Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples

Template:Db-copyvio Book Review of Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples:
“All across the country, the presence of wetlands has prevented, delayed, or rerouted development… Conflicts between development and environmental protection are not new and likely will become increasingly common” (Porter and Salvesen 1). As stated in the introduction of this edited compilation of land planning illustrations, the conflicts between developers and environmentalists, and the government agencies that preside over them, are not easily resolved due to the opposing interests of all parties and the complicated sets of land use guidelines. Many environmentalists are not willing to give up areas of degraded wetland habitats to development in order to save other pristine areas, while developers are not provided with comprehensive or, in certain cases, coherent guidelines as to land use in ecologically important areas. The government agencies that have jurisdiction over these land battles frequently share authority with other agencies at local, state and even federal levels, causing great confusion and delays to the processing and approval or rejection of permits. As a means of easing these problems and creating greater compromises, several states are now adopting a method of land use planning and permitting known as collaborative, area-wide planning. Editors Douglas R. Porter and David A. Salvesen have compiled a number of cases of the use of this type of planning from around the United States in their work Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples. While this collection provides insights which are beneficial to land use planners, certain strengths of the work can also be seen as limitations to its widespread use.

	Porter and Salvesen create an argument for the widespread use of collaborative, area-wide planning in the solution of land use issues pertaining to wetlands through the many precedents contained in the work. They attempt to resolve the majority of the questions that might be posed by planners considering this method by providing diverse specimen that delve into the backgrounds of the problems while also explaining the proceedings of the actual planning. This use of examples gives a better explanation of the method of this type of planning than a simple definition. One such definition is, however, provided for those planners that would rather have this type of information: “Area-wide planning is a collaborative, often voluntary, ad hoc process that brings developers, environmentalists, and government regulators to the negotiating table to balance natural resource protection with development for a particular area” (Porter and Salvesen 3). This method of planning is presented as one that allows for greater compromise and protection by involving all interested parties in negotiations for land-use, which promotes greater approval of the outcomes, as all sides have an equal voice. This opens the dialogue between developers and environmentalists, creating fewer conflicts down the road and promoting relationships among the different interests, a conclusion arrived at by Lindell L. Marsh and Peter L. Lallas (22-23). This same conclusion is listed as a reason for the use of collaborative planning in a document published by the Florida Department of Community Affairs in order to resolve land use issues between parties (Dennis). Porter and Salvesen also argue that this type of planning will smooth out the process of approving or rejecting development permits because it will provide developers with comprehensive sets of guidelines as to what is acceptable usage of wetlands areas. These guidelines must be in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Clean Water Act, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers and the Endangered Species Act, several of the many agencies and legislative acts that hold jurisdiction over wetlands. Also, as the planning process involves any interested parties, this allows for the development of comprehensive plans that apply to all such designated critical areas, which creates less confusion for developers and governmental agencies in terms of permitting. I feel that this explanation of the benefits of collaborative, area-wide planning is very useful to planners and interested parties because of its use of paradigms to explain methods.

Although Porter and Salvesen cited many instances of the use of collaborative, area-wide planning for wetlands, they did not provide models that thoroughly covered all the regions of the United States. The key areas that were focused upon in the work, as laid out in the introduction, are “areas that are rich in wetlands or endangered species and that also have strong real estate markets” (Porter and Salvesen 1). Therefore, this work includes samples from New Jersey, Maryland, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida, Alaska, and several sites in California. This leaves several regions unmentioned, which can raise questions from developers and planners in these areas. Would this type of planning be less likely to succeed in one of these regions? In order to find answers to this question and others related to land use regulations for specific regions or areas, planners must still conduct a great deal of research on their own. Great knowledge of the federal, state, and local regulations of wetlands development must still be attained in order to complete any planning. A single, area-wide planning process is inapplicable to entire regions due to the differences that remain between all states. Thus, many groups have put together guidelines for development or environmental protection that apply to certain states. A joint effort by members of the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Environmental Law Project led to the creation of A Citizens’ Guide to Protecting Wetlands in South Carolina. The work describes the ways that South Carolina citizens can get involved in wetland protection and voice opinions in development planning proceedings (Wagner). This is just one of the many resources needed by planners and citizens to ensure that all guidelines are followed. The research compiled by Porter and Salvesen is thorough is several aspects, but does not by any means significantly decrease the need for individual research by planners.
While these paragons of collaborative, area-wide planning are very useful to planners, this means that this work is very technical in terms of language and content. One such illustration of this technical aspect is found in Scott T. McCreary and Mark B. Adams’ writing on the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce: “The coastal program is based on three coordinated sets of regulatory authority: the statewide planning goals, comprehensive plans developed by local governments and approved by the LCDC, and specific statutory authorities that guide the actions of various state agencies” (108). Those who are well-informed about land use and planning are able to easily understand the terms and descriptions of the planning method. However, those who do not have great knowledge of planning terms or experience in the area might have some difficulty in understanding how to apply this method. This means that this work cannot be as useful to those readers who are interested in the subject but might not have the necessary terminology as it is to those readers who are planners, developers or environmentalists. So, this creates a very narrow focus for a specific audience, those who are interested in collaborative, area-wide planning for wetlands and have the professional knowledge of terms and methods. Porter and Salvesen might have intended for this work to have such a narrow appeal, but this serves to limit its effectiveness in promoting this method of planning.
Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples is a well-edited compilation of cases promoting the usage of area-wide planning in developing wetland areas. Porter and Salvesen present a strong argument in favor of the method, while presenting only a few limitations in the wide-spread use of this work as a reference. The lack of representation from all regions of the country allows planners to raise questions as to the effectiveness of this method in all regions. The technical aspect of the work creates a very narrow audience, which limits the use of this as a resource for those not already involved in the industry. However, the use of examples to explain and promote the method of planning is very effective. This is a great resource for planners, developers or environmentalists who wish to learn more about collaborative, area-wide planning for wetlands areas.
References:
Dennis, Bob. "Planning for Wetlands Protection Through a Federal, State and Local Partnership." Florida Department of Community Affairs. 18 May 1998. Florida State Government. 12 Mar 2009 <http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/publications/wetlandspub.htm>.
Marsh, Lindell L. and Peter L. Lallas. "Focused, Special-Area Conservation Planning: An Approach to Reconciling Development and Environmental Protection." Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples. Ed. Douglas R. Porter and David A. Salvesen. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1995.
McCreary, Scott T. and Mark B. Adams. "Managing Wetlands through Advanced Planning and Permitting: The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce." Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples. Ed. Douglas R. Porter and David A. Salvesen. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1995.
Porter, Douglas R., and David A. Salvesen. Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1995.
Wagner, Wendy. A Citizens' Guide to Protecting Wetlands in South Carolina. 1st. Charlottesville, VA: Southern Environmental Law Center, 1991.

Lost on Wikademia? Please help by choosing project boxes to classify this resource by: subject educational level resource type