SWS News

Establishment of a Society of Wetland Scientists’ Wetland Concerns Committee

Mark Finlayson1

As signaled in the February 2021 meeting of the Board of Directors of the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS), the President of SWS, Dr. Loretta Battaglia, after consulting with the Executive Board, has re-established a Wetland Concerns Committee. The role and function of the new Committee differs from the previous version of this Committee, and takes into account the establishment and operation of SWS Sections and Chapters that in different ways may address wetland concerns.

Details of the purpose, initial membership and processes to be adopted by the Committee are outlined below. SWS members are encouraged to consider this information and, where appropriate, contact the Committee members and draw their attention to issues that may form part of their activities on behalf of SWS, and also, engage with “Initiatives” established by the Committee, or propose and assist with the establishment of new Initiatives.

GENERAL PURPOSE:

The Wetland Concerns Committee is responsible for investigating issues of concern on both a strategic and a reactive basis and sharing this information, as appropriate, by advising the Executive Board where policy issues arise, or through seminars/webinar presentations, or publication in the wider literature, including both peer reviewed (such as Wetlands or other journals) or non-peer reviewed literature (Wetland Science and Practice), or through postings on the web or through social media.

GENERAL PROCESSES:

1. The committee will not issue policy statements or letters on behalf of SWS. Where policy issues of relevance to SWS arise or are recommended, the Committee will refer these to the Executive Board, and where agreed, discuss further with the Policy & Regulation Section, or other Committees, Sections, or Chapters. 2. The Executive Board can request the Committee to investigate specific issues, either strategically or reactively in response to issues that are raised by SWS members or others. This will include information on the form of the reporting and the type of paper that

is required (e.g. whether a briefing or background paper, a position paper, or specific advice for a policy response). 3. The members of the Committee can also raise issues to be investigated through mechanisms such as through sub-committees or working groups, and where appropriate, in collaboration with other

Committees, Sections, or Chapters, or partner organisations and other experts. 4. The Committee will normally report to the Board of Directors twice a year, as part of the existing reporting arrangements, and to the Executive Board as required in response to particular issues. 5. It is expected that the Committee will incorporate existing initiatives such as the Climate Change and

Wetlands Initiative approved by the Executive Board in March 2020, and the Rights of Wetlands Initiative, approved in February 2021. When other issues are identified or initiatives proposed a suitable working arrangement will be agreed with interested parties (members and partner organizations). These activities will be time bound within the remit of the Committee and any successor. 6. It is expected that further issues could include responses to problems at specific sites, or more general issues, including emerging issues such as the wider problem of plastics in wetlands. For site specific issues contact will be made with the appropriate Chapter to determine if there is interest and suitable expertise or knowledge available, or

Sections with relevant expertise, such as the Peatland or Global Change Ecology Sections. This may also include the Ramsar Section, or the Wetlands of

Distinction Committee if wetland site designations are of relevance to the issues being raised. Strategic or thematic considerations will be raised with appropriate Sections in particular for the purpose of avoiding overlap as well as seeking collaboration. 7. The Committee may propose symposia for SWS annual meetings, or at Chapter meetings, usually in collaboration with others, in particular with

Sections that are already required to hold an annual symposium. 8. The Committee will liaise with the Editor of Wetland

Science and Practice to identify opportunities where written reports on specific issues could be submitted

1 Chair, SWS ad hoc Committee for Wetland Concerns, Immediate Past President SWS; mfinlayson@csu.edu.au; Institute for Land, Water & Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 3749, Australia; School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales, Australia; IHE Delft, Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands

for publication, including as information notes about plans for the Committee, as well as to report outcomes. 9. The committee will liaise with the Education and Outreach Standing Committee and Section to contribute to specific information sharing activities, and with SWS staff to share appropriate materials through news and social media mechanisms.

