Statewide Wetlands Strategies offers comprehensive strategies that draw upon all levels of government and the private sector to focus and coordinate efforts to work toward the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands.
Statewide Wetlands Strategies offers comprehensive strategies that draw upon all levels of government and the private sector to focus and coordinate efforts to work toward the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands.
eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Statewide Wetlands Strategies offers comprehensive strategies that draw upon all levels of government and the private sector to focus and coordinate efforts to work toward the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781610913270 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Island Press |
| Publication date: | 04/24/2013 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 285 |
| File size: | 13 MB |
| Note: | This product may take a few minutes to download. |
About the Author
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is the largest private U.S. organization working worldwide to conserve nature. WWF works to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth and the health of ecological systems by protecting natural areas and wildlife populations, promoting sustainable use of natural resources, and promoting more efficient resource and energy use and the maximum reduction of pollution.
Read an Excerpt
Statewide Wetlands Strategies
A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource
By World Wildlife Fund, Lisa Wilcox-Deyo
ISLAND PRESS
Copyright © 1992 World Wildlife FundAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-61091-327-0
CHAPTER 1
Setting a Direction
One of the fundamental purposes of a wetlands strategy is to integrate often disparate efforts to protect and manage wetlands, thus ensuring that all programs affecting wetlands work toward the same end. The first and most important steps in developing a wetlands strategy are to establish an overall goal and then to consider how to achieve that goal.
THE OVERALL GOAL
For states with urgent practical decisions to make, a strong overarching goal isn't optional-it's a necessity.
Various wetlands conservation goals have been established at federal, state, and local levels. Most of these goals, however, lack clarity and depth. Typically, they apply to only one program and speak in general terms of an intent or a need to "preserve," "protect;" and "maintain" the resource.
To be effective, a goal needs to serve five purposes.
What a Goal Should Do
1. A goal should promote consistency.
By focusing all efforts toward the same end, a goal helps ensure that programs are consistent—that resources are not consumed by one agency or program to the detriment of another. Consistent programs can better meet the needs of the regulated community, which deals with an often frustrating array of players and programs. Consistency also provides a strong basis for coordination among programs.
A goal can promote consistency among different levels of government and the private sector while accommodating regional needs by allowing flexibility in the means used to achieve the goal.
Vermont's Act 200 establishes 12 statewide planning goals (goal 4 is "to identify, protect, and preserve important natural resources including ... wetlands"). All plans prepared by regional planning commissions and state agencies must be consistent with these goals. While the goals provide a uniform standard for encouraging appropriate development in the state, they also give local and state agencies the flexibility to use mechanisms best suited to their own situations to achieve those goals.
2. A goal should provide a benchmark for assessing progress.
The effectiveness of a strategy can't be determined without an overarching goal. Similarly, the strategy's components can't be fine-tuned unless their performance is measured against a goal. (See
3. A goal should help garner support .
Establishing and publicizing a goal for a state's wetlands strategy can be an effective way to gain support for all the activities and programs that implement the goal. A goal can help the public understand the issues. A promotional campaign focused on a goal can generate broad public awareness of the problem of wetlands loss and the strategy being developed to address the problem. For elected officials and the public, a goal can become a cause to identify with and promote.
In the early 1980s, Illinois confronted the problem of extensive and increasing soil erosion by setting a goal for addressing the problem. This goal, "Tolerable Soil Loss by the Year 2000," was established in administrative guidelines through the state's Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act. Since adopting the goal and raising awareness of the problem, the state's Department of Agriculture has been successful in securing funding from the general assembly for implementing programs needed to achieve the goal.
4. A goal should provide an underlying purpose for all acdvities carried out as part of a wetlands strategy.
A goal gives strategy implementors a clear, unified rationale for their work. This can help increase motivation by providing a sense of purpose and the ability to see how specific efforts contribute to meeting the goal.
5. A goal should help transcend changes in leadership.
A change in federal, state, or local leadership can drastically change program priorities and can have a profound effect on an agency's agenda. A strong goal helps ensure that the wetlands strategy endures through such inevitable political changes.
In 1989, Oregon adopted a plan to bolster economic growth. "Oregon Shines" established 160 goals for strengthening the state's economy (no net loss of wetlands is included as one of the goals). Although then-governor Neil Goldschmidt did not run for reelection in 1990, both major party candidates adopted the goals as their own, and the newly elected governor, Barbara Roberts, has requested that agency heads pursue these goals. The legislature is also drafting a bill to establish these goals as state policy.
