National Academies Press: OpenBook

Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (2001)

Chapter: 6 Mitigation Compliance

« Previous: 5 Compensatory Mitigation Mechanisms Under Section 404
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

6

Mitigation Compliance

There are six generic stages of the mitigation process, and these sequential actions that must be undertaken to assure that compensation wetlands (whether creation, restoration, or enhancement) will secure the expected watershed functions. First, there needs to be a concept and a general watershed location for the project. Second, that concept is translated into a set of site design plans expected to secure the target functions over time. Third, the site for a project is acquired and construction (or other modifications to the site) undertaken in accordance with the design. Fourth, inspection of the site is made to determine whether construction followed the design plan and whether design standards have been met. Fifth, physical monitoring of the site is executed for a period of time to determine whether the design is trending toward the target wetlands functions. At this point, the monitoring would determine whether performance standards are being met. Sixth, regulatory certification would concur that the site has achieved the specified performance criteria. Included at this stage are actions to ensure that the site is protected and managed in perpetuity.

If permittees or third parties are to be held responsible for the mitigation they provide, the permitting agency needs to take steps to ensure that the required mitigation actions are being taken. This might be termed the compliance challenge. The problem of defining design or performance standards and then enforcing compliance with the standards has long been recognized in the regulatory program. The committee relied on an interpretation of the extant literature to explore the practice of establish-

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

ing and enforcing compliance. In reviewing and synthesizing the published studies, there were several interpretative challenges. First, the studies may be dated, and their results may not reflect the rapidly changing requirements of the program described in Chapter 4. Second, some studies may not be related to the Clean Water Act's (CWA) Section 404 program but may instead evaluate nonfederal programs. The committee recognized this possibility in drawing its conclusions. Third, these studies may not indicate whether the responsible party was the permittee or a third party; however, it is suspected that most studies were for permittee-responsible mitigation, because third-party mitigation is still the exception and not the rule. Fourth, often it cannot be determined if a mitigation was on-site or off-site or whether the action taken was restoration, creation, or enhancement. The committee is therefore reluctant to draw specific conclusions about mitigation in the current Section 404 program based on these studies. However, the committee also drew on its field visits, on testimony from presenters at its meetings, and on the collective experiences of committee members. By cautiously integrating these various perspectives with the literature, compliance can be characterized.

MITIGATION PLANNING

Mitigation plan development begins with a functional assessment of the impact site and continues through the selection and development of a mitigation site leading to the replacement of the impacted site 's functional values. While this is the expected scenario, testimony provided at committee meetings indicates that, in many cases, permit files sometimes lack a mitigation plan, and at times, mitigation may not be required to replace wetland impacts. Performance standards were often unspecified or vague and not directly related to the measurement of the sites' overall performance (Zedler 1998). The committee heard testimony that in some cases mitigation plans do not specify the most basic requirements for a wetland: water source, water quality, water retention, water quantity, soil, and topography, structure (flora and fauna), and location. Absent such basic considerations, adequate performance is unlikely.

Area To Be Lost and Proposed Mitigation

Mitigation plans, when clearly written, specify the area of wetland to be lost and the measures proposed for reducing the impact of that loss. The literature suggests that mitigation plans (particularly for older projects) are not always required for each permit (Table 6–1). On a national basis there is an anticipated gain of 78% in wetland area as a result of mitigation. However, results of independent scientific reviews suggest

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–1 Required Mitigation as Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement for Permits Issued under Permitting Programsa

Location

No. of Permits

Area Impacted (Ha)

Years

% of Permits Requiring Mitigation

% of Area Impacted

Source

Alabama

18

18

1981–87

100

100

Sifneos et al. 1992a

Arkansas

7

703

1982–86

71

98

Sifneos et al. 1992b

California, Statewide

324

1,176

1971–87

NA

107

Holland and Kentula 1992

Orange County

70

168

1979–93

13

97

Sudol 1996

Southern CA

75

112

1987–89

92

140

Allen and Feddema 1996

Sacramento and San Francisco Bay

30

168

1987–90

NA

144

DeWeese 1994

San Francisco Bay

36

NA

1977–82

64

NA

Race 1985

Florida, Corps

NA

NA

NA

NA

246

GAO 1988, as cited in Torok et al. 1996

Jacksonville District Louisiana

NA

26,280

1981–87

41

10

Sifneos et al. 1992a

Florida, St. John's River Water Management District

680

NA

1984–89

48

98

Lowe et al. 1989b

New Jersey

 

Section 404 Program

NA

333

1985–92

NA

100

Torok et al. 1996b

State FWPA

NA

58

NA

NA

147

Torok et al. 1996

Mississippi

10

1,095

1981–87

50

100

Sifneos et al. 1992a

Mississippi, Corps Vicksburg District

NA

NA

NA

NA

1

GAO 1988, as cited in Torok et al. 1996

Ohio

32

371

1990–95

68

93

Sibbing 1997c

Oregon

58

74

1977–86

NA

57

Kentula et al. 1992a

Tennessee

50

34

1992–96

100

100

Morgan and Roberts 1999

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Location

No. of Permits

Area Impacted (Ha)

Years

% of Permits Requiring Mitigation

% of Area Impacted

Source

Texas

45

2,995

1982–86

NA

69

Sifneos et al. 1992b

Washington

35

61

1980–86

NA

74

Kentula et al. 1992a

Washington

45

40

1992–97

100

598

Johnson et al. 2000

Wisconsin

NA

40

NA

NA

62

Owen and Jacobs 1992, as cited in Torok et al. 1996

National Totals

NA

76,500

1993–00

NA

178

USACE 2000

a No field examinations were made, and functional equivalency is not assumed.

b Wetland creation only; wetland enhancement may not be included.

c Permits based on 25 with data and 8 not restored or created; acreage is for 32 permits and includes enhancement. NOTES: FWPA = Federal Water Pollution Act. NA = not available.

a range of a net loss in 8 of 19 reviews with data to gains as great as 598% in one review (Johnson et al. 2000).

MITIGATION DESIGN STANDARDS

If the functions and values of jurisdictional wetland habitat are negatively affected, a net wetland loss will occur if these functions and values are not replaced. Spelling out the particular requirements for replacement in the Corps permit is the critical first step in the permitting process. A recent review (Streever 1999a; see Table 6–2, Appendix E) indicates that such requirements vary widely among Corps districts. These requirements range from physical to biological criteria, and most often include a standard related to plant dominance or abundance. Because hydrological processes determine many wetland functions, design standards often seek to grade the topography down to the groundwater source, connect the site to a local stream channel, control the water source (e.g., with tide gates or berms), or other features. Some designs require connecting the site to adjacent rivers and wetlands in the watershed. Sometimes a desired wetland type is the standard to be achieved (e.g., a sedge meadow or an emergent wetland). Many mitigation proposals state that wetland complexes will provide a desired habitat. Some plans

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–2 Review of Corps Permits Issued Nationwide

Example No.

Performance Standard

Location

Type

Year

Size, acres

1

75% survival of planted Juncus roemerianus, 4,800 plants per acre after three growing seasons

Alabama

Salt marsh

1985

40

2

Sustain 85% or greater cover by obligate and/or facultative wetland plant species; less than 10% cover by nuisance plant species; “proper hydrology condition.”

Florida

Forested and herbaceous freshwater

1991

21.9

3

Hydrology must meet wetland definition of 1987 Corps wetland manual, with saturation to surface of the soil for 12.5% (31 days) of the growing season; at least 50% of woody vegetation must be facultative or wetter, with woody vegetation stem counts of 400 per acre or canopy cover of 30% or greater by woody vegetation; at least 50% of all herbaceous must be facultative or wetter with aerial cover of at least 50% in emergent wetland areas (excluding “scrub/shrub or sapling/forest vegetation”).

Virginia

Forested freshwater

1995

27.4

4

Emergent and aquatic bed portions of mitigation site not to be inundated with salt or brackish water; less than 10% cover by invasive species during any monitoring event; staged vegetation requirements as follows:

Year 1: 100% survival of planted stock, 50% cover in emergent areas

Year 2: 80% survival by planted stock, 20% cover by native shrub species, 70% cover in emergent areas

Year 3: 70% survival and 40% cover by native shrub species, 80% cover in emergent areas

Year 5: 60% cover by native shrub species, 100% cover in emergent areas

Washington

Emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested freshwater

1998

9.4

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

5

Less than 5% cover by nuisance and exotic plant species; planted and nonnuisance wetland plant species to have areal cover of 50% in the first year, 70% in second year, and 80% in third year, with provisions for remedial planting to meet percentage requirements.

Florida

Freshwater marsh and wet prairie

1990

10

6

Must meet the regulatory definition of wetlands; specified portions of the mitigation area must meet the definitions of palustrine forested, palustrine scrub/shrub, and palustrine emergent wetland types as documented in Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States; cover by hydrophytic vegetation; vegetation not to consist of common reed (Phragmites australis) or purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); all performance standards must be met for 3 consecutive years.

New York

Forested, scrub/shrub and emergent palustrine wetlands

1998

25

7

Areal cover in 90% of planted area equivalent to natural reference marsh; benthic invertebrates and fish with 75% similarity to natural reference marsh; upper soil horizon with 1% organic matter by dry weight.

Alabama

Salt marsh

1988

25.3

8

Vernal Pool Habitat Suitability Index less than or equal to 0.55 with 60% of pools more than 0.7 (VPFI=a/(a+b), where a = number of species that the pool and the “vernal pool species list” share and b = number of species in the pool not on the “vernal pool species list” (the list includes those species typically found in the region's vernal pools); hydrology assessed as suitable on the basis of presence of wetlands plants.

California

Vernal pools

1996

27

9

Hydrogeomorphic approach.

 

SOURCE: Streever 1999a. Reprinted with permission from the National Wetlands Newsletter; copyright 1999, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

include percentages of facultative or obligate wetland species. Others propose levels of species diversity or abundance (see Box 6–1). The permit typically includes a map of the proposed communities with planting lists.

In some cases, performance is stated as a measure of primary productivity, such as algal and macroinvertebrate community richness, species diversity, taxonomic composition, and trophic relationships, that might reveal the system's functionality (FDER 1992; FDEP 1994, 1996). Water chemistry parameters and indexes of pollution geared to wetland condition might also be useful indicators of desired endpoints (Box 6–1).

Some permits require the addition of topsoil with seed banks. In others, the risk of introducing invasive species leads to a restriction of the use of topsoil. Although a common design requirement is to spread wetland topsoil over the site, primarily to provide plant propagules, the soil characteristics desired are rarely stated. Because characteristics of soil usually do not develop quickly (Craft et al. 1999), many restored or enhanced wetlands do not have the carbon or mychorrhizal contents of natural wetlands, and so soil characteristics may not be used as part of a performance endpoint.

Other common permit performance requirements include the percent survival of planted vegetation; percent cover of native versus weedy or exotic species; similarity of a site to a reference site; similarities to habitat

BOX 6–1

Performance Standards Used by the Chicago District and the Corps

In the Chicago region, wetland restoration evolved along with prairie restoration efforts. In a state with about 90% loss of historical wetlands (Dahl 1990), wet prairies were among the few remnants of unplowed, unforested land. Prairie remnants were studied for their biodiversity, especially distributions of plants (Swink and Wilhelm 1994) and insects (Panzer et al. 1995). Species restricted to the least disturbed sites were considered good indicators of natural conditions. The endpoint requirements were as follows:

  • Evaluation of aerial coverage by plants (90% in 3 months)

  • Floristic Quality Index

  • Native mean wetness (less than 0)

  • Relative importance value of native species

  • Cover (less than 0.5 square meters)

  • Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index

  • Habitat evaluation procedures (not usually measured)

  • Water quality (usually not measured, except for siltation or sedimentation)

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

types described in other documents; or presence of certain wildlife species, particularly species with special status designations, such as species listed pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. Few permits specify animal populations or communities; however, habitat for selected species (e.g., waterfowl and endangered species) is sometimes specified.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Mitigation Permit with Special Conditions

Once a Section 404 mitigation plan is completed, it is provided to the Corps for review and approval. When the Section 404 permit is issued, the items prescribed in the mitigation plan are included as a special condition of the permit. These special conditions form the legal requirements of the permit. Because the permit requirements are legally binding, it is important that the permit conditions be clear, complete, and comprehensive so that the desired mitigation outcome is achieved. If the special conditions are not included in the permit or if they do not clearly describe mitigation milestones to be achieved, it is possible for regulatory certification to be obtained by the permittee even though the mitigation does not produce a mitigation site that replaces the impact area's functions and values (see Coyote Creek case study, Appendix B).

Mitigation Specified But Not Carried Out

The committee learned that in some cases specified mitigation was not initiated as required in the Corps permit. Eight studies provided information as to whether required mitigation was initiated for a mixture of programs (Table 6–3). In addition, numerous studies on mitigation required by permits revealed that as much as 34% of the mitigation was never installed (FDER 1991b; Allen and Feddema 1996; Sudol 1996; Robb 2000). In southeast Florida, Erwin's (1991) study of 40 mitigation wetland creation and restoration projects found that only about half of the required 430 hectares of wetlands had been constructed.

The committee found that compliance inspections are rarely conducted by the Corps and that this is policy. In a Memorandum for Commanders, Major Subordinate Commands, and District Commands dated April 8, 1999, Major General Russell Furman provided the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs; Appendixes F and G) and described how the regulatory program would be executed across the United States. In addition to describing policy and program administration, the SOPs prioritized regulatory activities by the percentage of staff time devoted to them. Activities to be emphasized are described as “above the line,” and de-

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–3 Mitigation Initiated for Permits Requiring Mitigation

Location

Source

No. of Permits Considered

Initiated, %

Orange County

Sudol (1996)

57

96

Southern California

Allen and Feddema (1996)

75

92

Florida

Erwin (1991)

97

66

Indiana

Robb (2000)

345

62 (completed)a

14 (not attempted)

20 (incomplete)

Massachusetts

Brown and Veneman (1998)

114

74

New Jersey

Torok et al. (1996)

80

28

Ohio

Fennessy and Roehrs (1997)

14

100

Washington

Johnson et al. (2000)

45

93

a For 1988–1993 permits as of 1995; additional ones may be under construction in later years.

emphasized activities are described as “below the line.” The SOPs specifically note that “below-the-line” activities should be accomplished only after the “above-the-line” activities are fully executed. The SOP lists 10 activities under Permit Evaluation, plus another eight under Mitigation. Under Permit Evaluation, activity number 1, resource permit evaluation for timely decisions, is above the line. Extensive negotiation with other agencies to reach consensus (number 7) and multiple site visits and meetings of extensive preapplication (number 10) are below the line. Under Mitigation, compliance inspections for all mitigation (number 6) and multiple visits to a mitigation site (number 8) are below the line. Of the five activities under Enforcement (number 2) implement self-reporting and certification for compliance is above the line. The committee found that the cumulative effect of these policy decisions indicates that evaluating and issuing permits takes priority over careful evaluation of mitigation projects.

In addition to the SOPs, testimony provided to the committee by Corps staff from Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco indicated that the workload for Corps regulatory staff is exceedingly high. Regulators from all the Corps Districts providing testimony to the committee indicated that there are consistently more Section 404 permit applications than there is time for Corps staff to perform adequate reviews. That problem, coupled with guidance provided in the SOPs, indicates that priority is given to issuing permits (which often require mitigation), yet mitigation development and follow-up inspections to determine if mitigation

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

commitments are being met is not a priority, and the activity is not encouraged. Indeed, the SOPs suggest that since compliance inspections and site visits fall “below the line,” these activities are not adequately performed because there is insufficient time for staff to perform the activities “above the line.” The committee believes that compliance inspections should be an “above-the-line” activity to ensure that the programmatic goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values is met.

If the Corps recognized mitigation compliance and increased compliance as a priority activity, mitigation would more likely be carried out as specified in Section 404 permits. The committee recognizes that increasing compliance efforts would result in increased staff workloads requiring additional regulatory staff.

COMPLINCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS

The literature shows that many mitigation sites are not performing as specified in Corps permits (Allen and Feddema 1996; Sudol 1996; FDER 1991b; Race 1985). These same studies also show that where mitigation is performing as specified, many of those sites do not support functions and values equivalent to similar reference sites. In some cases, the standard to be met by an individual compensatory mitigation project may stop with a requirement to secure some wetlands structure or to design the project in a particular way. In this case, the premise is that restoring hydrology will facilitate the development of other wetland functions. However, permits do not always call for hydrological measurement.

If mitigation is not carried out to the level specified in the permit, then the Corps can take enforcement action and require a permittee to perform the agreed-upon mitigation. However, if the permit does not specify mitigation, or if the permit is not clear as to the level of mitigation that must be performed or what parameters must be met for the mitigation to be considered complete, it becomes difficult for the Corps to determine if the project is in compliance. Mason and Slocum (1987), for example, found that compliance rates were twice as high when the permits contained specific conditions compared with those that had no specific conditions. For this reason, it is important that Section 404 permits specifying mitigation contain specific language about the expected mitigation outcome (mitigation goal).

The mitigation goal statement should be followed by specific objectives that consist of specific statements about the intended mitigation outcome (Streever 1999b). Performance standards are then developed from the mitigation goal statement and objectives. When these performance standards are included in the Section 404 permit as special conditions, they become legally binding upon the permittee.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Design Standards and Detailed Performance Standards

With detailed assessment of the impacted sites and/or reference systems selected as targets, the committee could set detailed performance standards. But neither data set is typically available. Thus, projects are designed without adequate knowledge, and performance criteria are general and few in number (Streever 1999b). Ecologists, hydrologists, and other scientists who study mitigation sites find many shortcomings in comparing mitigation sites with reference systems (see Chapter 2). Thus, it seems that regulators need to agree that either (1) design standards constitute reasonable performance criteria, or (2) detailed assessment of functions lost must be matched by detailed assessment of mitigation site performance and penalties developed for failure to achieve performance standards.

A consistent set of procedures to identify wetlands is required in order to permit wetland filling under the guidelines of the CWA. The Corps created preliminary guides to regional wetlands and developed techniques for identifying wetlands (USACE 1978a,b,c,d; Reppert 1979; USACE 1987; NRC 1995). The resulting schemes were based on a triad of wetland characteristics: hydrological conditions, soil characteristics, and plant communities. Lists of wetland plant species and hydric soils were created for all parts of the country (USDA 1982, 1985, 1987, 1991). Hydrological requirements were codified (such as number of days of flooding and depth to groundwater) and, to some extent, adapted to various regions. Hydrological data were not available for many wetland sites; therefore, procedures were developed for estimating hydrological conditions from soils and other features (NRC 1995). More detail on the history of the federal wetland manuals and current and past practices in wetland delineation is presented in NRC (1995).

Basic to all wetland restoration and creation projects is the need to set goals for each site's hydrological conditions. Hydrology is most often cited as the primary driving force influencing wetland development, structure, function, and persistence (Gosselink and Turner 1978; Carter 1986; LaBaugh 1986; Day et al. 1988; Novitzki 1989; Wilcox 1988; Gosselink et al. 1990; Sharitz et al. 1990; FDER 1991a; Reaves and Croteau-Hartman 1994; Bedford 1996, 1999; Morgan and Roberts 1999). Consequently, establishment of the appropriate hydrology is fundamental to wetland mitigation whether through restoration or creation (NRC 1992, 1995; Brinson 1993; Bedford 1996; Mitsch and Wilson 1996; Shaffer et al. 1999; Cole and Brooks 2000b). In a survey of 175 federal, state, private, and environmental professionals working in wetland restoration, hydrology was considered one of the most difficult structural features of a wetland to establish and the most important component of a project (Holman and Childres 1995).

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

One measure of mitigation compliance is the restoration of jurisdictional hydrology. An explicit hydrological standard is the percentage of the growing season that soils need to be saturated. Clark and Benforado (1981) suggested that areas saturated less than 5% of the growing season clearly exhibited upland hydrological characteristics and that areas saturated more than 12.5% clearly exhibited wetland hydrological characteristics. The 1987 Corps wetland delineation established the 5% criterion as the jurisdictional threshold, a quantitative value that was reaffirmed by the NRC (1995). However, there are major differences in depth to water table between a wetland that satisfies the 5% standard and one that meets the 12.5% standard (see Figure 6–1). These differences in wetness lead to very different ecological communities (Scherrer et al. 2001).

Because the permittees responsible for the mitigation need some time frame that clearly defines the length of their mitigation responsibility, hydrological performance standards may be based on 5 years or less of water-table monitoring. However, the hydrological regime in nonriverine, intermittently saturated freshwater wetlands varies not only seasonally but also year to year (see Figure 6–2). During a short monitoring period,

FIGURE 6–1 Water-table position and duration of root zone saturation for wetland site that satisfies the jurisdictional hydrology criteria (5% of growing season) as compared with wetland site that satisfies the criteria (12% of the growing season). Simulation modeling (DRAINMOD) was used to determine values. SOURCE: Skaggs (1978). Reprinted with permission; copyright 1978, Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

FIGURE 6–2 Year-to-year variations in water-table depth and duration of root zone saturation for a wetland site that satisfies jurisdictional hydrology criteria at least 5% of the growing season. Year-to-year extremes are typical for intermittently saturated wetlands. Values determined from simulation modeling using DRAINMOD. SOURCE: Skaggs (1978). Reprinted with permission; copyright 1978, Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh.

water levels might not meet hydrological standards for several consecutive years, even though the wetland could satisfy criteria over the long term. Depending on the date when the 5-year monitoring period began and ended, there could be six 5-year periods where the wetland did not satisfy hydrological criteria (see Figure 6–3). If this were a mitigation site and the 5-year monitoring period occurred during one of these six periods, the mitigation project would not comply with performance standards. Recognizing this potential shortcoming, practitioners tend to err toward the wet end of the range, creating wetlands that are much wetter than normal for the given landscape position (Cole and Brooks 2000b).

In many cases this approach has resulted in the creation of openwater areas as compensation for loss of intermittently inundated or saturated wetlands (Kentula et al. 1992a). The stable-water pond has come to typify mitigation efforts in many parts of the country (Cole and Brooks 2000b). Mitigation projects that stress the wet end of the range will not replace the functions provided by much drier impact sites. For example, use of a mitigation site as a stormwater storage, attenuation, or treatment wetland may compromise biodiversity goals.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

FIGURE 6–3 Year-to-year variation of the longest period that wetland hydrological criteria satisfied. Results obtained from long-term simulation modeling using DRAINMOD. NOTE: There are several 5-year periods where criteria are not satisfied 3 out of 5 years. SOURCE: Skaggs (1978). Reprinted with permission; copyright 1978, Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh.

Breaux and Serefiddin (1999) examined 110 compensatory wetland mitigation projects in California (permitted from 1988 to 1995) and determined that the most commonly measured parameter was vegetation (type or cover) (Table 6–4). Two of the most commonly assumed wetland val-

TABLE 6–4 Parameters Measured in 110 Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Projects in California from 1988 to 1995

Parameter

% of Sites Measured

Vegetation

72

Hydrology

22

Wildlife

38

Water quality

7

Soils

3

Invertebrates

3

Flood storage

Not mentioned

SOURCE: Adapted from Breaux and Serefiddin (1999).

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

ues, flood storage and water-quality improvements, were supposed to be examined in less than 10% of the permits.

The committee concludes that current permitting procedures do not always result in permit conditions that are clear and enforceable and lead to the development of viable mitigation that compensates for the functions and values of the permitted impact. Instead, permits typically contain performance standards that measure only one or several easily measured parameters of a mitigation site, and in many cases, these parameters do not reflect the overall viability of the mitigation site. Recommendations relevant to this conclusion are provided in Chapter 8.

MITIGATION RATIOS

Mitigation ratios are the proportional requirements for replacing wetlands that are permitted for fill. A point that is frequently raised in assessments of mitigation is that the ratios (the number of required mitigation acres to the permitted acres) are too low (Morgan and Roberts 1999; Allen and Feddema 1996). Ratios vary across permits, often because the logic behind the ratios differs. Higher ratios might be required for sites and wetland types that are difficult to restore. Higher ratios might be also used if there is a long time expected between the permitted activity and the achievement of the desired endpoint for the compensation site. Ratios have been used to reflect the functional values of the impact site, that is, the ratio would be higher for a pristine wetland than for a severely degraded wetland. An example of ratio guidelines used by the California Department of Fish and Game incorporates this principle in its guidelines for mitigating impacts to streams and associated habitat (see Appendix D). Mitigation ratios are 1:1 for low-value habitat (e.g., unvegetated streams), whereas ratios can be as high as 5:1 for impacts to endangered species habitat (e.g., mature willow riparian inhabited by least Bell's vireo).

The Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mitigation Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that “mitigation should provide, at a minimum, one-for-one functional replacement (i.e., no net loss of values), with an adequate margin of safety to reflect the expected degree of success associated with the mitigation plan… [T]his ratio may be greater where the functional values of the area being impacted are demonstrably high and the replacement wetlands are of lower functional value or the likelihood of success of the mitigation project is low. Conversely, the ratio may be less than 1 to 1 for areas where the functional values associated with the area being impacted are demonstrably low and the likelihood of success associated with the mitigation proposal is high.”

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Whether required ratios were met was examined in nine studies for four nonfederal (not Section 404) programs (see Table 6–5). The mitigation ratio requirements were never fully met, but the ratio for the mitigation implemented was higher than 1:1 in three of the nine studies. These results present another way of examining the compliance rate of mitigation when viewed on a programmatic scale. The average percentage was 69%, implying that for these nine mitigation efforts, a 1.5:1 ratio of mitigation:loss acreage would be needed to equal the area lost (if all other permit conditions are met, including functional equivalency). The committee concludes that some mitigation will not be fully implemented. The reasons that mitigation projects do not meet expectations are partially dependent on performance and design criteria, program oversight, and execution. These are discussed in the next sections.

In all programs surveyed by Allen and Feddema (1996) in Southern California, the area mitigated was about equal to the area lost due to permitting. That was accomplished by varying the amount of mitigation required by habitat type so that different replacement risks were built into the permit requirement (see Table 6–6). The committee heard testimony to the effect that pressure to mitigate for one rare wetland type with a high mitigation ratio resulted in a more common wetland type with a lower ratio. In effect, the regulatory program may reassemble the landscape with a different habitat mix than the wetlands being lost.

TABLE 6–5 Mitigation Ratios Required and the Actual Ratios Met, Based on Post-Construction Evaluation (assumes complete compliance in meeting permit conditions)

Location

Ratios Required

Ratios On Site

% Compliant

Source

California

 

Fenner (1991)

San Diego County

1.51:1

1:0.93

62

Allen and Feddema (1996)

Southern Sacramento

1.40:1

1:0.96

69

DeWeese (1994)

San Francisco

1.44:1

1:0.29

90

DeWeese (1994)

Orange County

1.03:1

1:0.18

17

Sudol (1996)

Indiana

2.48:1

1:1.1

44

J.T.Robb (personal communication 2000)

Ohio

1.5:1

1:1.26

84

Fennessy and Roehrs (1997)

Ohio

1.72:1

1:0.66

38

Wilson and Mitsch (1996)

Ohio

1.5:1

1:0.93

62

Sibbing (1997) (includes enhancement)

Tennessee

1:1

1:0.87

87

Morgan and Roberts (1999)

NOTE: Data not directly comparable among locations because of different types of surveys.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–6 Mitigation Ratios (Area Basis) and Achievement Rates (%) for Different Wetland Types in Southern California

Wetland Type

Required Ratio

Actual Ratio

Rate

Riparian habitat

1.39:1

0.97:1

70

Freshwater

0.9:1

0.61:1

67

Saltwater

2.1:1

2.1:1

100

Unidentified riparian

1.59:1

0.40:1

67

Riparian woodland

2.40:1

1.6:1

67

Total

1.39:1

1.096:1

69

SOURCE: Adapted from Allen and Feddema (1996).

Mitigation ratios are considered further in Chapter 8 under the topic of Permit Conditions. The adjustment of ratios is one of the principal tools for addressing risk and temporal loss with the ultimate goal of achieving permit compliance.

MONITORING OF MITIGATION PROJECTS

Once a Section 404 permit is issued by the Corps and the agreed-upon mitigation and corresponding performance standards are outlined in the permit special conditions, it is the responsibility of the permittee to conduct ongoing monitoring of the site to ensure that the performance standards are being achieved. The Corps should review the monitoring reports submitted by the permittee and conduct periodic inspections of the site to ensure compliance with the permit.

Table 6–7 lists results of seven reports on the monitoring frequency for six states. The highest monitoring rate was for a California study in which 324 sites had at least one monitoring site visit; two-thirds of these 324 sites had no second site visit required. One study (Louisiana) reported that monitoring occurred on only 10% of the sites. Six of seven studies reported a monitoring rate of about 50% or less. This result has important implications for the success of a mitigation program. Several studies have shown that permit compliance rate may be quite low when monitoring is sparse or does not occur. Mason and Slocum (1987) evaluated 32 wetlands in Virginia and, at the time of their analysis, documented that permits with specific conditions for creating wetlands were 86% compliant, whereas when there were no specific permit conditions, then permit compliance was 44%. When time limits for completion were specified, 100% of the mitigation efforts were compliant, compared with

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–7 Frequency of Monitoring for Permits That Required Mitigation

State

Source

No. of Permits

No Monitoring at:

Alabama

Sifneos et al. (1992a)

18

61% were not monitored

California

Holland and Kentula (1992)

324

40% had incomplete acreage;

2% had no completion date;

two-thirds did not require follow-up

Louisiana

Sifneos et al. (1992a)

93

90% were not monitored

Mississippi

Sifneos et al. (1992a)

5

80% were not monitored

Oregon

Storm and Stellini (1994)

58

53% had no site visit recorded

Washington

Storm and Stellini (1994)

17

67%; monitoring was done at three of the nine sites requiring monitoring

Washington

Kentula (1986)

35

49% had no site visit

50% without deadlines or time limits. Morgan and Roberts (1999) concluded that “some applicants apparently believe that they will not be held accountable for their projects.” Morgan and Roberts (1999) implied that this self-interest in reporting data to agencies might have an influence on the accuracy of the evaluation and made a plea that “we strongly recommend that consultants responsible for site development not be allowed to submit the monitoring reports for their own projects. ” Zentner (1988) found that the “lack of monitoring was a common element of unsuccessful projects. ”

In addition, the permit may sparsely quantify the necessary requirements. Lowe et al. (1989) estimated that 86% of the 29 permits he surveyed “did not contain enough details or were not clear enough to ensure success of the created wetland, nor were they drawn tightly enough to enable the District to enforce the terms to correct problems. Two of the most often noted deficiencies in the permit conditions were the absence of success and maintenance criteria and the lack of provisions for corrective action should the created wetland fail. ” DeWeese (1994) noted that the omission of monitoring reports meant that the need for remedial action went unnoticed and therefore was not done or was not done as well. These sentiments were shared by Race and Fonseca (1996):

[O]ur survey of past mitigation projects nationwide indicates that the success rate of permit-linked mitigation projects remains low overall. In addition, there is continuing difficulty in translating mitigation concepts into legal principles, regulatory standards, and permit conditions that

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

are scientifically defensible and sound. Based on the record of past poor performance, we assert that continued piecemeal revision efforts focused on technical or scientific details are not likely to make compensatory mitigation more effective. There is need to acknowledge the extent to which non-scientific, real-world complications plague current policies and practices. To prevent continued loss of wetlands under compensatory mitigation, decisive action must be taken by placing emphasis on improving compliance, generating desired acreage, and maintaining a true baseline.

Based on design requirements, Morgan and Roberts (1999) found that 72% of the mitigation sites inspected were smaller than required. Morgan and Roberts (1999) also found that many sites were not constructed to topographic specifications, resulting in sites that could not attain appropriate hydrological requirements to create the intended results.

Accordingly, the Corps/EPA Mitigation MOA (USACE/EPA 1990) recognizes that “[m]onitoring is an important aspect of mitigation, especially in areas of scientific uncertainty. Monitoring should be directed toward determining whether permit conditions are complied with and whether the purpose intended to be served by the conditions are actually achieved.” Thus, a mitigation site must be physically monitored to determine compliance with design standards as well as compliance with performance standards (whether the site exhibits a trend toward achieving the target wetland functions).

MONITORING DURATION

The literature and testimony provided to the committee indicate that monitoring periods commonly last between 3 and 5 years following mitigation site construction. However, for many created and restored systems, particularly those such as woody riparian systems that require long periods of time for plant establishment, a short-duration monitoring (3–5 years) might not be long enough to determine whether mitigation goals will be acheived (see Coyote Creek case study, Appendix B). The mitigation guidelines from the St. Paul District (Eggers 1992) recommend monitoring beyond 5 years if necessary. For forested wetlands, Morgan and Roberts (1999) recommend revising the monitoring period to a time frame that better reflects the time needed to achieve the desired outcomes.

A 5-year monitoring window is a common permit requirement. For example, Tennessee, like most states, requires that most mitigation projects be monitored annually for 5 years (Morgan and Roberts 1999). This requirement is especially true of tree-dominated mitigation sites that may take 50 years or more to mature (Morgan and Roberts 1999).

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Obviously, the specific needs and performance requirements of a particular mitigation site will influence monitoring frequency and duration.

THE COMPLIANCE RECORD

In the mid-1980s, some scientists involved in wetland restoration and creation believed that mitigation was effective (Harvey and Josselyn 1986). Others emphasized a need for more research, enforcement, and monitoring (Kusler and Groman 1986; Race 1986). Since then, follow-up studies of compensatory restoration and creation projects have identified significant shortcomings with respect to the functioning of mitigation sites (see Chapter 2). Shortcomings are evident in every region of the country. The discussion focuses on plant communities, because that is what is most commonly monitored. The committee notes, however, that while vegetation may be easily measured, it is a poor indicator of function (Reinartz and Warne 1993).