MEMBERSHIP:

The Committee comprises a coordinating group consisting of the Committee Chair, a Vice-Chair and an initial further 6 members, all of whom are in good standing as members of SWS and includes representatives from the USA and internationally. Other members may be added as agreed by the SWS President. A representative of agreed Initiatives undertaken through the Committee would normally be expected to join the Committee.

This coordinating group will be responsible for reporting to the Executive Board and Board of Directors, and for managing the activities of the Committee, including determining the issues that will be considered, and how this can be done.

The initial members have been appointed for a 2 year period, as per the standing rules for ad hoc committees. Additional members will be added for the duration of the Committee. The current members are: • Chair: Max Finlayson • Vice Chair: to be confirmed • International wetland policy: Nick Davidson • Restoration practice: Andy Herb • Biodiversity & ecosystem services assessment: Siobhan Fennessy • Rights of Wetlands Initiative representative: Gillian Davies • Climate Change and Wetlands Initiative representative: Bill Moomaw • Policy and Regulations representative – Richard Chinn

INITIATIVES:

As mentioned above, the Committee currently has carriage of two formal Initiatives that developed from activities, including symposia at SWS conferences, undertaken by SWS members. A description of each of these Initiatives is available in Wetland Science & Practice, as indicated below. SWS members with an interest in contributing to these Initiatives are encouraged to make contact with the coordinators. It is not expected that everything to do with the subject of the initiatives needs to be done through this mechanism. While members are invited to join these initiatives and to work with the teams that are being formed they are equally able to pursue their interests through other means as suits themselves.

The two Initiatives in place at this time are briefly described below. i) Climate Change and Wetlands Initiative – the purpose of the Initiative is to extend the role of SWS in generating knowledge and sharing evidence-based information for addressing science, policy, and management of wetlands in a changing climate. It will build on recent activities largely undertaken through the Society’s annual meetings and involve a collective of Society members with common interests in global change, including climate change. Contact: Bill Moomaw

Information on this Initiative is available in the July 2020 issue of WSP, pages 158-160. It is also supported by other articles in WSP that report on the invitation to members to sign the San Juan Statement, the Denver Declaration and the Baltimore Proclamation. ii) Rights of Wetlands Initiative – the purpose of this Initiative is to collaborate to further develop and promote a framework for recognizing the ethical and legal Rights of Wetlands and the fundamental realignment of the human-wetlands relationship that it implies. It builds on the publication and subsequent promotion of a paper entitled a Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands (open access https://doi.org/10.1071/MF20219). Formalization of the Initiative creates a vehicle for future collaborations both within and beyond SWS, such as with individuals and organizations with whom we may wish to collaborate, including members of Indigenous and local communities and Rights of Nature non-governmental organizations. Contact: Gillian Davies

Members with an interest in developing further Initiatives that could be included within the Wetland Concerns Committee are asked to contact the Chair or to discuss with other members of the Committee. We have had some initial interest in developing Initiatives around: i) plastics in wetlands; ii) basin or watershed approaches for managing wetlands and lakes; and iii) developing participatory processes for managing wetlands. If you have a specific interest in these topics please make contact to explore what opportunities may be possible.

Feel free to raise further ideas, particularly if you also have thought about how to develop these. Keep in mind that the concept of a ‘wetland concern’ has been kept broad, and can be strategic or tactical, site based or thematic, and include basic science through to wetland practice and education. n

In Memoriam: Robert P. Brooks

Denice Wardrop, Penn State University

There are those for whom the joy of science is in its ability to observe the smallest details of a problem; some who delight in its ability to untangle knotted threads of variables; some who use it to chase cures for something that threatens; some who use it to uncover patterns; some who use it to organize the world. And then there are some who use science to make the earth that they love a more beautiful place, and to help others to do the same. Robert P. Brooks was one of the latter.

Rob’s professional love affair with the watery world began in graduate school at the University of Massachusetts with beavers, muskrats, and otters, those engineers and denizens of lakes, ponds, and streams (by his own account, he would have given the start date of 5 yrs of age, but we’ll consider that professional preparation). It led him to combine wildlife biology and wetlands science, and he was invited to volunteer on a local conservation commission and be in charge of wetland permitting. Those three early interests and experiences of animal populations, their aquatic habitat, and the policy and management that was applied to them, would weave together and give rise to three defining characteristics of his entire career: conservation, collaboration, and synthesis.

