As American wetlands decreased in both size and number over the past few decades, falling prey to various forms of human encroachment, the federal government, spurred by the nascent environmental movement, made some efforts to ameliorate, or "mitigate," the situation.  Mitigation banking was one tool that was developed for use in this cause, with what may be fairly called "mixed results."

In response to public concern about the degradation of our entire natural environment, the Nixon Administration implemented the Clean Air and Water Acts (1970, 1972) the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973).   President Carter signed an Executive Order Protection of Wetlands (1977); and the first Pres. Bush announced a "No Net Loss" policy for wetlands, which was also endorsed by Pres. Clinton in his first term.

"NO NET LOSS"

The concept of "no net loss" was that anyone wanting to develop property in a protected wetland area would be obliged to "replace" the loss of that area by creating or restoring an equivalent wetland.  Thus, it was thought, there would be "no net loss" of wetland acreage.   This was considered to be an enlightened way to protect our fast-disappearing wetland habitats and their dependent animal species, as well.   It also spawned the use of mitigation "banks" as a way of keeping track of these exchanges of land.

MITIGATION BANKING

Just as one keeps records of financial transactions in a bank, the creation of new wetlands as payment for the destruction of others is recorded in order to ensure that there is no net loss.   Federal guidelines for the implementation of the Clinton Administration’s Wetland Plan defined the notion of mitigation banking as: "the process of preserving, enhancing, restoring, or creating habitat to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts."  It is preferred that this creation/restoration be accomplished prior to any building project, and the resultant new or restored wetland is expressed as a "credit" in the mitigation bank.  Mitigation banks, then, provide a way for land developers to compensate for their destruction through currency "credits" of wetland creation, which pay for the "debits" of wetland destruction.   Ostensibly, the developer would create or restore a viable wetland habitat of similar type and size to the area he is ruining.  However, some developers understandably want to avoid taking on such a daunting task themselves.   With mitigation banking, they can go to a land owner who has already created or restored a large wetland area, buy acreage in that property, and count it as a credit that makes up for their planned destruction.

Of course, creating a wetland from scratch is harder than restoring an ailing one.  An on-site watershed is necessary; appropriate soils and vegetation may have to be imported; proper drainage is required.  The developer who is acting as the banker might choose instead to enhance an existing wetland that just needs some improvement to meet the federal guidelines.

Virtually anyone can set up a mitigation bank.  In some cases, local municipalities will establish a bank in order to protect their watershed needs; a Department of Transportation might set one up in order to compensate for their road-building projects; or a private entrepreneur could set up a bank simply for the purpose of buying and selling credits at a profit.

Before taking part in the banking process, a developer is supposed to try to avoid negative impact on the site in question; failing that, they must minimize the impact; and finally, they are to provide compensation for any remaining damage.  While the first two steps in this sequence can be recognized as preferable to the third, unfortunately, the arrival of mitigation banking on the scene has encouraged many people to neglect efforts to preserve the natural site, seeing the way of compensation as a cheaper alternative.  Adding to this betrayal of the spirit of wetland preservation is the fact that off-site mitigation is allowed.  Where developers were originally required to restore or enhance the on-site wetland, now, through mitigation banking, they are allowed to compensate for their destruction of one site by creating another some place else. 

Another feature of mitigation banking is that many small projects are typically consolidated into a large, contiguous creation area, believed to be more ecologically valuable than several isolated sites.

REGULATION / OVERSIGHT

Regulation of mitigation banks is clearly essential to make sure that compensation is properly made and eco-systems are preserved.  The Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to issue permits for affected sites, and one might reasonably expect state departments of Ecology or Environmental Protection to monitor the continuing health of new sites.  However, a NYS DEC official told me that sponsors are not legally forced to follow up on a restoration project.  What sort of oversight is that?     US Army Corps Engineer Dr. Robert Brumbaugh writes that "almost all [mitigation] banks established have been ad hoc arrangements between regulators and development entities."  The impermanence of these arrangements do not inspire confidence.   Although regulators are supposed to assess the comparability of the sacrificed wetland to the new one, Dr. Brumbaugh adds, "Owing to limitations in wetland functional assessment methodology, to date, in many cases, credits and debits have been measured simply in terms of acres."   In other words, the quality and function of the wetland is often left out of the equation.  By neglecting these two aspects, a newly created wetland that was meant to take the place of a built-over one, is likely to fail.

