Wetland loss and substitution by the Section 404 permit program in southern California,USA

To test the effectiveness of the 404 permit program in preventing a net loss of wetland resources, 75 Section 404 projects permitted in the years 1987–1989 and located in a portion of southern California were evaluated. From this group of projects, 80.47 ha of wetlands were affected by Section 404 permits and the Army Corps of Engineers required 111.62 ha of wetland mitigation. To verify the successful completion of each mitigation project, all 75 project sites were visited and evaluated based on the amount of dead vegetation, growth and coverage, and the number of invasive species. Based on the field verification results, the actual amount of completed mitigation area was 77.33 ha, resulting in a net loss of 3.14 ha of wetland resources in the years 1987–1989. By comparing the types of wetlands lost to the types of wetlands mitigated, it is apparent that, in particular, freshwater wetlands are experiencing a disproportionately greater loss of area and that riparian woodland wetlands are most often used in mitigation efforts. The net result of these accumulated actions is an overall substitution of wetland types throughout the region. Results also indicate that, typically, large-scale mitigation projects are more successful compared to smaller projects and that successful compliance efforts are not evenly distributed throughout the region. We recommend that better monitoring, mitigation in-kind, mitigation banking, and planning on a regional or watershed scale could greatly improve the effectiveness of the Section 404 permitting program.     

Wetland ecological and compliance assessments in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USA

The San Francisco Bay Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB CRWQCB) and the San Francisco District of the US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACOE) are looking for an expeditious means to determine whether regulated wetland projects produce ecologically valuable systems and remain in compliance with their permits (i.e. fulfill their legal requirements) until project completion. A study was therefore undertaken in which 20 compensatory wetland mitigation projects in the San Francisco Bay Region were reviewed and assessed for both permit compliance and habitat function, and this was done using a rapid assessment method adapted for this purpose. Thus, in addition to determining compliance and function, a further goal of this study was to test the efficacy of the assessment method, which, if useful, could be applied not only to mitigation projects, but also to restoration projects and natural wetland systems. Survey results suggest that most projects permitted 5 or more years ago are in compliance with their permit conditions and are realizing their intended habitat functions. The larger restoration sites or those situated between existing wetland sites tend to be more successful and offer more benefits to wildlife than the smaller isolated ones. These results are consistent with regulatory experience suggesting that economies of scale could be realized both with (1) large scale regional wetland restoration sites, through which efforts are combined to control invasive species and share costs, and (2) coordinated efforts by regulatory agencies to track project information and to monitor the increasing number and size of mitigation and restoration sites. In regard to the assessment methods, we find that their value lies in providing a consistent protocol for evaluations, but that the ultimate assessment will rely heavily on professional judgment, regulatory experience, and the garnering of pre-assessment information.     

Performance Criteria, Compliance Success, and Vegetation Development in Compensatory Mitigation Wetlands

The US Army Corps of Engineers often requires wetland creation or restoration as compensation for wetlands damaged during development. These wetlands are typically monitored postconstruction to determine the level of compliance with respect to site-specific performance standards. However, defining appropriate goals and measuring success of restorations has proven difficult. We reviewed monitoring information for 76 wetlands constructed between 1992 and 2002 to summarize the performance criteria used to measure progress, assess compliance with those criteria, and, finally, to evaluate the appropriateness of those criteria. Goals were overwhelmingly focused on plant communities. Attributes used to assess the quality of restored plant communities, including percent native species and the Floristic Quality Index, increased over time but were apparently unrelated to the number of species planted. Compliance frequencies varied depending on site goals; sites often failed to comply with criteria related to survival of planted vegetation or requirements that dominant plant species should not be exotic or weedy, whereas criteria related to the establishment of cover by vegetation or by wetland-dependent plants were often met. Judgment of a site’s success or failure was largely a function of the goals set for the site. Some performance criteria were too lenient to be of value in distinguishing failed from successful sites, whereas other criteria were unachievable without more intensive site management. More appropriate goals could be devised for restored wetlands by basing performance standards on past performance of similar restorations, identifying consistent temporal trends in attributes of restored sites, and using natural wetlands as references.     

Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation in North Carolina: An Evaluation of Regulatory Success

Data from a probability sample were used to estimate wetland and stream mitigation success from 2007 to 2009 across North Carolina (NC). “Success” was defined as whether the mitigation site met regulatory requirements in place at the time of construction. Analytical results were weighted by both component counts and mitigation size. Overall mitigation success (including preservation) was estimated at 74 % (SE = 3 %) for wetlands and 75 % (SE = 4 %) for streams in NC. Compared to the results of previous studies, wetland mitigation success rates had increased since the mid-1990s. Differences between mitigation providers (mitigation banks, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s design-bid-build and full-delivery programs, NC Department of Transportation and private permittee-responsible mitigation) were generally not significant although permittee-responsible mitigation yielded higher success rates in certain circumstances. Both wetland and stream preservation showed high rates of success and the stream enhancement success rate was significantly higher than that of stream restoration. Additional statistically significant differences when mitigation size was considered included: (1) the Piedmont yielded a lower stream mitigation success rate than other areas of the state, and (2) recently constructed wetland mitigation projects demonstrated a lower success rate than those built prior to 2002. Opportunities for improvement exist in the areas of regulatory record-keeping, understanding the relationship between post-construction establishment and long-term ecological trajectories of stream and wetland restoration projects, incorporation of numeric ecological metrics into mitigation monitoring and success criteria, and adaptation of stream mitigation designs to achieve greater success in the Piedmont.     

Wetland Mitigation Compliance in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan

The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) is generally responsible for the implementation of federal Clean Water Act wetland regulations. It therefore plays an important role in the protection of wetlands within the United States. Unfortunately, past evaluators of ACEs implementation of these regulations found low rates of regulatory compliance. However, the fact that two states have taken responsibility for the implementation of these regulations within their boundaries provided the opportunity to assess whether one of these states might be doing a better job of enforcement. This paper reports on compliance with some of these regulations within one Michigan region. We evaluated permittee compliance with paperwork filing requirements related to wetland mitigation projects. Sixty-seven percent of county road commission permittees were out of compliance with at least one filing requirement. Forty percent of private and non-county government permittees were out of compliance. Our results therefore suggest that serious problems exist with Michigans implementation of wetland regulations. They do not suggest that compliance in this state is significantly better than in states under ACE administration. We believe that increased agency monitoring and enforcement would improve compliance.     

Determinants of Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Compensatory Wetland Mitigation

Development projects that impact wetlands commonly require compensatory mitigation, usually through creation or restoration of wetlands on or off the project site. Over the last decade, federal support has increased for third-party off-site mitigation methods. At the same time, regulators have lowered the minimum impact size that triggers the requirement for compensatory mitigation. Few studies have examined the aggregate impact of individual wetland mitigation projects. No previous study has compared the choice of mitigation method by regulatory agency or development size. We analyze 1058 locally and federally permitted wetland mitigation transactions in the Chicago region between 1993 and 2004. We show that decreasing mitigation thresholds have had striking effects on the methods and spatial distribution of wetland mitigation. In particular, the observed increase in mitigation bank use is driven largely by the needs of the smallest impacts. Conversely, throughout the time period studied, large developments have rarely used mitigation banking, and have been relatively unaffected by changing regulatory focus and banking industry growth. We surmise that small developments lack the scale economies necessary for feasible permittee responsible mitigation. Finally, we compare the rates at which compensation required by both county and federal regulators is performed across major watershed boundaries. We show that local regulations prohibiting cross-county mitigation lead to higher levels of cross- watershed mitigation than federal regulations without cross-county prohibitions. Our data suggest that local control over wetland mitigation may prioritize administrative boundaries over hydrologic function in the matter of selecting compensation sites.     