No Net Loss and Long-Term Net Gain as the Goal
Despite important differences in the kinds of wetlands protection problems facing states and options available to address those problems, all states confront the same fundamental issue. The continuing loss and degradation of wetlands is unacceptable for both environmental and economic reasons. The goal of any wetlands strategy, then, must reflect the urgency and severity of this problem and present a realistic but ambitious target for wetlands protection and management efforts. The goal of no net loss and long-term net gain (NNL) serves such a purpose.
The NNL goal evolved during meetings of the National Wetlands Policy Forum, a group representing all major interests in wetlands policy, including government, agriculture, industry, and the environment. In November 1988, after examining the wetlands issue for a year, the Forum published its final report. It recommended that
the nation establish a national wetlands protection policy to achieve no overall net loss of the nation's remaining wetlands base, as defined by acreage and function, and to restore and create wetlands, where feasible, to increase the quality and quantity of the nation's wetlands resource base.
This goal has driven the wetlands policy debate since that time. President Bush has endorsed no net loss, and several states, federal agencies, and local governments have formally adopted it. (See Appendix A for excerpts from existing statutes, rules, and policies that establish goals of no net loss/net gain.)
The broad appeal of NNL is that it is a fundamentally balanced goal. It recognizes the urgent need to stabilize and eventually increase the nation's wetlands inventory while acknowledging that some wetlands losses are inevitable because of natural events and legitimate development needs. NNL is thus a reasonable, achievable aim.
Adopting the Goal: Process Considerations
Some states have found it politically feasible to begin development of a wetlands strategy with the NNL goal as a mandate. A recently enacted Texas statute, for instance, directs the state to develop a plan for state-owned coastal wetlands that will achieve no net loss. In California, Governor Pete Wilson's two-year conservation initiative, dubbed "Resourceful California," calls for the state to develop a wetlands conservation plan by 1992 to achieve no net loss and long-term net gain. And Michigan, in developing its wetlands strategy, has moved directly to "net gain," setting a goal to increase the state's wetlands by at least 500,000 acres by the year 2000.
Even with such mandated goals, states still need to find ways to involve all the interested parties in the strategy development process. This can be done by using collaborative processes to set interim goals, objectives, and methods of implementation. (Part II offers detailed information about group processes.)
Some states may find that initiating strategy development with a preordained goal is problematic. In New York, for example, even though Governor Mario Cuomo endorsed no net loss, the strategy-building process began with public workshops to establish an overall strategy goal. New York chose this alternative because of the high level of controversy that wetlands issues had generated in the state. In such cases a state should design a process to identify a goal that involves all the stakeholders. Such a process may still result in a goal of no net loss, but because that goal is generated by the group, it is more likely to become a more readily acceptable premise for strategy development.
A goal-setting process may also generate a different goal. Other goals may be less comprehensive than no net loss, such as a goal to increase the use and effectiveness of nonregulatory programs or to increase coordination among all programs affecting wetlands. Such goals can nonetheless provide a strong basis for improving wetlands protection and management and should not preclude future efforts to establish NNL as the ultimate goal.
Definina the Goal
Since the Forum recommended the NNL goal in 1988, the meaning of no net loss and long-term net gain has been debated at length. Although the Forum made extensive recommendations for reforms needed to achieve the goal, it didn't address the specifics of implementation. In the absence of national guidance, each state embracing the NNL goal needs to define it clearly in order to direct public and private actions and to assess progress.
What are wetlands?
To measure progress toward no net loss, a state must determine its current "wetlands base." To do this, a state needs a consistent definition of wetlands. At the federal level, the definition of wetlands is based on the presence of three physical characteristics: hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. The 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands was developed to ensure consistency in the methods federal agencies use to identify wetlands that may be subject to federal regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or the "Swampbuster" provision of the Food Security Act. (As of this writing, revisions to the 1989 Federal Delineation Manual have been proposed and are undergoing public review and comment.)
Potential disagreements over a wetlands definition may be avoided by adopting a broad definition of the wetlands base for the overall strategy (such as the definition used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the National Wetlands Inventory) and a more restrictive definition (consistent with the federal definition) for regulatory activities. In this way a state can encourage voluntary protection and enhancement of a wider range of ecologically valuable areas, such as riparian and deepwater habitats of particular significance to a state, while applying regulatory programs to a subset of these areas. Basing regulatory decisions on federally established criteria will also help promote consistency among all regulatory programs and encourage interstate cooperative efforts.
What is wetlands loss?
Various criteria must be considered in determining when a loss of wetlands acreage or function has occurred. The so-called footprint of fill material or a permanent structure in a wetland are easily measured; however, losses of area or function are not confined to such direct impacts. Hydrological modifications in one area, for instance, can destroy wetlands in another area; pesticide use on uplands may contaminate wetlands that are located far downstream.