The Army Corps itself has been criticized for poor handling of wetlands protection.   Sen. Joseph Lieberman, in an August 2003 letter to Army Under Secretary Les Brownlee, wrote that he was "extremely troubled by assertions that the Corps of Engineers and the other federal regulatory agencies have failed to fulfill their statutory mandates, thereby endangering a valuable national resource..." (Quoted by Mike Salinero in Tampa Tribune.)

WHO BENEFITS FROM MITIGATION BANKING?

The benefits of banking for the landowner are obvious: land that was previously off limits can now be used, as long as land elsewhere is slapped into a supposedly suitable condition.  Variations in land values being what they are, this may prove much cheaper for the developer, particularly if he is not conscientious about creating a perfect replica of the original site.   Even the most well-intentioned can find this a forbiddingly difficult task, as each wetland is unique, with plant and animal species that might not thrive anywhere else.  Not every patch of wet ground can be turned miraculously into a viable substitute.

The permitting process is more efficient with banking, as applicants no longer require both a development permit and a wetland permit.  Regulatory agencies save time as there are fewer reviews needed:  many smaller projects are consolidated into larger ones, as recommended by the banking program.  And local officials - Town Boards, Planning Boards - are spared protests from environmentalists as citizens are assuaged by the belief that mitigation’s no-net-loss ideal is preserving our nation’s wild heritage. 

THE DOWNSIDE

This seemingly happy solution to the problem of development versus nature has its critics.  The Sierra Club does not support banking, noting that even "wetland biologists do not have the technical ability to create or restore all the functions of complex wetland systems."

Testifying before a Congressional Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, National Wildlife Federation Wetland Specialist Julie Sibbing, opposed the American Wetlands Restoration Act.    After enumerating the many benefits of wetlands, including flood-water retention, groundwater recharge, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat, Sibbing noted that the no-net-loss policy does nothing to prevent the breakdown of remaining wetlands.  "America’s wetlands are more vulnerable to destruction and degradation than at any time in the past 25 years."   Sibbing cited several causes for this vulnerability, including "overly broad interpretations of the Clean Water Act loophole." 

The challenge of re-creating a successful eco-system is considerable.  "The idea that you can just go out and build another wetland is one of the myths that has been hardest to let go of," says Sibbing.  "In general, our mitigation efforts have been dismal failures."  (AP article, John Flesher, 12/23/03.)   Additionally, the consolidation aspect of mitigation banking meant that the smaller, isolated wetlands were not really being replaced in kind.  While a large, contiguous wetland sounds nice in theory, the loss of scattered areas could have unanticipated consequences: one suggested by Sibbing was altered flooding patterns, which affects human as well as animal populations.

The balance of water, appropriate soil types, and equivalent plant species is not always possible at sites that are distant from the original, now destroyed, wetland.  A US Geological Survey Summary on Water Resources identified another potential problem: people might actually be encouraged to destroy natural wetlands if they are misled into thinking they can be easily replaced.  The cheerful assumption of enhanced ecological value via mitigation banking is therefore rendered dubious.

 Compensation through mitigation banking, originally intended as only the third leg of the preservation process, is becoming more prevalent.  From 46 approved banks chartered nationwide in 1992, the industry had grown to nearly 300 by 2001.  In Florida, alone, there are at this time 38 banks in existence.  A financial success, perhaps, but to what effect on our natural treasures? 

The impact of mitigation banking on wildlife is difficult to determine precisely, but logic may provide a reasonable interpretation.  One likely result of the trading of wetland areas   - credit here, debit someplace else - would be the disorientation and consequent dispersal of the traditional wild inhabitants of any given region and an eventual decrease in their number.  We need only picture how we would react to having our neighborhood suddenly vanish.  There would be no comfort in being told there is a "similar" habitat 20 miles away replete with residents who would not want to be displaced!