Contesting neoliberal knowledge politics in restoration governance: the restorationist’s dilemma

ABSTRACT

The success of ecological restoration efforts is tightly coupled with the effectiveness of many U.S. environmental policies. Yet scholars have raised questions about the ability of restoration to produce intended results. We use a case study of tidal wetland restoration planning in Oregon to examine how neoliberal environmental governance exercises influence through a set of knowledge politics that produces subpar outcomes. We present three main findings: (1) restoration policies produce a restoration economy based on a conception of wetland as commodity (2) practitioners in this restoration economy exhibit competitive behavior resulting in a piecemeal rather than a landscape approach to restoration; and (3) limited monitoring prevents changes to existing policies. Practitioners offer insight into the challenge of treating wetlands as a commodity and call for more monitoring to challenge the assumptions of hegemonic knowledge practices that reinforce a neoliberal environmental governance regime. The divergent ideas of reflexive practitioners, though not yet manifest as action, show where changes to restoration governance might be possible.     

Community Structure and Quality After 10 Years in Two Central Ohio Mitigation Bank Wetlands

We evaluate two 10-year-old mitigation bank wetlands in central Ohio, one created and one with restored and enhanced components, by analysis of vegetation characteristics and by comparison of the year-10 vegetation and macroinvertebrate communities with reference wetlands. To assess different measures of wetland development, we compare the prevalence of native hydrophytes with an index of floristic quality and we evaluate the predictability of these parameters in year 10, given 5 years of data. Results show that the mitigation wetlands in this study meet vegetation performance criteria of native hydrophyte establishment by year 5 and maintain these characteristics through year 10. Species richness and floristic quality, as well as vegetative similarity with reference wetlands, differ among mitigation wetlands in year 1 and also in their rate of change during the first 10 years. The prevalence of native hydrophytes is reasonably predictable by year 10, but 5 years of monitoring is not sufficient to predict future trends of floristic quality in either the created or restored wetland. By year 10, macroinvertebrate taxa richness does not statistically differ among these wetlands, but mitigation wetlands differ from reference sites by tolerance index and by trophic guild dominance. The created wetland herbivore biomass is significantly smaller than its reference, whereas detritivore biomass is significantly greater in the created wetland and smaller in the restored wetland as compared with respective reference wetlands. These analyses illustrate differences in measures of wetland performance and contrast the monitoring duration necessary for legal compliance with the duration required for development of more complex indicators of ecosystem integrity.     

Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the united states based on an analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay

A detailed evaluation of past wetland restoration projects in San Francisco Bay was undertaken to determine their present status and degree of success. Many of the projects never reached the level of success purported and others have been plagued by serious problems. On the basis of these findings, it is debatable whether any sites in San Francisco Bay can be described as completed, active, or successful restoration projects at present. In spite of these limited accomplishments, wetland creation and restoration have been adopted in the coastal permit process as mitigation to offset environmental damage or loss of habitat. However, because the technology is still largely experimental, there is no guarantee that man-made wetlands will persist as permanent substitutes for sacrificed natural habitats. Existing permit policies should be reanalyzed to insure that they actually succeed in safeguarding diminishing wetlands resources rather than bartering them away for questionable habitat substitutes. Coastal managers must be more specific about project requirements and goals before approval is granted. Continued research on a regional basis is needed to advance marsh establishment techniques into a proven technology. In the meantime, policies encouraging or allowing quid pro quo exchanges of natural wetlands with man-made replacements should proceed with caution. The technology and management policies used at present are many steps ahead of the needed supporting documentation.     

Hydrologic analysis for coastal wetland restoration

Increasing recognition of the value of tidal wetlands has led to interest in how to restore and enhance areas that have been modified by human activity. The policy of recognizing restoration or enhancement as mitigation for destruction of other wetlands is controversial. Once policy questions are separated from technical questions, the steps in a successful project are straightforward A key element in the design of a successful project is quantitative hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of alternatives. Restoration projects at two sites in California used a combination of empirical geomorphic relationships, numerical modeling, and verification with field observations. Experience with these and other wetland restoration projects indicates the importance of longterm postproject monitoring, inspection, and maintenance     

Public Participation in Local Government Review of Development Proposals in Hazardous Locations: Does it Matter, and What Do Local Government Planners Have to Do with It?

