, Redmond A, Zedler JB (2001) Count it by acre or function-mitigation adds up to net loss of wetlands. Natl Wetl Newsl 23: 5-16.
97. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2005) Wetlands protection: corps of engineers does not have an effective oversight approach to ensure that compensatory mitigation is occurring. Report GOA 05-898, Washington, DC.
98. Walters D, Shrubsole D (2005) Assessing efforts to mitigate the impacts of drainage on wetlands in Ontario, Canada. Can Geogr 49: 155-171.
99. Wenig M (2006) The sleeping giant of watershed protection. Law Now April/May 2006. http://www. pekisko. ca/docs/D_060501_SleepingGiant. pdf. Accessed 26 May 2010.
100. Wenig M (2010) Understanding local Albertans' role in watershed planning-will the real blueprint please step forward? CIRL Occasional paper #28. Canadian Institute of Resources Law, Calgary, AB.
101. Wilkinson J, Thompson J (2006) 2005 status report on compensatory mitigation in the United States. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.
102. Williams DR, Connolly KD (2005) Federal wetlands regulation: an overview. In: Connolly KD, Johnson SM, Williams DR (eds) Wetlands law and policy. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, pp 1-26.
103. Yocom TG, Leidy RA, Morris CA (1989) Wetlands protection through impact avoidance: a discussion of the 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. Wetlands 9: 283-297.
104. Zedler JB (1996) Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecol Appl 6: 33-37.
105. Zedler JB, Callaway JC (1999) Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor Ecol 7(1): 69-73.
106. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30: 39-74.