Just as animal species suffer from the man-made changes to their natural environments, so also do irreplaceable plant species disappear from our national landscape.  And the failure rate of man-made wetlands is shocking.  Consider as just one example, in the state of Michigan only 22 percent of authorized projects were deemed successful judging by natural functions such as water purification and wildlife habitat.  Yet, mitigation banking is still a common and government-approved fact of life in 34 states.

Whenever economic and natural-resources considerations collide, you may generally depend upon the former to triumph at the expense of the latter.  When regulatory agencies seem to collude with private groups, it is very dispiriting.  For example, the St. John’s River Water Management District, which covers a huge part of Northeast Florida, is currently considering the request of a Baptist Church that wants to build a bridge over the headwaters of the Tomoka River, thus filling in a pristine wetlands area.   The church proposes to buy land from a mitigation bank some miles away, as payment for their construction, which, environmentally-concerned opponents of the project contend, will naturally do nothing to preserve the Tomoka River itself.  At issue here are the rather suspect standards of the agency.  As the SJRWMD has said that the project meets their requirements, one must ask why those requirements are so lenient that they would permit the blocking of an important tributary to the Tomoka.  As local citizen, Capt. Eric West, put it, "The land bank doesn’t make new wetlands, it just keeps profits coming in for those who own them now."  He suggests rewriting the rules of SJRWMD to make it harder for people to take advantage of the present, slipshod situation that easily allows ruination of wetlands.

A Florida environmental attorney, Lesley Blackner, doubts the wisdom of elected officials, too many of whom, she says, "define ‘public interest’ as keeping the development industry happy."  She advocates that people have the power to decide on land use changes in their own communities.   Blackner maintains that the mitigation system is a kind of "shell game," sold to the public as way of saving our wetlands, but in reality merely a sham, causing the destruction of healthy habitats and setting up false substitutes.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

An amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, a bill which deals with the chartering of mitigation banks, was introduced in June of 2003, and is still pending.  H. R. 2531 IH may be reintroduced in the next Congress, commencing in January.  If we wish to have any influence on the survival of our inherited wetlands, and protect the lives of their many dependents, we must call and write to our Representatives now, expressly stating our concerns regarding the use of mitigation banking.   We can keep informed about local plans for wetland development, and attend Town and Planning Board meetings, speaking up and asking for details on such plans; and requiring that any mitigation bank providers, whether commercial or municipal, be monitored by the relevant agency.  And don’t assume that regulatory agencies, however much they might speak about being "good stewards of the environment," are doing what is best for wildlife and wetlands.  Their standards should be reviewed before they give out any more permits for destruction.  Only by consistent and vociferous action can we hope to ensure the survival and maximum health of our precious wetlands and their residents.

References used for this article:

US House of Representatives website  -   Sept. 12, 2001 Hearing on HR 1474 Before Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment; Statement of Julie M. Sibbing of NWF

US Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper #2425

US Environmental Protection Agency, Laws, Regulations, Guidance, and Scientific Documents: "Wetlands Mitigation Banking"

Florida Dept. Of Environmental Protection website

University of Florida IFAS, Handbook of Florida Water Regulation

Department of the Army, Federal Register: November 28, 1995 (Volume 60, #228)

US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Fla. District, Public Notice web page: "Mitigation Banking"

Washington State Department of Ecology, Access Washington: "Wetlands Mitigation Banking"

Univ. of Oregon, School of Law, Ocean and Coastal Law Memo, Issue 36, October 1990

Great Lakes Directory website, Great Lakes Article: "Creating New Wetlands Not So Easy to Do," by John Flesher of Assoc. Press

National Wildlife Federation website, Testimony on Mitigation Banking before House Sub-Committee on Water Resources and the Environment, Sept. 12, 2001

Sierra Club website, "Clean Water and Wetlands:  Mitigation Banking Guidelines"

Alachua Post (online newspaper) - Ad Hoc Committee, 4/26/02

Mike Salinero, Tampa Tribune article, Aug. 29, 2004, "Feds Probe on Wetlands Permits"

Statement of Lesley Blackner in Support of Florida’s Hometown Democracy Amendment   

E.M. FAY is a freelance writer with a bent for environmental and animal-rights causes, as well as politics.  She has worked as a stringer for the Daily Freeman, a leading newspaper in Kingston, NY.  She presently has an article about whales' and dolphins' suicides caused by man in Natural Life, a Canadian magazine.  