Rob had a deep understanding of the difference between conservation and preservation: while preservation means protecting nature from human use, conservation is the care and protection of these resources so that they can persist for future generations. The highest form of conservation requires two foundational elements: the appreciation for, and willingness to participate in, multiple fronts from research to policy, and an ethical foundation in the belief that future generations deserve to have access to the same beauty and wonder that current generations do. The multiple fronts that Rob dove into included transformative research, environmental education, community outreach, legislation, and policy. That resulted in efforts that ranged from invasive species removal (mostly plants), native species reintroduction (otters), development of ecological indicators across all organism types, and rapid assessment approaches. Participation on multiple fronts required a trait that Rob had an abundance of: a natural openness and delight in engaging any kind of person into conversation and exploration. Whether agency regulator or undergraduate intern, he listened, he weighed, he truly tried to imagine what would make your task easier. That was an approach that was remarkable in an academic setting at the time, and Rob succeeded in blending his missions of conservationist and educator. Thus, tools that were ready made for managers and policy makers emerged continuously, and he taught a generation of students how to do the same. He had the foresight to know what would have to serve as the basis of those tools. Riparia’s Reference Wetland Collection, composed of 222 wetland sites across Pennsylvania, was presciently begun in 1993 as an unfunded venture, and grown into a remarkable research resource that served as a platform for dozens of assessment tools, theses, and dissertations. Rob had begun with a paired watershed study in his early career, and had seen what could be learned from observation of landscapes impacted to varying degrees; he never forgot the power of comparison. He embraced the concept of sustainability long before it was in vogue, and was the perfect ancestor, with a long term view and a genuine hope for a better future for those he loved. And that love was obvious; you could have predicted his success as a grandfather by the way he viewed his students.

The transdisciplinary approach that conservation required had another necessary element; the ability to gather people around a common goal that required collaboration, and there were few better than Rob at planting a flag and gathering a new tribe. Rob was an abundantly decent man, the kind of decency that is defined by treating all people with dignity and respect. The respect reached deep into personas, to your values and what you held dear in the world. As such, the tribes he gathered were composed of similarly decent people, and almost every group I watched him gather had a genuine affection, commitment, and regard for both one another and the cause that was being pursued. One great example was the research center that he founded in 1993, the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center (where science informs policy and practice in wetlands ecology, landscape hydrology, and watershed management), later given the new moniker of Riparia. The name change alone gives you insight into Rob’s desire to engage an ever-widening web of people understanding the connection between the health of the environment and their own; much to the chagrin of the Center’s staff at the time, Rob’s defense of the new name was that it was a “conversation starter”, versus a simple name that stated where we resided and what we did. It turned out to be exactly that. His success at obtaining research funds (he was senior principal investigator on over 116 grants funded between 1981-2018, over $31million) was a reflection of his ability to identify an important

obstacle to wise use of natural resources, to gather a group of people to characterize and dissolve the obstacle, and to charm us all into creating an atmosphere of that same sort of decency where we could do our best work. That charm arose from Rob’s compassion, ever-present sense of wonder, and love of fun. And did we have it. There were Wetlands and Wildlife Olympics, project meetings in beautiful places, poems dedicated to silly things, beautiful photographs, music everywhere, hijinks and laughter in the field. Rob knew that the best work arose out of love, wonder, and respect; the productivity of those collaborations is a testament to that.

