Yes, the title is chosen to be as descriptive as possible. It is valid because of several important reasons. They are set down here for aid in preparing objections to wetlands destruction, currently common, and often allowed because "mitigation" is being written into law and regulation. To see the extent of the farce, compare the following points with the contents of Florida Statutes 373.414(18), and Chapter 62-345 (Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method).
First, remember that the dictionary definition of "mitigate" is "lessen or moderate in severity" (Webster's Handy College Dictionary). So right off the bat, the offer to mitigate doesn't mean provide the equal: and it certainly doesn't meet the promise once made--- NO NET LOSS.
Also, it must be understood that the way mitigation is applied includes an assumption that a wetland THERE is equal to a wetlands HERE. This is easy to show to be false in particular cases, such as an oasis in a desert. It can be more difficult where wetlands are more common. However, in any case, a wetland HERE exists because the natural conditions induce the particular formation. Proof that this is also the case for a "mitigation area" THERE should be a requirement. It does not exist, since the assessment and mitigation approach requires only creation of an acreage based on a point count.
Further, the way mitigation is applied implicitly assumes that all wetland
are equal. They are not, and they differ in a number of ways. Some of the
differences lie in:
General Location, flatland, hilly land, forested,
grassland, etc
Fresh Water or Brackish Water or Salt Water
Always Present, or Mostly Present or Rarely Present
Effect on wet period stream flow rates, flooding,
and dry period stream flow rates
Aquifer Recharge or Spring fed Discharge
Vegetation Species Present, by season
Bird, Amphibian, Fish and large Animal Species Present,
by Season and Percent of Time.
These are only the more visible ways they can vary. A full review requires
evaluation of microorganisms, insects, fungi and species life cycle needs.
To preserve a wetland function, all of the elements needed to describe its functionality must be preserved.. This is not provided by the assessment method, which assigns a value of 1 to 10 for the limited list of function to be evaluated, sums these, then applies some "bugger factors" to arrive at a size of a mitigation area or charge against a "mitigation bank". The functions of the destroyed wetland HERE are not necessarily provided by the mitigation THERE. And an entire species could be wiped out: But we met the rules!
Another factor is that there is really no such thing as an "isolated wetland". There is always interconnection, by such modes a stormwater sheet flow, wildlife migration patterns by land and air, and occasional visits of mobile species. The proof is simple: destroy and sterilize a wetland area, leaving the shape and formations untouched, then observe the vegetation and wildlife changes with time. It may take some years, or a century in the case of a cypress strand, but the wetland will eventually recover.
A final and important factor is that there is considerable data showing
that mitigated wetlands rarely perform as promised. And the actual picture
is probably worse, since regulatory agencies are intentionally under funded
and therefore understaffed in the functions of inspection and enforcement.
ACTIONS TO END THE WETLANDS FARCE
When opposing the destruction of a wetland, take the position that the
permitting agency must:
- Ask for a complete description of the wetland,
location and size including bottom contour, vegetation present by season,
and wildlife use in day and night over at least a year and preferably over
three to five years, from microorganisms to major animal species.
- Ask for a complete inventory of the functions
and their magnitude for the existing wetland, based on observation and
measurement.
- Ask for the seasonal relation between the affected
wetland and the other water resources of the area, including streams, springs
and the aquifer.
- Require a showing that the proposed mitigation
will provide at least the same functions and their magnitudes in the local
area of the affected wetland.
- Require proof that the executing organization
has successfully accomplished a mitigation project of equal or larger magnitude,
and shall post a bond sufficient to reverse the damage done.
- Provide reimbursement for the accrued costs of
inspection of the mitigated wetland and evaluation of inspection results.
Others may arise for a particular proposal for wetland destruction.