menu
by Marta de Prisco
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Marta de Pisco is a design and sustainability strategist.
by Marta de Prisco
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Marta de Pisco is a design and sustainability strategist.
by Marta de Prisco
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Marta de Pisco is a design and sustainability strategist.
by Marta de Prisco
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Wetland Mitigation Banking in the U.S.: To what extent do wetland mitigation banks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem promote effectiveness and justice?
This article investigates the role conservation banking plays in counteracting the loss of endangered species habitat through wetland mitigation in the U.S. It will do so by examining the effectiveness of conservation banking in achieving biodiversity net gains in created wetlands banks along a highway corridor in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area, northwest Wyoming. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making regarding the assessment and identification of potential offset sites is fundamental in conservation banking’s effectiveness and success (Kormos et al., 2015). However, in the GYE case, a lack of community engagement shows how issues of justice must be taken into account to properly assess the effectiveness of created wetland banks, especially as the area is formally associated with Native tribes (National Park Service, 2022). Ultimately, the research will conclude by pointing towards convivial conservation to challenge the human-nature dichotomy dominant to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2022). This is to ensure more just and democratic wetland mitigation practices, in which biodiversity and ecosystem services are not removed or displaced in sites where stakeholders, especially Indigenous communities, depend for spiritual, cultural and basic physical needs (Kormos et al., 2015).
Conservation banking in the United States: the case of command-and-commodify regulation
Freshwater wetlands offer vital ecosystem services, including water purification, flood mitigation, carbon storage and food production as well as provide habitat for diverse flora and fauna (Delgado et al., 2020). Globally, human activities linked to urban development, agriculture, and road construction and expansion have caused a large scale reduction of wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019). In the U.S., wetlands loss through large-scale development projects is required to be mitigated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Hough and Robertson, 2008). The legislation is guided by the 1989 ‘No Net Loss’ executive policy, which demands the mitigation of lost wetlands and their ecosystems’ function by an equivalent or greater area of wetland through processes of restoration or construction (Turner et al., 2001).
Conservation banking systems, which include wetland mitigation banking, are widely-used ecological mitigation practices in the U.S. (Swartz et al., 2019). Conservation banks represent permanently protected land units of endangered species habitats which are offered for sale to offset land development projects’ ecological impacts (Rea, 2017, p.22). Thus, enabling developers to comply with government-imposed mitigation requirements (ibid.). Wetland mitigation banking processes can be divided into wetland creation, involving building new wetlands in upland areas (ibid.), and wetland restoration, relating to repairing original wetlands in areas with a history of wetland degradation (ibid.).
Habitat offsetting schemes such as wetland mitigation banking are market-oriented ecological solutions that heavily rely on ‘direct and authoritative commands’ to shape economic action – also known as command-and-commodify regulations (ibid., p.32). From an economic perspective, these types of regulations are important steps towards establishing sustainable capitalist relationships with nature (ibid.). Hence, making it possible to financially quantify biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Moreover, through the 1973 US Endangered Species Act, conservation banking has become a legitimate way of safeguarding endangered species (Rea, 2017). This federal law mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the federal agency responsible for ‘the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats’ (FWS.gov., 2021) – must enforce mitigation requirements for land development projects to compensate for the loss of endangered species (ibid.).
The application of wetland mitigation banking in the U.S. has led to a reduction in the authorisation criteria for projects, causing a negative net impact on biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). However, issues linked to mitigation banking go beyond technical limitations. This as offsetting is practised through a techno-managerial vision of conservation, where ecological losses and gains are not accounted for their ‘ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political context’ (ibid., p.25). In the GYE area, which has been the subject of extensive wetland mitigation programmes, studies have shown how created banks have struggled to reproduce lost wetlands’ configuration and function (Swartz et al., 2019). Due to their slow development, created wetlands usually present lower chances than restored ones in mimicking reference wetlands’ ecosystem value and services (ibid.). Moreover, the lack of evidence regarding local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making provides further reasons to analyse the effectiveness of GYE’s created wetlands (ibid.).
Analysing the effectiveness of created wetland banks in the GYE
Wetlands in the GYE encompass 3% of the total land area and incorporate around 90% of local wildlife species (Nicholoff, 2003). Despite their invaluable ecosystem services, most wetlands in the area have been impacted bythe reconstruction of Highway 287/26, deemed one of the most dangerous highway segments in Wyoming due to a high number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (Kintsch, 2021). The 62-km highway reconstruction began in 2006 until2013 and was reprised in 2015 through 2019 by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) (ibid.). Given the popularity of the highway, as it leads to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the development aims to make the road safer (Swartz et al., 2017). However, to mitigate the several acres of impacted and lost wetlands as well as comply with federal laws, WYDOT implemented 38 wetland creation and restoration banks along the highway corridor (ibid.). Conservation activities have occurred within the geographical boundaries of the development site, thus resulting in on-site compensation (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Launched in 2008 with the last bank being constructed in 2014 (ibid.), the project is managed by WYDOT, collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Montana to closely monitor vegetation and hydrology to determine the banks’ mitigation success (ibid.).
