Review and comparison of wetland impacts and mitigation requirements between New Jersey,USA, Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

A review of wetland impacts authorized under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA) was conducted based on permitting data compiled for the period 1 July 1988 to 31 December 1993. Data regarding the acreage of wetlands impacted, location of impacts by drainage basin and watershed, and mitigation were analyzed. Wetland impacts authorized and mitigation under New Jersey's program were evaluated and compared with Section 404 information available for New Jersey and other regions of the United States.Under the FWPA, 3003 permits were issued authorizing impacts to 234.76 ha (602.27 acres) of wetlands and waters. Compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts associated with individual permits required the creation of 69.20 ha. (171.00 acres), and restoration of 16.49 ha (40.75 acres) of wetlands. Cumulative impacts by watershed were directly related to levels of development and population growth.The FWPA has resulted in an estimated 67% reduction [44.32 ha (109.47 acres) vs 136.26 ha (336.56 acres)] in annual wetland and water impacts when compared with Section 404 data for New Jersey. For mitigation, the slight increase in wetland acreage over acreage impacted is largely consistent with Section 404 data.Based on this evaluation, the FWPA has succeeded in reducing the level of wetland impacts in New Jersey. However, despite stringent regulation of activities in and around wetlands, New Jersey continues to experience approximately 32 ha (79 acres) of unmitigated wetland impacts annually. Our results suggest that additional efforts focusing on minimizing wetland impacts and increasing wetlands creation are needed to attain a goal of no net loss of freshwater wetlands.     

Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington,USA

The effects of permitting decisions made under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for which compensatory mitigation was required were examined. Information was compiled on permits issued in Oregon (January 1977–January 1987) and Washington (1980–1986). Data on the type of project permitted, wetland impacted, and mitigation project were collected and analyzed. The records of the Portland and Seattle District Offices of the US Army Corps of Engineers and of Environmental Protection Agency Region X were the primary sources of information. The 58 permits issued during the years of concern in Oregon document impacts to 82 wetlands and the creation of 80. The total area of wetland impacted was 74 ha while 42 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 32 ha or 43%. The 35 permits issued in Washington document impacts to 72 wetlands and the creation of 52. The total area of wetland impacted was 61 ha while 45 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 16 ha or 26%. In both states, the number of permits requiring compensation increased with time. The area of the impacted and created wetlands tended to be ≤0.40 ha. Permitted activity occurred primarily west of the Cascade Mountains and in the vicinity of urban centers. Estuarine and palustrine wetlands were impacted and created most frequently. The wetland types created most often were not always the same as those impacted; therefore, local gains and losses of certain types occurred. In both states the greatest net loss in area was in freshwater marshes. This study illustrates how Section 404 permit data might be used in managing a regional wetland resource. However, because the data readily available were either incomplete or of poor quality, the process of gathering information was very labor intensive. Since similar analyses would be useful to resource managers and scientists from other areas, development of an up-to-date standardized data base is recommended.     

Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania,USA, 1986-1999

Twenty-three Section 404 permits in central Pennsylvania (covering a wetland age range of 1–14 years) were examined to determine the type of mitigation wetland permitted, how the sites were built, and what success criteria were used for evaluation. Most permits allowed for mitigation out-of-kind, either vegetatively or through hydrogeomorphic class. The mitigation process has resulted in a shift from impacted wetlands dominated by woody species to less vegetated mitigation wetlands, a trend that appears to be occurring nationwide. An estimate of the percent cover of emergent vegetation was the only success criterion specified in the majority of permits. About 60% of the mitigation wetlands were judged as meeting their originally defined success criteria, some after more than 10 years. The permit process appears to have resulted in a net gain of almost 0.05 ha of wetlands per mitigation project. However, due to the replacement of emergent, scrub–shrub, and forested wetlands with open water ponds or uplands, mitigation practices probably led to a net loss of vegetated wetlands.     

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.     

Wetland protection as land-use planning: The impact of section 404 in Wisconsin,USA

The ability of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to act as an effective, efficient, and equitable land-use planning tool was assessed through a survey of Section 404 permits in Wisconsin. In a six-month period of permitting, the 404 program reduced wetland losses in the state by 15%. Several factors were examined that may affect permit decisions; these factors are water dependency, alternatives, project type, wetland type, and public or agency comments. Only the water dependency of the project had a statistically significant effect on permit decisions, although development projects that were perceived to provide public good were more likely to be permitted. Environmental impacts of a proposed fill project were not adequately assessed in any of the permit decisions. Because of the way Section 404 is interpreted and administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers, increasing net benefits and achieving an equitable distribution of those benefits is difficult. The corps does not perform any functional evaluations of wetlands nor do they attempt to measure economic value and environmental impacts. In addition, the 404 review process is, in effect, inaccessible to the public. The de facto interpretations of the Section 404 regulations and a lack of program funding and trained personnel all contribute to the program's ineffectiveness.     

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.     

ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR WETLAND MANAGEMENT1

Wetlands provide a variety of ecological services, but are attractive sites for many development activities. Between the mid-1950's and mid-1970's about 550,000 acres, or about 0.5 percent, of the vegetated wetlands remaining in the conterminous states were converted to other uses each year. About 80 percent of these losses involved draining and clearing of inland wetlands for agricultural purposes. Recent reductions in national wetland conversion rates are due primarily to declining rates of agricultural drainage and secondarily to government programs that regulate wetlands use. Several governmental policies and programs exist that either encourage or discourage wetland conversions. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the major tool for Federal involvement in controlling the conversion of wetlands to other uses. The 404 program, in combination with State regulatory programs, is responsible for reducing annual conversions nationwide by about 50 percent of what is applied for, or 50,000 acres of wetlands per year, primarily through project modifications. Coastal wetlands are reasonably well protected. Inland, freshwater wetlands are generally poorly protected. Efforts to protect wetlands, given a set level of resources, could be improved by categorizing wetlands according to their relative importance and focusing existing wetland programs on high value wetlands.     

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     

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.     

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WETLAND RESTORATION ALONG THE ILLINOIS RIVER1

Creating and restoring wetland and riparian ecosystems between farms and adjacent streams and rivers in the Upper Mississippi River Basin would reduce nitrogen loads and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and increase local environmental benefits. Economic efficiency and economic impacts of the Hennepin and Hopper Lakes Restoration Project in Illinois were evaluated. The project converted 999 ha of cropland to bottomland forest, backwater lakes, and flood‐plain wetland habitat. Project benefits were estimated by summing the economic values of wetlands estimated in other studies. Project costs were estimated by the loss in the gross value of agricultural production from the conversion of corn and soybean acreage to wetlands. Estimated annual net benefit of wetland restoration in the project area amounted to US$1,827 per ha of restored wetland or US$1.83 million for the project area, indicating that the project is economically efficient. Impacts of the project on the regional economy were estimated (using IMPLAN) in terms of changes in total output, household income, and employment. The project is estimated to increase total output by US$2,028,576, household income by US$1,379,676, and employment by 56 persons, indicating that it has positive net economic impacts on the regional economy.     

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.     

Wetland development trends in coastal North Carolina,USA, from 1970 to 1984

Coastal wetlands are a valuable resource to North Carolina, USA, representing important habitat for marine organisms and providing flood control areas and buffer zones from marine storms. An analysis of wetland development trends in coastal North Carolina from 1970 to 1984 was conducted using over 3000 files containing 15 years of permitting records. The total amount of coastal wetland area altered due to authorized development under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), the Dredge and Fill Law, and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is 1740 ha. This represents nearly 2% of the salt marsh wetlands along the coast of North Carolina. The number of permits issued steadily increased during the 1980s; however, the total amount of wetland loss decreased each year. A few large projects in the early 1970s accounted for nearly 70% of all wetland area developed during the 15-year period. Nearly two-thirds of all projects involving wetland destruction involved impacts on high marsh ecosystems. Bulkheads, canals, and filling activities made up 80% of the projects requiring permits; 62% of the permits were issued to private landowners, but this group accounted for only 16% of the losses of wetland area. Utility companies, which accounted for less than 1% of the permits issued, were responsible for 46% of the permitted wetland loss during the 15-year study period. Future studies should address agriculture and forestry practices which are exempt under CAMA laws and therefore their effects on wetland alteration have not been quantified.     

Federal and state management of inland wetlands: Are states ready to assume control?

As inland wetlands face increasing pressure for development, both the federal government and individual states have begun reevaluating their respective wetland regulatory schemes. This article focuses first on the effectiveness of the past, present, and proposed federal regulations, most notably the Section 404, Dredge and Fill Permit Program, in dealing with shrinking wetland resources. The article then addresses the status of state involvement in this largely federal area, as well as state preparedness to assume primacy should federal priorities change. Finally, the subject of comprehensive legislation for wetland protection is investigated, and the article concludes with some procedural suggestions for developing a model law.     

Freshwater Wetland dynamics in South Kingstown,Rhode Island, 1939–1972

The extent and causes of changes in the fresh-water wetlands of South Kingstown, Rhode Island were determined through field work and through the analysis of panchromatic aerial photographs taken in 1939 and 1972. During this period, there was a net loss of 0.9 percent of the total area (2345.2 ha) of wetland present in 1939. Highway construction and residential development accounted for most of this loss. Approximately 17 percent of the wetland present in 1939 had changed sufficiently by 1972 to warrant reclassification. Plant succession alone accounted for 57 percent of the changes in wetland types, while man's activities were influential in 41 percent of the cases. Ninety-two percent of the natural changes in wetland types was progressive, while 58 percent of the changes induced by man and undetermined causes was retrogressive. Man's major role was to alter the water regimes and vegetation of wetlands. There was a decrease in wetland diversity as the most abundant type, wooded swamp, grew in area while the abundance of shallow marshes, meadows, and shrub swamps declined. A knowledge of wetland dynamics is essential in the management of wetlands for a diversity of wildlife and other natural values.     

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     

A better rationale for wetland management

The present US Federal wetland management strategy under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act does not account for the differences in the natural values of wetlands and their different vulnerability to development pressure. The strategy, aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, provides for different levels of wetland protection, primarily by designating certain activities in or affecting wetlands as essentially harmless, having only minor impacts even when considered for their cumulative effects. Such activities are authorized under general permits precluding any evaluation of project impacts. A sounder, yet practical, rationale for wetland management and regulatory relief should be linked to the scarcity of certain wetland habitats, the habitat diversity or carrying capacity, the degree of degradation from past development, and the incremental losses already incurred within the same wetland ecosystem. The regulatory effort should be concentrated where these characteristics indicate high-value wetlands.Wetland impacts appear to fit into five basic orders of magnitude; these pertain to the relative cost and difficulty of impact mitigation. Up to 13 ecological and public-interest variables can modify the seriousness of the basic impact. Together, the basic orders of impact and modifying variables describe the theoretical framework for wetland management. However, a practical rationale for better wetland management must be constrained to factors not requiring a field investigation in advance of project planning for construction and development.This article was produced in part from work funded by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the United States Congress for use in its study, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of OTA.     

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.     

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.     

Changes in wetlands on nonfederal rural land of the conterminous United States from 1982 to 1987

Recent wetland area trends were estimated from the National Resources Inventory (NRI) for nonfederal rural lands for the period 1982–1987. NRI-based estimates of wetland area for states comprising the conterminous United States were highly correlated with estimates made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and with estimates of coastal salt marsh wetlands made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Net wetland area declined by 1.1% (≈363,200 ha) during the five-year study period. Conversion to open water, primarily caused by natural flooding in western inland basins, was responsible for altering extensive wetland areas (≈171,400 ha). Of the human-induced wetland conversions, urban and built-up land was responsible for 48% of the wetland loss, while agricultural development was indicated in 37% of the converted wetland area. A decrease in rural land, and increases in both population, and urban and built-up land were associated with wetland loss among states. Potential reasons for wetland loss were different in 20 coastal states than in 28 inland states. Proportionately, wetland loss due to development was three times greater in coastal states than inland states, while agriculturally induced wetland losses were similar in both groups. The proportionate declines of forested vs nonforested wetlands were not significantly different among states.     

Does Wetland Location Matter When Managing Wetlands for Watershed‐Scale Flood and Drought Resilience?

Wetland protection and restoration strategies that are designed to promote hydrologic resilience do not incorporate the location of wetlands relative to the main stream network. This is primarily attributed to the lack of knowledge on the effects of wetland location on wetland hydrologic function (e.g., flood and drought mitigation). Here, we combined a watershed‐scale, surface–subsurface, fully distributed, physically based hydrologic model with historical, existing, and lost (drained) wetland maps in the Nose Creek watershed in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America to (1) estimate the hydrologic functions of lost wetlands and (2) estimate the hydrologic functions of wetlands located at different distances from the main stream network. Modeling results showed wetland loss altered streamflow, decreasing baseflow and increasing stream peakflow during the period of the precipitation events that led to major flooding in the watershed and downstream cities. In addition, we found that wetlands closer to the main stream network played a disproportionately important role in attenuating peakflow, while wetland location was not important for regulating baseflow. The findings of this study provide information for watershed managers that can help to prioritize wetland restoration efforts for flood or drought risk mitigation.