In the past decade, a dramatic shift has taken place with respect to how Americans engage in the recreational enjoyment of wildlife. State agencies have maintained that their mission statement requires them to provide for the recreational enjoyment of wildlife – and that mandates them to provide hunting opportunities.  Traditionally, "recreational enjoyment of wildlife" has meant hunting, and that was the interpretation given it under law.

The economic and moral shift that has occurred has given new meaning to the term "recreational enjoyment of wildlife." It requires a new interpretation of such legal mandates and a re-examination of the commercial opportunities that are provided by the recreational enjoyment of wildlife.

The shift has seen wildlife watching as a recreational activity far outstrip hunting in the number of participants, population percentages of participants, and in the amount of money spent on the activity.

We would expect the government agencies that are charged with providing opportunities for the recreational enjoyment of wildlife to develop programs to accommodate this numerically larger population whose purchases far exceed those of hunters. But, perhaps even more importantly, we would expect alert businesses to shift their attention from accommodating hunters to capturing this exciting new market of wildlife watching – especially since the two markets often make irreconcilable demands on resources.  It won’t be long before the wildlife watching programs will come into conflict with the more poorly funded hunter programs that cater to only a fraction of the population.  Both programs in most places can not be accommodated simultaneously.

Wildlife watching trends are significant nationwide but they are especially noteworthy in the States of New York, Florida and California.

All statistics cited below are all from the "2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation." This survey is published every 5 years by the Fish and Wildlife Service of U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

(When we’re using population figures in this discussion we are using residents age 16 and over, they are not included in these numbers.)

The basic numbers nationwide:

HUNTERS:

• there were 13 million hunters in the United States in 2001
• they constituted 6.12% or the population
• they spent a $20.6 billion in hunting related expenditures

WILDLIFE WATCHING:

• there were 66.1 million participants in wildlife-watching in the United States in 2001
• they constituted 31.14% of the population
• they spent a total of $38.4 billion in wildlife-watching related expenditures

For New York State these numbers are:

HUNTERS:

• there were 642,000 hunters in New York State in 2001
• that constitutes 4.52% of  the population (even though some were from out of state)
• they spent a total of $ 822.2 million in hunting related expenditures

  WILDLIFE WATCHING:

• there were 3.887 million participants in wildlife-watching in New York State in 2001
• that is the equivalent of 27.37% of the population (even though some were from out of state)
• they spent a total of $1.407 billion in wildlife-watching related expenditures

Certainly the nationwide expenditure of $38.4 billion for wildlife-watching related activity makes wildlife watching a major industry. If wildlife-watching were a business it would be in the same league in terms of annual sales as Pfizer ($40.36 billion), Time-Warner (38.08 billion), or Prudential Insurance ($38.22 billion). Wildlife watching is a major economic player which is currently under-reported and underrated. It is a veritable business boom waiting to be discovered.

Inn keepers and resort owners should take note that a considerable portion of the expenditures are for food and lodging!

Nationwide hunters annually spend $2.45 billion on food (a lot of beer) and lodging in connection with hunting related activities; Wildlife watchers, however, spend $4.82 billion a year on food (with more diverse drinks) and lodging in connection wildlife watching related activities.  Consider that wildlife watching is not yet institutionalized!

Each year in New York State hunters annually spend $82.4 million on food and lodging in connection with hunting related activities. Yet, wildlife-watchers annually spend $124.4 million on food and lodging in connection with wildlife-watching related activities in New York State.

The report shows that wildlife watchers are better educated, more affluent and travel with family members more than hunters.