Natural hazard investigators recommend that local governments adopt mitigation plans to help reduce hazard losses. However, such plans are unlikely to be effective unless a wide range of public stakeholders is involved in their creation. Previous research shows that stakeholder participation levels in hazard mitigation planning tend to be low, though there may be particular choices that local government planners can make to foster participation. We examine the importance of planners’ choices and role orientations (i.e., beliefs regarding appropriate behavior in the workplace) for participation levels in site plan review, wherein local governments review site plans for proposed development projects to ensure compliance between project design and applicable plans and policies. Using a national sample of 65 development projects located in areas subject to natural hazards, and bivariate and multivariate analyses, we examine whether participation levels during site plan review depend upon planners’ choices and role orientations, and whether participation levels are correlated with the incorporation of hazard mitigation techniques into development projects. We find significant correlations between participation levels and planners’ choices, between participation levels and planner’s role orientations, and between participation levels and the incorporation of hazard mitigation techniques. We encourage local government planners to revisit their beliefs, choices, and behaviors regarding public participation in site plan review.     

Inventorying and Monitoring Wetland Condition and Restoration Potential on a Watershed Basis with Examples from Spring Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania, USA

We developed an approach for inventorying wetland resources, assessing their condition, and determining restoration potential in a watershed context. This article outlines how this approach can be developed into a Wetland Monitoring Matrix (WMM) that can help resource management agencies make regulatory and nonregulatory decisions. The WMM can be embedded in a standard planning process (Wetlands, Wildlife, and Watershed Assessment Techniques for Evaluation and Restoration, or W³ATER) involving the setting of objectives, assessing the condition of the resource, prioritizing watersheds or sites, implementing projects, and evaluating progress. To that process we have added the concepts of reference, hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification, and prioritization for protection and restoration by triage or adaptive management. Three levels of effort are possible, increasing in detail and diagnostic reliability as data collection shifts from remote sensing to intensive sampling on the ground. Of key importance is the use of a consistent set of monitoring protocols for conducting condition assessments, designing restoration and creation projects, and evaluating the performance of mitigation projects; the same variables are measured regardless of the intended use of the data. This approach can be tailored to any region by establishing a reference set of wetlands organized by HGM subclasses, prioritizing watersheds and individual wetlands, and implementing consistent monitoring protocols. Application of the approach is illustrated with examples from wetlands and streams of the Spring Creek Watershed in central Pennsylvania, USA.     

Major Ecosystems in China: Dynamics and Challenges for Sustainable Management

Ecosystems, though impacted by global environmental change, can also contribute to the adaptation and mitigation of such large scale changes. Therefore, sustainable ecosystem management is crucial in reaching a sustainable future for the biosphere. Based on the published literature and publicly accessible data, this paper discussed the status and trends of forest, grassland, and wetland ecosystems in China that play important roles in the ecological integrity and human welfare of the nation. Ecological degradation has been observed in these ecosystems at various levels and geographic locations. Biophysical (e.g., climate change) and socioeconomic factors (e.g., intensive human use) are the main reasons for ecosystem degradation with the latter factors serving as the dominant driving forces. The three broad categories of ecosystems in China have partially recovered from degradation thanks to large scale ecological restoration projects implemented in the last few decades. China, as the largest and most populated developing nation, still faces huge challenges regarding ecosystem management in a changing and globalizing world. To further improve ecosystem management in China, four recommendations were proposed, including: (1) advance ecosystem management towards an application-oriented, multidisciplinary science; (2) establish a well-functioning national ecological monitoring and data sharing mechanism; (3) develop impact and effectiveness assessment approaches for policies, plans, and ecological restoration projects; and (4) promote legal and institutional innovations to balance the intrinsic needs of ecological and socioeconomic systems. Any change in China’s ecosystem management approach towards a more sustainable one will benefit the whole world. Therefore, international collaborations on ecological and environmental issues need to be expanded.     

Compensatory Mitigation for Streams Under the Clean Water Act: Reassessing Science and Redirecting Policy1

Doyle, Martin W. and F. Douglas Shields, 2012. Compensatory Mitigation for Streams Under the Clean Water Act: Reassessing Science and Redirecting Policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(3): 494-509. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00631.x Abstract: Current stream restoration science is not adequate to assume high rates of success in recovering ecosystem functional integrity. The physical scale of most stream restoration projects is insufficient because watershed land use controls ambient water quality and hydrology, and land use surrounding many restoration projects at the time of their construction, or in the future, do not provide sufficient conditions for functional integrity recovery. Reach scale channel restoration or modification has limited benefits within the broader landscape context. Physical habitat variables are often the basis for indicating success, but are now increasingly seen as poor surrogates for actual biological function; the assumption “if you build it they will come” lacks support of empirical studies. If stream restoration is to play a continued role in compensatory mitigation under the United States Clean Water Act, then significant policy changes are needed to adapt to the limitations of restoration science and the social environment under which most projects are constructed. When used for compensatory mitigation, stream restoration should be held to effectiveness standards for actual and measurable physical, chemical, or biological functional improvement. To achieve improved mitigation results, greater flexibility may be required for the location and funding of restoration projects, the size of projects, and the restoration process itself.     

Use of wetlands for water quality improvement under the USEPA Region V Clean Lakes Program

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region V Clean Lakes Program employs artificial and modified natural wetlands in an effort to improve the water quality of selected lakes. We examined use of wetlands at seven lake sites and evaluated the physical and institutional means by which wetland projects are implemented and managed, relative to USEPA program goals and expert recommendations on the use of wetlands for water quality improvement. Management practices recommended by wetlands experts addressed water level and retention, sheet flow, nutrient removal, chemical treatment, ecological and effectiveness monitoring, and resource enhancement. Institutional characteristics recommended included local monitoring, regulation, and enforcement and shared responsibilities among jurisdictions. Institutional and ecological objectives of the National Clean Lakes Program were met to some degree at every site. Social objectives were achieved to a lesser extent. Wetland protection mechanisms and appropriate institutional decentralization were present at all sites. Optimal management techniques were employed to varying degrees at each site, but most projects lack adequate monitoring to determine adverse ecological impacts and effectiveness of pollutant removal and do not extensively address needs for recreation and wildlife habitat. There is evidence that the wetland projects are contributing to improved lake water quality; however, more emphasis needs to be placed on wetland protection and long-term project evaluation.     

The US Clean Water Act and habitat replacement: evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County,California, USA

Both permit requirements and ecological assessments have been used to evaluate mitigation success. This analysis combines these two approaches to evaluate mitigation required under Section 404 of the United States Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which allow developers to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. This study reviewed permit files and conducted field assessments of mitigation sites to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation required by the US Army Corps of Engineers for all permits issued in Orange County, California from 1979 through 1993. The 535 permit actions approved during this period allowed 157 ha of impacts. Mitigation was required on 70 of these actions, with 152 ha of enhanced, restored, and created habitat required for 136 ha of impacts. In 15 permit actions, no mitigation project was constructed, but in only two cases was the originally permitted project built; the two cases resulted in an unmitigated loss of 1.6 ha. Of the remaining 55 sites, 55% were successful at meeting the permit conditions while 11% failed to do so. Based on a qualitative assessment of habitat quality, only 16% of the sites could be considered successful and 26% were considered failures. Thus, of the 126 ha of habitat lost due to the 55 projects, only 26 ha of mitigation was considered successful. The low success rate was not due to poor enforcement, although nearly half of the projects did not comply with all permit conditions. Mitigation success could best be improved by requiring mitigation plans to have performance standards based on habitat functions.     