Last, but not least, Rob loved synthesis, the weaving and interplay of things, and showed a deep appreciation for it in all of its forms, whether in art, literature, or science. He often pointed to the E.O. Wilson quote, “We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely.” A wonderful example of that kind of synthesis was the stunning quilted landscapes that his wife, Becky, created out of pieces of fabric that seemed inconsequential on their own, but when artfully integrated provided a new and stunning picture of a part of the world. Rob loved those quiltings and what they accomplished, to see things in a new light, to create new beauty in the world. Professionally, that drive for synthesis showed up in the type of projects that he led, ones which required a wide and open view of factors and possibilities, such as the reintroduction of the river otter in Pennsylvania or the development of a suite of ecological indicators for the Mid-Atlantic. He continually advocated for the integration of wetlands, streams, and floodplains, which were typically treated as discrete entities. Rob saw the sometimes crisp and sometimes blurry boundaries, and pushed for a dialogue that would understand them as interacting parts of an integrated system. Personally, it showed up in his photographs, which were always uncovering some fantastic detail that others might have missed, or in his musings and writings. During my time as his grad student, he once gave me a small book in which to record “grass clippings”, those small ideas and insights that come along. He always had such a book on his person, looking for new ways to make those grass clippings into a picture that was bigger than the sum of its parts. He succeeded very, very often.

Rob once said in an interview, “I believe the dynamics of water fascinates most people —the flow of a river, the concentric rings of a water drop on a pond’s surface, or the patterns formed by water and aquatic plants— think Monet.” Rob realized that intrinsic beauty and would gently lead many people to that fascination, and then leverage that fascination into appreciation, and then regard, and then curiosity, and finally into action that mattered, using science to stitch together those pieces, much like Becky’s quilted landscapes. He shared that fascination widely and generously, in a number of community capacities such as planning commissions, nature centers, and professional workgroups. The world is truly a different place for his presence here: he taught so many of us to see things in a new light, to create new beauty in the world. May we continue in that spirit. n

Rob was an active member of our Society. He participated in the Mid-Atlantic Chapter and regularly attended the Society's annual meetings. He served as an Associate Editor of our technical journal - WETLANDS - from 2003-2005. In 2017, Rob was honored as an SWS Fellow, the highest honor awarded to our members. (Photo credits: University of Massachusetts, left, and Penn State University, right.)

Scientists Raise Concern about the Lack of Scientific Peer Review in EIS Process

Prepared by Dave Chambers and Matt Schweisberg

The proposed Pebble Mine in southwest Alaska, approximately 200 air miles from Anchorage, has been highly controversial for over a decade. The Pebble deposit is potentially the largest copper-gold deposit in North America, but is located in the upper Bristol Bay watershed, which hosts the largest commercial runs of Sockeye salmon in the world. The area is remote, essentially roadless, and for all practical purposes pristine. The mineral deposit contains potentially acid rock, and dissolved copper is a contaminant of particular concern for salmonids.

In 2014, during the Obama administration, the USEPA completed the peer-reviewed Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, which concluded that a mine like the proposed Pebble Mine could pose unacceptable adverse effects to the salmon fishery in Bristol Bay, and should not be allowed.1 The mining company owning the deposit has continued to call the EPA science biased, despite an opinion from the EPA Inspector General which found, “… no evidence of bias in how the EPA conducted its assessment …”2 Under the Trump administration, the pending prohibition against the Pebble Mine was withdrawn, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers was completed in just over two and a half years. The EIS found that the mine would, “… not be expected to have measurable effects...” on Bristol Bay fisheries.3 The mining company has described the EIS as, “… one of the greatest Final Environmental Impact Statements that you can imagine …”4 During the EIS review process, commenters on the EIS, including those signing the letter below, pointed to many fundamental and conspicuous flaws with the EIS analyses and conclusions. These criticisms were ignored in the Final EIS.