States must also decide how to treat losses resulting from natural processes and unregulated activities. To achieve no net loss, states will ultimately need to offset these losses with government-or private-sponsored restoration or creation projects. In addition, technical criteria may be necessary to distinguish the causes of various losses—for example, to determine if losses of a streamside marsh are occurring naturally or induced by channelization projects upstream.
Maryland's Nontidal Wetlands Regulatory Program, which operates under a NNL goal, requires mitigation for documentable impacts—impacts that can be measured directly, such as fills and easily detectable hydrologic impacts. To compensate for less easily measured impacts that are likely to occur, the state carries out supplemental mitigation projects in addition to those required through the permitting process.
What is no net loss?
"No net loss" is a quantitative and qualitative equilibrium between losses and gains in wetlands acreage and function.
States must decide on the types, functions, and locations of wetlands restoration or creation that can be undertaken to compensate for losses. No net loss is most readily assured if compensation is:
• "in-kind" (i.e., the same wetlands types in the same hydrologic settings),
• with equivalent values, functions, and area, and
• on or very near the location (e.g., watershed) of the losses.
Compensation that is "out of kind" and at some other location in the state could also be permitted, but this requires a more complex assessment of the wetlands losses and gains.
In effect, no net loss requires the development of a master "balance sheet" to track progress toward the NNL goal. Commonly accepted procedures for accomplishing this task do not exist; therefore, states must decide how to proceed. (Part 1.2 provides a framework for setting up such an accounting system.)
In some cases, resource allocation and budgetary needs may be better served by providing a date (either short- or long-term) for achieving the NNL goal. In other cases, a timeframe may not be necessary as long as continuous progress can be demonstrated.
Progressive Implementation of the Goal
As the nation's wetlands base continues to shrink daily, the urgency to adopt NNL increases. After all, NNL will be a meaningless goal if the starting point is a further diminished resource base. Because of the diversity of local situations, however, the NNL goal will be implemented in different ways and achieved at different rates by each state. Several factors will affect the rate at which a state progresses toward the goal, including political and public support, existing programs, current rate of wetlands loss, current causes of loss, and opportunities for long-term gain.
With these factors in mind, a wetlands strategy can be designed to allow for progressive implementation. For instance, a state may choose to "get its house in order" first by requiring no net loss in state-funded activities. As a next step, the state could require that no net loss be achieved within the state regulatory program. It could then institute new public- and private-sector incentive programs to restore and enhance wetlands. In contrast, a state with well-developed existing wetlands programs might be able to move more quickly and aggressively toward adopting a NNL goal and legislation applying to all public and private activities.
The virtue of progressive implementation is its pragmatism. Not all wetlands protection activities can be undertaken or coordinated simultaneously; not all states can undertake a rapidly paced set of programs. As long as activities are thoughtfully planned with the overarching goal in mind, their implementation can be "staged" in line with political and economic realities.
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Simply put, a wetlands strategy should promote efficient and effective approaches to wetlands protection and management. To accomplish this, the strategy's components should be in harmony with the following guidelines.
1. A strategy should reconcile environmental and economic needs and should identify opportunities to reduce conflicts between development and protection interests.
Economic development is a basic concern of states and local governments. In creating and building support for a wetlands strategy, a state must consider the prevailing economic forces and how to work with those forces to achieve outcomes satisfactory to both development and environmental interests.
This is a tall order—but there are options for achieving such a balance of outcomes.
Advance planning. Several advance planning processes have been developed to ease conflicts in areas with sensitive wetlands resources that are under strong development pressure (see Part III.2, "Clean Water Act and Special Area Management Plans"). These planning processes can help channel development away from important wetlands by designating in advance where permits for development may be issued. Although such designations are typically only advisory, they do provide developers with some predictability. Advance plans also accommodate the needs of developers by identifying and designating areas suitable for development. One criticism of such planning processes, however, is that they often designate "low-value" wetlands for development as a trade-off for protecting "high-value" wetlands.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Statewide Wetlands Strategies by World Wildlife Fund, Lisa Wilcox-Deyo. Copyright © 1992 World Wildlife Fund. Excerpted by permission of ISLAND PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
About World Wildlife Fund
Introduction
PART I. Creating a Statewide Wetlands Strategy
Chapter 1. Setting a Direction
Chapter 2. Developing a Strategy
PART II. Organizing a Strategy Development Process
Chapter 1. Organizing a Strategy Development Process
PART III. Mechanisms for Protecting and Managing Wetlands
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Federal Mechanisms
Chapter 3. State Mechanisms
Chapter 4. Local Mechanisms
Chapter 5. Private Mechanisms
PART IV. Wetlands Data Sources and Collection Methods
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Review of Sources and Methods
Appendices