USFWS statistics cited in the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation:  

On average, hunters have no education beyond high-school; the median wildlife-watcher has 1 to 3 years of college.  Seven percent of people with a family income of over $100,000 per year hunt, but 40% of those with a family income exceeding $100,000 engaged in wildlife watching. While only 9% of hunters are female – about 50% of wildlife watchers are female (54% of state-residents and 48% of out of state wildlife watchers are female).

New York State ranks third in the country among states in spending on watching wildlife. The three states receiving the greatest expenditure by wildlife watchers are:

1.      California -- $2,580,875,000 
2.      Florida -- $1,575,481,000 
3.      New York -- $1,407,193,000

It’s important to realize that this has happened with little or no pro-active effort on the part of the inn-keepers and resort owners to attract wildlife watchers. On the contrary, by permitting and even encouraging hunters to come into areas when wildlife watching could be at its peak -- in the fall and during bird-migrations -- wildlife watchers are being sent a message to stay away.

We propose a pro-active campaign for communities and businesses that have a natural wildlife resource to promote wildlife watching opportunities in their areas.

Wildlife watchers are not a destructive force, they pose no risk to others or surrounding houses.  They prefer to be as unobtrusive as possible. If resorts set up platforms, tree stands, and blinds, it would bring many eco-tourists to remote areas such as the Catskills region of New York State where the local economy has been devastated since the 1960s. Certainly, promoting wildlife watching as a tourist attraction is sociologically as well as economically preferable to introducing casinos.

Hunter websites, like Cabelas, offer products that can be used by wildlife watchers to enhance their experience.  Should wildlife management agencies begin to focus on watching, you can imagine the increase in business for products such as the one to the left that sells for only $13.

The catalog describes it this way: "The comfortable behind-the-ear Woodland Whisper has five settings for up to 98db amplification with a decibel-limiting feature that won't amplify loud noises, so you can hear the faintest sounds in the woods."

AUDUBON

In October, Audubon released its first The State of the Birds report.  They called the decline of bird populations "disturbing" and "abnormal."  Audubon wants improved grassland, forest, and wetland protection; they want stronger pollution controls, backyard habitat programs, and private landowner programs.  They cite the following statistics: 69 million Americans say they are birdwatchers.  They contribute 32 billion in retail sales, 85 billion in overall economic output, 13 billion in state and federal taxes, and create almost 900,000 jobs [and that’s without trying!]

WASHINGTON SMELLS THE ROSES

In January, 2003, the state of Washington requested legislation that would "establish a watchable wildlife decal.  They wrote "Nature-related tourism is the fastest growing segment of the travel industry with wildlife viewing rated as the number-one outdoor activity in the US.  Washington ranks seventh nationally in wildlife-related expenditures, with more than $980 mission being spent on wildlife viewing activities.  Most of these opportunities exist in rural communities and provide a major economic stimulus

WATCHING THE CROWS OF AUBURN, NY

Rita Sarnacola of CROW (Citizens Respectful of Wildlife) in Auburn, NY has been working on ways to wake up the town to the economic potential of wildlife watching.  A bar has been having "crow shoots."  Rita and Wildlife Watch would like to see Auburn, NY become the crow capital of the country.  Wildlife Watch volunteers will soon be doing a presentation in Auburn to discuss the potential of wildlife watching and setting up for viewing these sociable, intelligent and playful birds.  We will emphasize the economic potential that crow watching will have on Auburn. 
www.crows.net/help.html - Have some cornchips!

R. O. C. K. 
REHABBERS OFFER CARE AND KINDNESS
A Project of Wildlife Watch

It’s important to see the many perils facing individual wild animals in their daily existence.  Some can be avoided by personal steps that we can take - others need to be dealt with through education or lobbying efforts.

Your additional contributions to R.O.C.K. will be shared between the wildlife rehabilitators, rehabilitation facilities, and Wildlife Watch.   Your support for this project allows Wildlife Watch to continue to produce and mail our publication.  Your funding will aid those who work tirelessly at their own expense to provide medical and hospice care to wild animals.

Wildlife rehabilitators are licensed by state game agencies, yet they are given no other support, and they are not allowed to charge for their “services.”  Sadly, animals often come to the attention of rehabbers when they are found by people who either don’t want them near the house or don’t know how to help them.  When the DECs, DNRs or police are called, they normally recommend killing, and most veterinarians cannot take time from their busy schedules.

The Wildlife Watch R.O.C.K. Project will help to fund the treatment, rehabilitation, or hospice care of wild animals.  If you know of a wildlife rehabilitation facility in your area that might benefit from participating in our project, please let us know.  wildwatch@verizon.net or P.O. Box 562, New Paltz, NY 12561.

YOU CAN HELP US TO NATIONALIZE R.O.C.K:

If your Yellow Pages does not have a wildlife help number, please let us know.  We will arrange for a "wildlife hotline" in your area and will be happy to carry the advertising if there are at least two rehabilitators in your area who are willing and able to handle the calls that will come their way.

Wildlife Watch is activating our National Hotline number 877-WILD-HELP.  This line is not yet active.
We will need your help to activate it.  Gratefully, for the wildlife, WILDLIFE WATCH

FEATURED WILDLIFE REHABILITATOR
CAROLYN MOORE ENGLE, NEW PALTZ, NY

Carolyn’s Center, Mid-Hudson Wildlife Rescue, took care of two semi-tame pigeons who were disturbing an eatery in New Paltz.  Wildlife Watch managed to capture one, and Carolyn was able to get the other blocks away both were united.  They are now free to come and go from Carolyn’s center.  To contact Carolyn Moore Engle, call Mid-Hudson Wildlife Rescue at 845-384-6847.

Chloe, a white tail fawn, arrived at my center at the age of one month.  She had been abducted a few days after birth to become a pet for three children.  She was taken to live at grandpa’s farm so the kids would have something to play with on their monthly visits.

Did the family not realize that deer milk is in no way like cow’s milk, and that giving a fawn cow’s milk would kill her from diarrhea?

Did they stop to think how the mother doe would feel upon losing her baby?

And did they not realize how fragile fawns are in captivity?  When I heard about Chloe, she had been injured for three weeks with a broken leg and nothing had been done to help her. Along with that she was terribly sick from diarrhea.  Well, grandpa never let a vet set foot on his farm in 80 years and he wasn’t about to now.  It’s only a fawn for God’s sake and there are plenty of those around here.

After two days of haggling over the phone I managed to convince them that Chloe needed help now or she would die.  Grandpa wanted the kids to make the decision but my insistence won out.

So Chloe came to live here and underwent surgery to have a pin inserted in the broken bone.  Dr. Ruth Gillis at Compassion Veterinary Hospital performed the surgery.  And with a lot of medication and good diet we cured the diarrhea.

But, Chloe had an even more disturbing problem than her infirmities!  She was imprinted.  Fawns imprint in 5-6 days.  I knew this would be a problem but I let my heart rule out and hoped that during her 8 week recovery I could wild her up to be releasable.  I tried to minimize contact with her.  She grew healthy and strong; the pin was removed but she stayed too friendly.  I decided to keep her in her secluded pen until after hunting season then try letting her go here at my farm.  I built a higher fencing, but tons of forage for her daily, and kept away from her.  One day she jumped out of her enclosure and was gone.  She came home a few times but here was no pint in trying to keep her enclosed anymore.  Then she didn’t come home again.

I knew better than to take in an imprinted fawn.  A friendly animal is a dead animal.  Now I live with the heartbreak of not knowing what ever happened to Chloe.  Could she have suddenly turned wild?  Not likely.

So my beloved Chloe, I’m so sorry that weren’t left with your mother.  I sorry for the selfishness of people who want fawns and other wild animals as pets!

What You Can Do:

Unless you actually see a dead doe, leave the fawn alone.  Fawns are rarely orphaned

Deer can and do cope with winter.  They seek sheltered areas called "yards" where they concentrate and pack down snow making travel easier.  The food they eat in the fall is converted into fat deposits and they grow highly insulated fur coats.

They restrict their activities including time spent feeding.  Food intake drops to half that eaten in the fall and energy needs are reduced.

Healthy deer are well suited for winter, so adequate winter cover is essential for their survival.  Protecting wintering areas extremely important.