1 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 910-R14-001A, January 2014, https:// www.epa.gov/bristolbay/bristol-bay-assessmentfinal-report-2014 2 EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: Obtainable Records Show EPA Followed Required Procedures Without Bias or Predetermination, but a Possible Misuse of Position Noted, U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Report No. 16-P-0082 January 13, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/bristolbay/ bristol-bay-assessment-final-report-2014 3 Pebble Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, US Army Corps of Engineers, July 2020, https://pebbleprojecteis.com 4 SmithWeekly Research Discussion with Ron Thiessen, Northern Dynasty Minerals, Part 1, June 22, 2021, available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=i8JcFccI04A

Environmental Impact Statements are typically assembled by consultants to the lead agency charged with the responsibility for conducting an EIS, with oversight from that lead agency’s professionals. There is no peer review required, or typically conducted, on the data collection methods, the literature utilized, or conclusions about the science in an EIS. This was the case for the Pebble Mine EIS.

There is a significant, and glaring, fundamental difference between the conclusions of the EPA Watershed Assessment and the Corps of Engineers EIS. The EPA found that damage to the Bristol Bay fishery was likely, and the Corps found that impacts to the fishery were likely not be measurable. These documents were both conducted with significant science input, but they reach contradictory conclusions. Which one is more likely correct? Should the validity of the science be determined by scientists or by a court of law? At present, the only venue available is the latter. A group of scientists involved in reviewing the EIS sent the following letter to CEQ that proposes a science-based alternative to the EIS process.

PEER REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

Dear Ms. Mallory;

The science used to inform the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process is not currently required to be peer reviewed, but we feel strongly that they should be. Science is needed to inform the decision making process inherent in the EIS analysis, but at present science is not doing, or allowed to do, its job at accurately informing the decision making process and the decision makers. Science is routinely manipulated to come up with a politically driven result. We provide our reasoning and examples in the following paragraphs.

We are a group of scientists recently involved in reviewing the EIS for the Pebble Mine in Alaska. Several of us have reviewed EISs for large mines and other projects for many years, observing the persistent failure of these documents to accurately predict impacts. We believe the EIS process is fundamentally flawed. Although we recognize that decision-making is ultimately driven by political realities, no one is served well when science is manipulated to yield results that are not backed by objective, peer re-

viewed science. In other words, political decisions should be clearly separated from science-based decisions in EISs.

The EIS process is founded on the idea that a scientific assessment of the potential impacts of a decision can inform that decision. However, as they are presently being conducted these assessments are flawed, because the process fails a basic scientific standard. Good science depends on the critical review by other scientists. Approximately 70% of the references cited in a survey of 22 recent EISs were not subject to journal-level peer review.1 Peer review ensures transparency and improves the quality and validity of the science, and upholds the quality and validity of the sciencebased recommendations in the EIS and the decisions that flow from it. A recent example of a flawed EIS process is seen by comparing the conflicting findings of the Army Corp of Engineer’s Pebble Mine EIS2 with those of the USEPA’s peer-reviewed Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment.3

When a NEPA analysis is derailed on legal appeal because of shoddy or selectively biased science, all involved pay a high price for wasted effort and time. The resulting inefficiencies harm citizens, taxpayers, affected people and communities, agency personnel, industry, investors in industry, and working people dependent on sustainable use of natural resources. Poorly applied science has systemic consequences, and those include spectacularly expensive failed plans and project proposals, just as often as unanticipated or undisclosed harm to the environment and human health.

Many issues present in EIS production and review have been described over the last three decades in the United States and in similar processes around the world. The baseline science and data handling are poor.4 The risk assessment mathematical models are not well justified,5 and then feed into later impact predictions without specifying the uncertainties and assumptions that were present in the initial model.6 As a consequence, there is a long history of EIS predictions that have been shown to be wrong after a project has been built. For example, the impacts of mining on water quality are well documented, as is the long history of failure of the EIS process to predict accurately those impacts.7

This is not surprising. Without peer review, there is little incentive for EIS authors to articulate uncertainties, risks, and likely impacts, and the process naturally becomes narrow-minded and driven by project proponent preferences. Georgetown University Law Center Professor Steve Goldberg observes: “[R]egulatory agencies are regularly accused of being ‘captured’ by industry, consumer groups, members of Congress, or bureaucratic inertia. They are never accused, however, of being captured by scientists.”8

In an EIS, peer review could take many forms, which may or may not mimic the traditional peer review process. Regardless of the specific form, a truly independent review is critical. Without formal review by outside experts, no scientist can trust the results, and no decision maker should trust them either.

