Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: A Florida case study

Reiss, Kelly Chinners; Hernandez, Erica; Brown, Mark T.

doi:10.1672/08-148.1

Cited by 45 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even when the area restored is larger than the area lost, compensation seldom succeeds in restoring structure, composition, or function (Hilderbrand et al 2005, Matthews & Endress 2008, Quigley & Harper 2006, Reiss et al 2009, Tischew et al 2010, Zedler & Callaway 1999. For instance, Reiss et al (2009) assessed the success of 29 wetland mitigation banks in Florida. They found that 40% met permit criteria, whereas 17% were not close to compliance.…”

Section: Restoration As Compensation For Habitat Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead

Suding

2011

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.

869

782

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an inevitable consequence of increased environmental degradation and anticipated future environmental change, societal demand for ecosystem restoration is rapidly increasing. Here, I evaluate successes and failures in restoration, how science is informing these efforts, and ways to better address decision-making and policy needs. Despite the multitude of restoration projects and wide agreement that evaluation is a key to future progress, comprehensive evaluations are rare. Based on the limited available information, restoration outcomes vary widely. Cases of complete recovery are frequently characterized by the persistence of species and abiotic processes that permit natural regeneration. Incomplete recovery is often attributed to a mixture of local and landscape constraints, including shifts in species distributions and legacies of past land use. Lastly, strong species feedbacks and regional shifts in species pools and climate can result in little to no recovery. More forward-looking paradigms, such as enhancing ecosystem services and increasing resilience to future change, are exciting new directions that need more assessment. Increased evidence-based evaluation and cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer will better inform a wide range of critical restoration issues such as how to prioritize sites and interventions, include uncertainty in decision making, incorporate temporal and spatial dependencies, and standardize outcome assessments. As environmental policy increasingly embraces restoration, the opportunities have never been greater. 465Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011.42:465-487. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Indiana University -Purdue University Indianapolis -IUPUI on 10/08/12. For personal use only.

show abstract

Section: Restoration As Compensation For Habitat Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead

Suding

2011

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.

869

782

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compliance was assessed on a binary scale, of 'full compliance' (1) or 'less than full compliance' (0). We used mixed-methods to score compliance because the literature suggests agencies' poor compliance monitoring and record-keeping (Hornyak & Halvorsen 2003;Reiss et al 2009;Brown et al 2013) would have rendered a desktop analysis of records difficult and of limited utility. Methods were modelled on compliance studies for the New Zealand government (Tonkin and Taylor 2012) and academic studies of compensation (Breaux et al 2005;Brown et al 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance with biodiversity compensation on New Zealand’s public conservation lands

Brower¹,

Heijs²,

Kimani³

et al. 2018

NZ J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article assesses compliance with biodiversity compensation on New Zealand's conservation land. Of the 261 Department of Conservation (DOC) concessions for commercial activity searched, only about 15% included compensation provisions. A sample of 20 concessions of that 15% suggests 68% achieve full compliance. Our results suggest compliance is influenced by factors such as habitat and activity type, protected area category, and whether a concession holder has pending concessions and/or renewals. Inconsistencies in compliance monitoring, enforcement, and reporting merit attention. Although New Zealand's rate of full compliance with biodiversity compensation conditions is higher than that observed in other countries, compensation is rarely requested. This rarity and the lack of national guidelines on how and what to ask for in compensation, suggest that compliance with compensation once requested, and the quality and consistency of requests, limit biodiversity protection. Jurisdictions engaging in biodiversity compensation should attend not just to compliance, but also to the requests themselves. To do so, they should develop clear guidelines, enforcement strategies, and reporting processes.

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%

“…We're a reactive organization right now. (Approval writer, personal communication, June 2009) Some authorities claim that increased oversight by regulatory agencies, such as more frequent interaction with permit holders, regular site visits, and more frequent enforcement actions, could improve compliance outcomes (Reiss et al 2009;Schulte-Hostedde et al 2007;NRC 2001). More rigorous record keeping (Minns et al 1996;Kentula et al 1992) and better coordination of policy within and between jurisdictions and agencies responsible for wetland permitting (Austen and Hanson 2007;Race and Fonseca 1996) have also been suggested as a means for achieving better compliance.…”

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

109

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

Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: A Florida case study

Cited by 45 publications

References 20 publications

Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead

Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead

Compliance with biodiversity compensation on New Zealand’s public conservation lands

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About