The Social Impacts of Wetland Mitigation Policies in the United States

Abstract

Concern over the threat to wetlands from urban development has increased with rising levels of suburbanization.This article provides an extensive overview of the literature on the history and structure of U.S. wetland conservation policy. The authors focus on regulations that permit wetland destruction in return for mitigation of wetland damage and highlight concerns that current wetland mitigation policies may lead to the redistribution of wetland benefits among specific population groups. Researchers and planners have yet to construct systems that enable them to answer a very basic question: Does wetland mitigation contribute to social disparity and inequity? The authors outline a data collection framework for use in determining if and how social disparities may occur during mitigation. They also discuss the use of spatial and temporal preference measures as a tool for addressing these considerations. Finally, they discuss how recent Supreme Court limitations on federal jurisdiction over wetlands may alter the roles and responsibilities of planners, arguing that these new roles may provide the opportunity for planners to fully incorporate social considerations into mitigation decisions.During the past three decades, wetland regulation has been elevated into the forefront of U.S. natural resource conservation policy. During this time, the complexity associated with regulating development on wetlands has grown enormously, with federal court cases first constructing, and subsequently limiting, the foundation of federal authority over wetland regulation. Recent legal actions have led to a shift in control and responsibility from federal to state and local governments over planning, implementing, and enforcing wetland protections.These changes in the wetland regulatory framework have occurred in the wake of improving ecological theory and research tools (McCorvie and

Mitigation for one & all: An integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

“…To help inform impact mitigation, the scientific community has responded with decades of research establishing best practices for applying the mitigation hierarchy to biodiversity impacts (Race and Fonseca, 1996;Geneletti, 2002;Landis, 2003;BenDor et al, 2008;Canter and Ross, 2010;BBOP, 2012b). Despite these efforts, the approach has fallen short in practice for both biodiversity and the benefits it provides to society-ecosystem goods and services (collectively referred to as ecosystem services, or ES, for simplicity).…”

“…For example, in the U.S., wetlands damaged by development in urban centers are being mitigated for in more rural areas with lower population densities. Even if these mitigation actions meet biodiversity mitigation needs, they will still fail to return wetland-related ecosystem service benefits to the people who have lost them (BenDor et al, 2008).…”

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

“…The typical objective of this type of research is to characterize gains and losses of wetland functions resulting from the process of mitigation. Others yet discuss the human-related values of preserving natural wetlands (Bendor 2008;Burgin 2010;Johnson and Pflugh 2008;Kaplowitz and Kerr 2003;Lupi and others 2002).…”

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

“…This arguably creates a large subsidy for industry and land developers who are able to buy credits in a wetland bank for far less money than they receive when their product is sold in the marketplace. While private interests gain considerably in this arrangement, the public largely pays this subsidy in the form of lost ecosystem goods and services (de Groot et al 2010;Mitsch and Gosselink 2000), and there are often unanticipated social costs associated with the redistribution of wetlands through the use of compensation (BenDor et al 2008;BenDor et al 2007). …”

“…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 (Burgin 2010;ELI 2009;Hough and Robertson 2009;Murphy et al 2009a). While many studies have shown that compensatory laws and policies have not been effective in maintaining wetland area and function (for example, Spieles 2005;Cole and Shafer 2002;NRC 2001;Malakoff 1998;Roberts 1993;Zedler 1996), and often have unintended social impacts (see BenDor et al 2008;BenDor et al 2007;Ruhl and Salzman 2006), few explicate why these laws and policies have failed, or suggest alternative approaches to regulating and managing wetland impacts.…”