Other countries have successfully implemented such reviews. For example, under the Canadian Impact Assessment Act of 2019, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change may determine that it is in the public interest to refer the assessment to an independent review panel. A review panel is a group of independent and impartial experts appointed by the Minister to conduct the environmental assessment and to make conclusions and recommendations to the Minister. The members of a review panel must have knowledge or experience relative to the anticipated environmental effects of a project. They must also be objective and free from any apparent conflict of interest relative to the project.

It would be a major improvement if a review process like this were to be adopted by the CEQ for the NEPA/EIS process. Although this adds an additional step to the review process, rushing a decision is far more damaging than taking additional time to get it right.

The Biden Administration has demonstrated its commitment to science in other areas that require scientific integrity, such as the coronavirus and global warming crises. We urge you to instill a similar commitment to science in the EIS process. The push to transition to a renewable energy economy will necessitate new mines and new energy projects, all of which can have potential environmental impacts. To move towards this future in a just and sustainable way we need to carefully assess what those social, physical, chemical, and biological impacts are most likely to be. The administration must take this opportunity to make necessary and fundamental changes to the EIS analysis process.

We urge the CEQ to convene a formal review of how science is, and should be, used in the EIS process. The EIS process must be overhauled to incorporate scientific peer review. We stand ready to assist with formulating new guidance and a more formalized peer review process.

The EIS process serves no one if the results cannot be trusted.

Sincerely;

David M. Chambers, PhD, P Geop

Susan Lubetkin, PhD

1 Lubetkin 2020 2 ACOE 2020 3 EPA 2014 4 Fairweather 1994; Treweek 1996; Thompson et al. 1997; Benkendorff 1999; Ayles et al. 2004; Chang et al. 2013 5 Stern 2013; Sheaves et al., 2016 6 Ortolano and Shepherd 1995; Adelman 2004; Duncan 2008; Lees et al. 2016 7 Kuipers et al 2006 8 Elliott 2003

Matt Schweisberg, SPWS

Robert H. Prucha, PhD, PE

Cameron Wobus, PhD

Glenn Miller, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of

Nevada Reno

Bretwood Higman, PhD

Christopher Frissell, PhD, Salish Kootenai College

Sarah O’Neal, MS

Ann Maest, PhD

Kendra Zamzow, PhD

Thomas G. Yocom, Former EPA National Wetlands

Expert

Carol Ann Woody, PhD

Robert M. Hughes, PhD, Fellow, American Fisheries

Society; Fellow, Society for Freshwater Science

Thomas M. Power, PhD, Research Professor and Professor Emeritus, University of Montana

Jack A. Stanford, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Flathead

Lake Biological Station, University of Montana n

REFERENCES

ACOE 2020. Pebble Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, US Army Corps of Engineers, July 2020. Adelman, D.E., 2004. Scientific activism and restraint: the interplay of statistics, judgment, and procedure in environmental law. Notre Dame Law Rev. 79 (2), 497–584. Ayles, G.B., Dube, M., Roseberg, D., 2004. Oil Sands Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP) Scientific Peer Review of the Five Year Report (1997-2001). Submitted to the RAMP Steering Committee, February 13, 2004. Benkendorff, K., 1999. The need for more stringent requirements in Environmental Impact Assessment: shell Cove Marina case study. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 5, 214–223. Chang, T., Nielsen, E., Auberle, W., Solop, F.I., 2013. A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and bat/avian developments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38, 142–150. Duncan, R., 2008. Problematic practice in integrated impact assessment: the role of consultants and predictive computer models in burying uncertainty. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 26, 53–66. Elliott, E.D., 2003. Strengthening Science's Voice at EPA. Yale Faculty Scholarship Series Paper 2220. EPA 2014. An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 910-R-14-001A, January 2014 https://www.epa.gov/ bristolbay/bristol-bay-assessment-final-report-2014

