Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Wetland Book

  • 331 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

  • BBOP. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook-Updated. Washington DC: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme; 2012. http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Updated_ODH.pdf

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • IFC. Performance standard 1 assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts. Washingon, DC: International Finance Corporation; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Matthews JW, Endress AG. Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environ Manag. 2008;41:130–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • NRC (National Research Council). Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Salzman J, Ruhl JB. No net loss – instrument choice in wetlands protection. Technology and Innovation Paper Series. Duke Law School Science; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R. The Kennecott Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve, Utah. TEEB case study. 2010. http://www.TEEBweb.org.

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. deVilliers Brownlie Associates environmental consultants, Cape Town, South Africa

    Susie Brownlie

Authors
  1. Susie Brownlie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susie Brownlie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia

    C. Max Finlayson

  2. International Water Security Network, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Mark Everard

  3. UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands

    Kenneth Irvine

  4. RM Wetlands and Environment Ltd., Littleworth, Oxfordshire, UK

    Robert J. McInnes

  5. U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA, USA

    Beth A. Middleton

  6. Aquatic Ecosystems Group, Department of Water Science and Engineering, UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands

    Anne A. van Dam

  7. Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia

    Nick C. Davidson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Brownlie, S. (2018). Environmental Impact Assessment for Wetlands: Avoidance, Minimization, Restoration, Compensation, and Offsets. In: Finlayson, C.M., et al. The Wetland Book. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9659-3_265

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation