What follows is a synthesis of the ecological considerations that are raised throughout the project in various sections. Here, the ecological threat posed by current U.S. wetland policy can be digested in whole before proceeding to the final section, which is the authors' recommendation for addressing these issues.
Wetland losses since the exploration of North America are estimated at 100 million acres (Hiemlich et al, 1998). An entire ecosystem has historically been viewed as a wasteland to be claimed by the efforts of man. Though wetlands are now valued in the letter of the law and in the theory of policy, in practice wetlands are not sufficiently protected either by traditional mitigation or mitigation banking. The fact remains that both approaches accept as legitimate the replacing of a natural wetland with an artificial wetland. The facts also show that a man-made, artificial wetland is likely not to be functionally equivalent to the natural wetland it replaced, at least in the near term (Fennessy, 1997). The inescapable conclusion of Fennessy's work is that a temporal loss of wetland function is guaranteed by the mitigation approach.
If replacement is not perfectly equal, mankind is knowingly meddling with the ecological law of interdependence. We rely on this ecosystem and its organisms for vital needs including water quality and flood protection. Furthermore, by dramatically reducing wetlands through our efforts of the last two centuries, we have put the biodiversity on which wetlands depend in a precarious situation. Our policy considers wetland biodiversity to be moveable, like any other commodity. U.S. wetland policy today fully embraces the hegemony of human economic calculations over all aspects of life.
The ecological drawback of traditional, on-site mitigation is the creation of disjointed, "postage stamp" wetlands. When 5 acres are destroyed, permit applicants create five acres a short distance away, soon to be surrounded by development on all sides. Isolated wetlands are degraded wetlands. In the traditional mitigation process there is little incentive for quality mitigation because of ineffective Corps oversight. After the permit is granted, the Corps influence on a project quickly fades. They are incapable of policing every mitigation project. Combine the regulatory atmosphere with a competitive bidding process by environmental contractors, and the results are lackluster at best. On-site mitigation implies a lack of site selection flexibility, which can have a significant cost impact. When the project is "complete" there is no maintenance incentive because there is no enforcement. The result is a high rate of failure, increasing development without maintaining ecological functions.
The mitigation banking method was devised and accepted because it addresses the concerns of isolation, oversight, and maintenance. Banking is not an ecological panacea. Many view banking as a "pay and pave" policy which encourages destruction by making mitigation easier for the applicant. The economic considerations of the bank may require ecological concessions with regard to timing credit sales. Finally, larger scale ecological failure is possible when putting all the eggs (permits) in one basket (bank).