Fairweather, P.G., 1994. Improving the use of science in environmental assessments. Aust. Zool. 29, 217–223. Kuipers et al 2006. Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines, The Reliability of Predictions in Environmental Impact Statements, James R. Kuipers Ann S. Maest, Kimberley A. MacHardy, Gregory Lawson, 2006. Lees, J., Jaeger, J.A.G., Gunn, J.A.E., Noble, B.F., 2016. Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 59, 2024– 2044 Lubetkin, S. C. 2020. The tip of the iceberg: Three case studies of spill risk assessments used in environmental impact statements. Marine Pollution Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110613 Ortolano, L., Shepherd, A., 1995. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assessment 13, 3–30. https://doi.or g/10.1080/07349165.1995.9726076. Sheaves, M., Coles, R., Dale, P., Grech, A., Pressey, R.L., Waltham, N.J., 2016. Enhancing the value and validity of EIA: serious science to protect Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Conservation Letters 9, 377–383. Stern, N., 2013. The structure of economic modeling of potential impacts of climate change: grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science models. J. Econ. Lit. 51, 838–859. Thompson, S., Treweek, J.R., Thurling, D.J., 1997. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 40, 157–171. Treweek, J., 1996. Ecology and environmental impact assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 191–199.

SWS Climate Change Initiative Collaborates to Bring Global Leaders Together for Plenary Panel Discussion at the Society for Ecological Restoration

World leaders in wetlands, peatlands and biodiversity conservation and restoration and climate change met (virtually) at the Society for Ecological Restoration’s (SER) 2021 World Conference Plenary Panel on June 22nd to discuss the importance of restoring and conserving wetlands including peatlands, and other ecosystems as a critical element in our response to the climate change and biodiversity emergencies. Members of the SWS Climate Change Initiative worked closely with SER’s leadership and others to organize the Plenary Panel, which was moderated by SWS member, Professor William Moomaw. Panelists included Elizabeth Mrema, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Dianna Kopansky, Coordinator of UNEP-led Global Peatlands Initiative, Jane Madwick, CEO of Wetlands International, and Professor Brendan Mackey of Griffith University.

The purpose of the panel was to bring these world leaders together to explore the intersections between climate change and biodiversity loss, and the critical role that wetlands including peatlands, forests and other ecosystems play in supporting biodiversity and a stable climate. The panel discussed the joint report released on June 10th by the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPBES-IPCC), which identifies the need to address biodiversity loss and climate change as two parts of the same problem in order to succeed in addressing either one (see https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/ files/2021-06/20210609_workshop_report_embargo_3pm_ CEST_10_june_0.pdf). The report states, “Restoring carbon- and species-rich ecosystems on land and in the ocean is also highly effective for both climate change mitigation and biodiversity, with large adaptation co-benefits.”

Read the complete SER press release on the 2021 World Conference Plenary Panel here: https://www.ser.org/ news/570501/Leaders-Urge-Prioritization-of-Wetland-Restoration-to-Fight-Climate-Change-and-Biodiversity-Loss. htm n

Latin American wetlands issue planned for Wetland Science & Practice

The Society of Wetland Scientists' e-publication, Wetland Science & Practice (WSP), is planning an issue focused on Latin American wetlands. The purpose is to provide readers with an update of current research, restoration and conservation activities and concerns involving wetlands. Articles on the natural history of wetland fauna or flora are also of interest, as well as profiles of individual wetlands of national or local significance. For this special issue, we would also like to include photographs of Latin American wetlands in our "Notes from the Field" section. If interested in submitting a photo please send it to the editor (ralphtiner83@gmail.com) along with a caption identifying the wetland type and location. We look forward to seeing these images that will further highlight LA wetlands. The deadline for submissions is October 1, 2021. Please review WSP publication guidelines.

If you have any questions feel free to contact Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães, Special Issue Coordinator, or Ralph Tiner, WSP editor. n