One of the most comprehensive investigations involved a review of 61 permits for 128 projects in six counties around Chicago, Illinois (Gallihugh and Rogner 1998). That study found that 17% of the wetland vegetation proposed was established, and an additional 22% had established wetlands but with vegetation other than that proposed. Fifty-two percent of the wetlands had excessive or unplanned open water, and 9% had insufficient hydrology. The wetland area lost was 117 hectares (ha) and the approved wetland mitigation amounted to 144 ha. So, in theory, there was a mitigation ratio of 1.2:1, resulting in a net gain of 27 ha. In actuality, the study found that 29 ha were not established and at least 99 ha were found to have unsatisfactory hydrology (too wet or too dry).

In a smaller sampling, Wilson and Mitsch (1996) evaluated five wetland projects in detail to estimate their ecological and legal outcomes (legal compliance was determined by the authors in consultation with the regulators). Only two of the five mitigation cases showed the mitigation projects were in full legal compliance, but four of the five were on a trajectory toward legal compliance with permit requirements (Table 6–8). Overall, 24.4 ha of wetlands were lost, and about 16 ha were actually created or restored. Because of the failure of one large site, only 38% of the desired wetland area was established at the time of their study. For the four wetlands that were compliant, there was an overall mitigation ratio of 1.4:1.

Evaluations of ecological equivalency between mitigation sites and reference sites are rarely conducted as part of a programmatic review. Kentula et al. (1992b) found that 65% of the permits that they surveyed in Oregon and Washington required a functional assessment, but these assessments lacked detail. A salt marsh creation project in southern Califor-

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–8 Permit Requirements and Compliance for Five Replacement Wetlands Investigated in Ohio

 

Wetland Area, hectares

Location, County Replaced

Wetland Type Lost

Required

Implemented

Lost

Required

Area Implemented

% of Required

Portage

Emergent

Emergent/ woody

Emergent/ woody

0.4

0.6

0.6

100

Delaware

Emergent/ woody

Emergent/ woody

Emergent/ woody

3.7

5.4

~4.0

74

Franklin

Emergent

Emergent/ submergent

Emergent/ submergent

15

28

32

11

Jackson

Emergent

Emergent/ scrub-shrub

Emergent/ scrub-shrub

4.8

7.2

7.5

105

Gallia

Emergent

Emergent/ woody

Emergent

0.5

0.8

0.7

88

Total

 

24.4

42

~16.0

38

SOURCE: Data from Wilson and Mitsch (1996).

nia was evaluated using several indicators of function, and the results show the importance of measuring more than vegetation to characterize ecological performance (Table 6–9). Four constructed salt marshes were studied for 5 years or longer, and 11 attributes were compared with nearby natural sites. Three attributes of plant health (biomass, height, and nitrogen content) varied from 42% to 84% equivalency, two benthic invertebrate parameters varied from 36% to 78% equivalency, and four soil parameters (organic content, sediment nitrogen, pore water nitrogen, and nitrogen fixation) varied from 17% to 110% of that in the reference marsh. A high score for one parameter does not guarantee a high score for another. A recent compilation of the 10-year data set indicated that this project did not comply with permit conditions, which included tall vegetation suitable for nesting by an endangered bird (Zedler and Callaway 1999).

A systematic approach to measuring ecological equivalency involves the application of Brinson's (1993) Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM), which is broadly applicable to most wetlands. Sudol (1996) used the HGM method to assess 40 mitigation projects covering 97 hectares of impacts for 104 hectares of proposed mitigation in Orange County, California.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–9 Index of Functional Equivalency for Four Constructed Salt Marshes in Relationship to Natural Sites in Paradise Creek, Southern California

Parameter

% Equivalency to Reference Wetland

Organic matter content

51

Sediment nitrogen as inorganic nitrogen

45

Sediment nitrogen (total Kjeldahl)

52

Pore-water nitrogen as inorganic nitrogen

17

Nitrogen fixation in top 1 cm

51

Nitrogen fixation in rhizosphere

110

Biomass of vascular plants

42

Foliar nitrogen concentration

84

Height of vascular plants

65

Epibenthic invertebrate numbers

36

Epibenthic invertebrate species list

78

Average of all comparisons

57

NOTE: Only the most vigorous stands of vegetation in the mitigation site were sampled for comparison with the reference site.

SOURCE: Zedler and Langis (1991). Reprinted with permission from Ecological Restoration; copyright 1991, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Fifteen habitat functions were compared in 7 reference sites. Forty-two percent of the compensatory mitigation wetland area met the terms of the permit requirements. However, not one mitigation effort was completely successful in terms of the HGM analyses. Fourteen mitigation efforts were partially successful. The overarching reason given to explain the lack of success was that there was insufficient restoration and creation of the necessary hydrological conditions.

Brown and Veneman (1998) examined 70 mitigation permits in Massachusetts and made field visits to 68 permittee-responsible sites that underwent restoration and also to a subset of sites that apparently were mitigation banks. Various environmental parameters were measured in both mitigation wetland and an appropriate reference site, although full information on how the comparison was made is not available (discussed in Chapter 2). Some of their results are in Table 6–10. The compensatory wetland had fewer species among all sites, but the mitigation bank sites had more species than the reference sites. Although plant cover and other indices of plant community health were similar in reference and mitigation wetland, the species were not the same. The differences in plant species may explain why the use by amphibians, mammals, and birds (but not reptiles) was higher in the reference sites.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–10 Ecological Parameters in Paired Replacement and Reference Wetlands in Massachusetts

Parameter

All Reference Wetlands

All Replacement Wetland

Reference Wetlands

Mitigation Bank Wetlands

Plant

Number of species

11.4±2.7

7.8±3.8

15.5±3.4

17.3±2.4

Number of facultative or wetter species

10.2±2.7

7.8±3.8

Same in both

Same in both

Cover all species

More in reference sites

More in reference sites

Same in both

Same in both

Cover wetland species

More in reference sites

More in reference sites

Lower in reference sites

Lower in reference sites

Wetland index value

2.3±0.33

2.3±0.68

2.1±0.7

2.0±0.4

Similarity of species

Dissimilar

Dissimilar

Dissimilar

Dissimilar

Water-quality function value

N.A.