State wetlands and riparian area protection programs

The protection of wetlands and riparian areas has emerged as an important environmental planning issue. In the United States, several federal and state laws have been enacted to protect wetlands and riparian areas. Specifically, the federal Clean Water Act includes protection requirements in Sections 301 and 303 for state water quality standards, Section 401 for state certification of federal actions (projects, permits, and licenses), and Section 404 for dredge and fill permits. The Section 401 water quality state certification element has been called the “sleeping giant” of wetlands protection because it empowers state officials to veto or condition federally permitted or licensed activities that do not comply with state water quality standards. State officials have used this power infrequently. The purpose of this research was to analyze the effectiveness of state wetland and riparian programs. Contacts were established with officials in each state and in the national and regional offices of key federal agencies. Based on interviews and on a review of federal and state laws, state program effectiveness was analyzed. From this analysis, several problems and opportunities facing state wetland protection efforts are presented.     

Landowner Satisfaction with the Wetlands Reserve Program in Wisconsin

We evaluated ecological monitoring data and landowner perceptions to the federally funded Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in a three-county region in Wisconsin. We surveyed landowner satisfaction, involvement, participation, and use of the WRP restoration sites. We found that landowners are satisfied with the overall program (mean, 3.6 ± 0.2 [SE], on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being completely satisfied). WRP restorations significantly increased the area of wetland within the sites surveyed, the increase was primarily of fresh meadow (736.32 ha after restoration). Satisfaction is related to landowner participation during restoration and to the economic incentives provided by the WRP, Landowner satisfaction and the number of plant communities after restoration are unrelated to each other or to restoration and easement costs per hectare. Survey participants recommended some changes to the WRP, including a reduction in the tax rate of land enrolled in the WRP, approval for permanent deer stands, and increased communication with WRP officials during the restoration. Monitoring information collected for WRP restoration sites does not allow assessment of whether WRP sites are functionally equivalent to natural sites. We suggest that the WRP require a more rigorous monitoring program, including guidelines for invasive species control. Managers should also encourage collaborations with external researchers and consider restorations within an experimental framework.     

The Effect of Wetland Mitigation Banking on the Achievement of No-Net-Loss

/ This study determines whether the 68 wetland mitigation banks in existence in the United States through 1 January 1996 are achieving no-net-loss of wetland acreage nationally and regionally. Although 74% of the individual banks achieve no-net-loss by acreage, overall, wetland mitigation banks are projected to result in a net loss of 21,328 acres of wetlands nationally, 52% of the acreage in banks, as already credited wetland acreages are converted to otheruses. While most wetland mitigation banks are using appropriate compensation methods and ratios, several of the largest banks use preservation or enhancement, instead of restoration or creation. Most of these preservation/enhancement banks use minimum mitigation ratios of 1:1, which is much lower than ratios given in current guidelines. Assuming that mitigation occurs in these banks as preservation at the minimum allowable ratio, ten of these banks, concentrated in the western Gulf Coast region, will account for over 99% of projected net wetland acreage loss associated with banks. We conclude that wetland mitigation banking is a conceptually sound environmental policy and planning tool, but only if applied according to recently issued guidelines that ensure no-net-loss of wetland functions and values. Wetland mitigation banking inevitably leads to geographic relocation of wetlands, and therefore changes, either positively or negatively, the functions they perform and ecosystem services they provide. KEY WORDS: Mitigation banking; Wetlands; Army Corps of Engineers; No-net-loss     

Modeling the Suitability of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites with a Geographic Information System

Wetland mitigation is frequently required to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. Site conditions and landscape context are critical factors influencing the functions that created wetlands perform. We developed a spatial model and used a geographic information system (GIS) to identify suitable locations for wetland mitigation sites. The model used six variables to characterize site conditions: hydrology, soils, historic condition, vegetation cover, adjacent vegetation, and land use. For each variable, a set of suitability scores was developed that indicated the wetland establishment potential for different variable states. Composite suitability scores for individual points on the landscape were determined from the weighted geometric mean of suitability scores for each variable at each point. These composite scores were grouped into five classes and mapped as a wetland mitigation suitability surface with a GIS. Sites with high suitability scores were further evaluated using information on the feasibility of site modification and project cost. This modeling approach could be adapted by planners for use in identifying the suitability of locations as wetland mitigation sites at any site or region.