The Wetland Book pp 2043-2051 | Cite as

Environmental Impact Assessment for Wetlands: Avoidance, Minimization, Restoration, Compensation, and Offsets

Reference work entry

Abstract

Wetlands provide a range of benefits to people through ecosystem services. Levels of dependence on wetlands vary, as do options for providing substitute services. Impacts of development projects or policies on wetlands can harm biodiversity. Impacts can also harm human well-being, if local communities, businesses, and/ or society at large depend – or are likely to depend in future – on the ecosystem services provided by the affected wetland. Mitigation of impacts is thus essential to safeguard these systems and their values to people; the full hierarchy of measures to mitigate harm should be used with emphasis on avoidance and minimization.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Mitigation hierarchy Offsets Wetlands 

References

  1. BBOP. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook: Appendices. Washington DC: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme; 2009. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3127.pdf. Appendices A1 to A3.
  2. BBOP. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook-Updated. Washington DC: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme; 2012. http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Updated_ODH.pdf
  3. Bendor T. A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy. Landsc Urban Plan. 2009;89:17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clare S, Krogman N, Foote L, Lemphers N. Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy? Wetl Ecol Manag. 2011;19:165–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. EPA. Compensatory Mitigation. Clean Water Act Section 404 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule; 2008. http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/MitigationRule.pdf
  6. EC. Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly affecting Natura 2000 Sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. European Commission, Environment DG. Impacts Assessment Unit, School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Gardner RC. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act (Redux): evaluating the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Regulation. Stetson Law Review. 2009:38(2).Google Scholar
  8. Hruby T. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #11-06-015. 2012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1106015.html
  9. IFC. Performance standard 1 assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts. Washingon, DC: International Finance Corporation; 2012.Google Scholar
  10. Landsberg F, Treweek J, Stickler MM, et al. Weaving ecosystem services into impact assessment, a step-by-step method. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Matthews JW, Endress AG. Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environ Manag. 2008;41:130–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mead DL. History and theory: the origin and evolution of conservation banking. Chapter 2. In: Carroll N, Fox J, Bayon R, editors. Conservation and biodiversity banking. A guide to setting up and running biodiversity credit trading systems. London: Earthscan; 2008.Google Scholar
  13. Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Ben-Haim Y, Ferrier S. How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat. Restor Ecol. 2009;17(4):470–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pilgrim J, Brownlie S, Ekstrom J, Gardner T, von Hase A, ten Kate K, Savy C, Stephens RT, Temple H, Treweek J, Ussher G, Ward G. A process for assessing offsetability of biodiversity impacts. Conserv Lett. 2013;6(5):376–84.Google Scholar
  15. NRC (National Research Council). Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  16. Rajvanshi A, Brownlie S, Slootweg R, Arora R. Maximizing benefits for biodiversity: the potential of enhancement strategies in impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appr. 2011;29(3):181–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rajvanshi A, Mathur VB. Reconciling conservation and development: the role of biodiversity offsets. In: Slootweg R, Rajvanshi A, VB M, Kolhoff A, editors. Biodiversity in environmental assessment: enhancing ecosystem services for human well-being, Ecology, biodiversity & conservation series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. p. 255–86.Google Scholar
  18. Ramsar Convention. An Integrated Framework and guidelines for avoiding, mitigating and compensating for wetland losses. Resolution XI.9, 2012. Gland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat; 2012.Google Scholar
  19. Salzman J, Ruhl JB. No net loss – instrument choice in wetlands protection. Technology and Innovation Paper Series. Duke Law School Science; 2005.Google Scholar
  20. Slootweg R, Kolhoff A, Verheem R, Höft R. Biodiversity in EIA and SEA. Background Document to CBD Decision VIII/28: Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, Utrecht. Technical Paper No. 26, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. Ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R. The Kennecott Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve, Utah. TEEB case study. 2010. http://www.TEEBweb.org.
  22. WBCSD, MI, WRI. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change. Version 1. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Meridian Institute and the World Resources Institute; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.deVilliers Brownlie Associates environmental consultantsCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations