Review and comparison of wetland impacts and mitigation requirements between New Jersey,USA, Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

A review of wetland impacts authorized under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA) was conducted based on permitting data compiled for the period 1 July 1988 to 31 December 1993. Data regarding the acreage of wetlands impacted, location of impacts by drainage basin and watershed, and mitigation were analyzed. Wetland impacts authorized and mitigation under New Jersey's program were evaluated and compared with Section 404 information available for New Jersey and other regions of the United States.Under the FWPA, 3003 permits were issued authorizing impacts to 234.76 ha (602.27 acres) of wetlands and waters. Compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts associated with individual permits required the creation of 69.20 ha. (171.00 acres), and restoration of 16.49 ha (40.75 acres) of wetlands. Cumulative impacts by watershed were directly related to levels of development and population growth.The FWPA has resulted in an estimated 67% reduction [44.32 ha (109.47 acres) vs 136.26 ha (336.56 acres)] in annual wetland and water impacts when compared with Section 404 data for New Jersey. For mitigation, the slight increase in wetland acreage over acreage impacted is largely consistent with Section 404 data.Based on this evaluation, the FWPA has succeeded in reducing the level of wetland impacts in New Jersey. However, despite stringent regulation of activities in and around wetlands, New Jersey continues to experience approximately 32 ha (79 acres) of unmitigated wetland impacts annually. Our results suggest that additional efforts focusing on minimizing wetland impacts and increasing wetlands creation are needed to attain a goal of no net loss of freshwater wetlands.     

Irrigated Agriculture and Wildlife Conservation: Conflict on a Global Scale

/ The demand for water to support irrigated agriculture has led to the demise of wetlands and their associated wildlife for decades. This thirst for water is so pervasive that many wetlands considered to be hemispheric reserves for waterbirds have been heavily affected; for example, the California and Nevada wetlands in North America, the Macquarie Marshes in Australia, and the Aral Sea in central Asia. These and other major wetlands have lost most of their historic supplies of water and some have also experienced serious impacts from contaminated subsurface irrigation drainage. Now mere shadows of what they once were in terms of biodiversity and wildlife production, many of the so-called "wetlands of international importance" are no longer the key conservation strongholds they were in the past. The conflict between irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation has reached a critical point on a global scale. Not only has local wildlife suffered, including the extinction of highly insular species, but a ripple effect has impacted migratory birds worldwide. Human societies reliant on wetlands for their livelihoods are also bearing the cost. Ironically, most of the degradation of these key wetlands occurred during a period of time when public environmental awareness and scientific assertion of the need for wildlife conservation was at an all-time high. However, designation of certain wetlands as "reserves for wildlife" by international review boards has not slowed their continued degradation. To reverse this trend, land and water managers and policy makers must assess the true economic costs of wetland loss and, depending on the outcome of the assessment, use the information as a basis for establishing legally enforceable water rights that protect wetlands from agricultural development.     

The US Clean Water Act and habitat replacement: evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County,California, USA

Both permit requirements and ecological assessments have been used to evaluate mitigation success. This analysis combines these two approaches to evaluate mitigation required under Section 404 of the United States Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which allow developers to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. This study reviewed permit files and conducted field assessments of mitigation sites to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation required by the US Army Corps of Engineers for all permits issued in Orange County, California from 1979 through 1993. The 535 permit actions approved during this period allowed 157 ha of impacts. Mitigation was required on 70 of these actions, with 152 ha of enhanced, restored, and created habitat required for 136 ha of impacts. In 15 permit actions, no mitigation project was constructed, but in only two cases was the originally permitted project built; the two cases resulted in an unmitigated loss of 1.6 ha. Of the remaining 55 sites, 55% were successful at meeting the permit conditions while 11% failed to do so. Based on a qualitative assessment of habitat quality, only 16% of the sites could be considered successful and 26% were considered failures. Thus, of the 126 ha of habitat lost due to the 55 projects, only 26 ha of mitigation was considered successful. The low success rate was not due to poor enforcement, although nearly half of the projects did not comply with all permit conditions. Mitigation success could best be improved by requiring mitigation plans to have performance standards based on habitat functions.     

Biodiversity Offsets: Two New Zealand Case Studies and an Assessment Framework

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly being used for securing biodiversity conservation outcomes as part of sustainable economic development to compensate for the residual unavoidable impacts of projects. Two recent New Zealand examples of biodiversity offsets are reviewed—while both are positive for biodiversity conservation, the process by which they were developed and approved was based more on the precautionary principal than on any formal framework. Based on this review and the broader offset literature, an environmental framework for developing and approving biodiversity offsets, comprising six principles, is outlined: (1) biodiversity offsets should only be used as part of an hierarchy of actions that first seeks to avoid impacts and then minimizes the impacts that do occur; (2) a guarantee is provided that the offset proposed will occur; (3) biodiversity offsets are inappropriate for certain ecosystem (or habitat) types because of their rarity or the presence of threatened species within them; (4) offsets most often involve the creation of new habitat, but can include protection of existing habitat where there is currently no protection; (5) a clear currency is required that allows transparent quantification of values to be lost and gained in order to ensure ecological equivalency between cleared and offset areas; (6) offsets must take into account both the uncertainty involved in obtaining the desired outcome for the offset area and the time-lag that is involved in reaching that point.