The monitoring of the created and restored habitat in the GYE has been based on the development of vegetation and hydric soils (Swartz et al., 2019). Notably, when assessing the effectiveness of created wetlands, fauna recovery is rarely tested (ibid.). As invertebrate species are core components of Greater Yellowstone’s wetland ecosystems (ibid.), biological evaluation of created banks should rely on invertebrate metrics since they can help detect any weaknesses related to ‘the physical, chemical, and biological components of wetland integrity’ (U.S. EPA, 2002, p.23). In turn, this can help assess created wetlands’ effectiveness when compared to reference ones (Balcombe et al., 2005).
The GYE’s yearly cold temperatures, ranging from 7.6°C to 15.6°C, alongside the high-elevation and smaller surface area of created wetlands (Swartz et al., 2019) have led to slower invertebrates’ colonisation (ibid.). Moreover, the harsh climate conditions signify that longer monitoring periods are needed to measure gradual variations in vegetation and biotic communities (ibid.). Regarding location and management practices, it is important to acknowledge how one offsetting site may not work for the mitigation of all species in need (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, although aquatic vegetation levels in created wetlands registered moderate positive effects (Swartz et al., 2019), site elevation and reduced surface area suggest the ineffectiveness of wetland creation in replicating lost reference wetlands’ function and biodiversity value.
Wetland mitigation banks can still be advantageous, especially when developers are not equipped with in-house expertise on mitigation and offsetting (Kormos et al., 2015). In turn, the sharing of responsibility between WYDOT and governmental scientific and administrative agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service allows for greater compliance and accountability. This is possible through conservation banks’ consistent monitoring and tracking efforts via annual reports and datasets on sites’ characteristics and mitigation systems (ibid.). Nonetheless, evidence indicates that wetland mitigation banking systems have failed to take into account the social, cultural and historical value of the area. Thus, weighing down any advantages these systems might have had and leading to outcomes that are ‘socially and spatially uneven’ (Apostolopoulou et al., 2015, p.25). As the GYE area is formally associated with 27 Native tribes with traditional connection to the land (National Park Service, 2022), analysing the spiritual and cultural value wetlands hold for these communities is pivotal in ensuring wetland mitigation is not divorced from nature’s social, ecological and geographical context.
Issues of justice in GYE’s wetland mitigation: approaching convivial conservation
Wetlands are essential sources of sustenance and spiritual practices for Native Americans who, before being displaced by European colonisers, heavily relied on their diverse population of wildlife and flora for food and medicinal purposes (Mushet et al., 2020). This resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship, where for hundreds of years Tribes have succeeded in protecting and maintaining wetlands’ quality and resources (Suagee et al., 2000). Accordingly, the Native American Policy, drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and revised in 2016, provides a framework that federally recognises land protection and conservation by the hand of local Native tribes (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The policy stems from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, building on the knowledge and sovereignty of indigenous cultures regarding environmental conservation (ibid.). In the case of GYE’s wetland mitigation, amongst the 27 Native communities connected to the area, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, who together form the Wind River Reservation, represent one of the largest landowners along Highway 287/26 (Kintsch, 2021). This is an opportunity for WYDOT to encourage engagement with the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and collaborate on a long-term conservation plan to improve created wetland banks’ habitat. However, participatory justice systems which regards the effective involvement of different people in decision making (Massarella et al., 2022) can only be achieved by questioning the current monitoring and mitigation systems that have disengaged Native tribes from biodiversity conservation in the first place.
Having tribal members act as land stewards is pivotal to the success of mitigation programmes because of Native Peoples’ sense of responsibility and knowledge of the local biodiversity (Kormos et al., 2015). Hence, the commitment of bank owners and managers can be a determining factor for the success of conservation banking systems, especially when challenged by negative externalities driven by climate change, limited funding for law and policy enforcement and unstable economic conditions (ibid.). In this context, the concept of justice must incorporate transformative ideologies, where instead of focusing on affirmative action, involving policies that promote marginalised groups’ representation in decision-making, attention should go towards transformative action, directly addressing and questioning issues of power and injustices (Massarella et al., 2022). Consequently, justice should be addressed from an epistemic perspective, thus challenging dominant knowledge regarding nature conservation and mitigation influenced by colonial legacy (ibid.). These principles point towards convivial conservation, a nature conservation approach aimed at promoting ‘a socially just, democratic, and inclusive form of biodiversity governance’ (ibid., p.60). A key focus of convivial conservation is the notion that humans play a critical role in the protection of nature and, therefore, they should coexist in productive harmony (ibid.). This idea opposes fortress conservation, which is based upon the belief that people should be restricted from biodiversity protection activities (Rai et al., 2021).
Fortress conservation has had a significant impact on biodiversity mitigation policies, supporting the financial reframing of nature and thereby making it hard to perceive nature conservation as a social process (ibid.; Apostolopoulou et al., 2015). Although GYE’s wetland banks have been all constructed since 2014, pressure from highway development is a continual threat. Especially given the popularity of Highway 287/26 as it leads to two major National Parks. Therefore, if WYDOT is to comply with the Native American Policy, the monitoring of created banks and management responsibilities should be actively shared amongst the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. This is to allow for the integration of Tribal wetland conservation and restoration systems which, in turn, can influence strategies for improving the protection and development of existing and future wetland mitigation banks (Suagee et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This article investigated the effectiveness of wetland mitigation banks in the GYE and whether they promote social justice. In doing so, the study looked at the role of wetland creation in mimicking the living communities and ecosystem services of wetlands lost by the reconstruction of Highway 287/26. As an established form of command-and-commodify regulations, conservation banking in the U.S. has raised questions regarding whether nature conservation and economic development can harmoniously and effectively coexist (Mushet et al., 2020). The GYE’s case indicates that such coexistence must indeed be questioned due to invertebrates, amphibians and birds’ exclusion from banks monitoring protocols (Swartz et al., 2019). Therefore, a clearer designation of wetland fauna recovery is critical for no net loss to occur (Kormos et al., 2015). A combination of land stewardship and regulator entities is also essential in ensuring conservation banking’s success (ibid.). Hence, to support ecosystems’ restoration and the accurate monitoring of created wetlands, the sovereignty of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes’ approach to natural resource management must be acknowledged. This is to ensure just transformations that facilitate long-term conservation practices based on traditional knowledge and experience (Suagee et al., 2000). Finally, integrating convivial conservation approaches can encourage more diverse and collaborative mitigation practices that challenge top-down structures of power and knowledge (Massarella et al., 2022). Thus, highlighting the need to prioritise justice in efforts to prevent the continued commodification of wildlife (ibid.). Ultimately, true effectiveness in conservation banking can only be accomplished by promoting a plurality of perspectives and methodologies that incorporate local and Indigenous forms of knowledge.
Reference List
Apostolopoulou, E. and Adams, W.M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it.
Oryx. 51(1), pp.25-26-27.
Balcombe, C.K., Anderson, J.T., Fortney, R.H. and Kordek, W.S. (2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages
in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541. In Swartz, L., Muths, E. and Hossack, B. (2017).
Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: wildlife population & community
response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Transportation, p.11.
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (2020). Soil and water conservation: A celebration of 75 years.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p.166.
FWS.gov. (2021). About Us: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/about (Accessed: April
8, 2023).
Hough, P. and Robertson, M. (2008). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from,
what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L.
and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Kintsch, J. (2021). US Highway 26 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy – DRAFT. ECO-resolutions, pp.1-35-B9.
Kormos, R., Mead, D. and Vinnedge, B. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting in the United States: Lesson learned on
maximising their ecological contribution, pp.9-10-13-15-16.
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring convivial conservation in theory and
practice: Possibilities and challenges for a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation. Conservation
and Society. 20(2), pp.60-61-62-65.
Mushet, D.M. and Calhoun, A.J.K. (2020). “Wetland Conservation in the United States: A Swinging Pendulum,” in
Delgado, J.A., Gantzer, C.J. and Sassenrath, G.F. (ed.) Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years.
SWCS, pp.162-169.
National Park Service. (2022). Native American Affairs. National Park Service. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/native-american-affairs.htm.
Nicholoff, S. H. (2003). Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Lander, WY. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R.,
Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland
mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
Rai, N.D., Devy, M.S, Ganesh, T., Ganesan, R., Setty, S.R., Hiremath, A.J., Khaling, S. and Rajan, P.D. (2021).
Beyond Fortress Conservation: The long-term integration of natural and Social Science Research for an inclusive
conservation practice in India. Biological Conservation, 254, p1.
Rea, C.M. (2017). Theorising command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in
the United States. Springer. 46(21), pp.22-24-27-32-34-35.
Suagee, B. and Havard, J.J. (2000). “Case Studies of Tribal Wetland Programs,” in Tribal Governments and the
Protection of Watersheds and Wetlands in Indian Country. Thomas L. Rev, pp.24-27-55-56.
Swartz, L.K., Muths, E. and Hossack, B.R. (2017). Evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: wildlife population & community response. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of
Transportation, pp.3-4-43.
Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe, W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5),
pp.943-945-947-949-950.
Turner, R., Redmond, A., & Zedler, J. (2001). Count it by acre or function: Mitigation adds up to net loss of
wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter, 23. In Swartz, L.K., Hossack, B.R., Muths, E., Newell, R.L. and Lowe,
W.H. (2019). Aquatic macroinvertebrate community responses to wetland mitigation in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Freshwater Biology. 64(5), p.943.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing an Invertebrate Index
of Biological Integrity for Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, p.23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). Native American Policy. rep. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, pp.3-4.
Marta de Pisco is a design and sustainability strategist.