N.A.

0.86±0.8

0.95±0.32

Sediment stabilization

N.A.

N.A.

0.86±0.075

0.86±0.05

Wildlife utilization (Jaccard Similarity Index)

Amphibians

N.A.

N.A.

More in reference sites

More in reference sites

Mammals

N.A.

N.A.

More in reference sites

More in reference sites

Reptiles

N.A.

N.A.

Similar

Similar

Birds

N.A.

N.A.

More in reference sites

More in reference sites

NOTES: The mean and ±1 standard deviation are shown, when given in the source document. A. For 68 sites of all sizes; B. for 12 sites that were for “variances, ” which appear to be mitigation banks. These variance sites have much better site planning and oversight than the nonvariance (mitigation bank) wetlands. N.A., Not available.

SOURCE: Adapted from Brown and Veneman (1998).

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Estimates of functional equivalency and compliance rates from various studies are summarized in Table 6–11. The percentage of permits meeting permit compliance ranges from 3% to 100%, and the percentage of permits resulting in various measures of ecological functionality (equivalency) ranges from 0 to 67%. For studies with estimates of both permit compliance and ecological equivalency, the averages are 55% and 23%, respectively. The average for all eight estimates for ecological equivalency is 14%. Some of these sites may improve with time (see discussion of trajectories in Chapter 2).

Eighteen studies used the number of restoration or creation sites that met permit conditions as an indicator of permit compliance (see Table 6–12). Ten of the 18 studies had compliance rates of greater than 50%. Sudol (1996) surveyed 70 (required as part of 80 permits) mitigation sites in Orange County, California, to determine permit compliance for permits issued between 1985 and 1993. There were 128 ha of impact, of which 19 ha met all conditions of mitigation. Of the 80 permits, 30 projects were considered compliant with permit conditions. Of the remaining projects,

TABLE 6–11 Comparison of the Percentage of Permits Meeting Their Requirements and Percentage of Those Permits Meeting Various Tests of Ecological Functionality or Viability

Location

No. of Permits

% Permit Compliance

% Meeting Viability/ Functiona

Source or Notes

California

57

18

0

Sudol (1996)

Florida

29

79

45

Lowe et al. (1989)

Florida

63

6

27

FDER (1991a)

Freshwater

34

3

12

 

Saltwater

29

10

45

 

Florida

N.A.

N.A.

4

Erwin (1991)

Florida, St. Johns

N.A. (1992)

43

27

OPPAGA (2000)

Water Management District (WMD)

N.A. (1999)

78

67

OPPAGA (2000)

Ohio

10

100

0

Fennessy and Roehrs (1997)

Oregon

17

47

18

Storm and Stellini (1994)

Unknown

29

21

3

Mockler et al. (1998)

a Criteria used: Sudol (1996) classified sites as a complete success and not irrigated; Lowe et al. (1989) classified site viability as good or poor; DeWeese (1994) rated sites as successful if they scored 7 or higher on a scale of 0 to 10; FDER (1991a) rated sites based on hydrology, soils, vegetation, and fauna.

NOTES: N.A., Not available.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–12 Compliance (Based on Permit Number) for Fully Implemented Mitigation Plans

Location

No. of Permits

% in Compliancea

Source

California

Orange County

57

13

Sudol (1996)

Southern Sacramento

75

42

Allen and Feddema (1996)

San Francisco

30

50

DeWeese (1994)

Florida

29

79

Lowe et al. (1989)

Florida

42

10

Erwin (1991)

Florida (Northeastern)

201

86

Miracle et al. (1998)b

Florida

Southwestern WMD

33

33

OPPAGA (2000), for 1988 to 1989

Southwestern WMD

254

82

OPPAGA (2000), for permits since 1995c

St. Johns WMD

N.A.

78

OPPAGA (2000), for 1999

Suwannee River WMD

N.A.

100

OPPAGA (2000)

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

 

Southeastern District

N.A.

67

OPPAGA (2000), no date

Northeastern District

N.A.

87

OPPAGA (2000), no date

Illinois

N.A.

4

Gallihugh and Rogner (1998)

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

84

49

Brown and Veneman (1998)

Ohio

14

100

Fennessy and Roehrs (1997)

Ohio

5

80

Wilson and Mitsch (1996)

Virginia

32

N.A.

Mason and Slocum (1987)

1.a

N.A.

86

When with specific permit conditions

b

N.A.

44

When without specific permit conditions

2.a

N.A.

100

Permits with time limits

b

N.A.

50

Permits without time limits

Washington

17

53

Storm and Stellini (1994)

Washington

43

35

Johnson et al. (2000)

Unknown

29

21

Mockler et al. (1998)

a Compliance based on 100% compliance for Allen and Feddema (1996); scale of 8 out of 10 (75% in compliance) for DeWeese (1994).

b After 5 years; some mitigation was still in the monitoring stage (and compliant).

c Includes mitigation efforts that achieved success and that were “trending toward” success, as defined by the evaluators.

NOTES: Based on field inspection or monitoring reports and when all permit conditions were met. Unverified mitigation attempts were considered noncompliant. N.A., Not available.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

6 were not compliant, 2 were never attempted, and 13 permits were never completed. The remaining projects were only partially successful in meeting the permit requirements. Eight studies of five state permitting programs examined whether attempts at mitigation met permit conditions (see Table 6–13). Compliance with the permit was measured by the area of created or restored wetlands. The results indicate that the compensatory wetland mitigation area was often less than the permitted area.

Mitigation sites have also been evaluated using more subjective measures. DeWeese (1994) evaluated 30 projects in California to determine mitigation compliance using a 10-point scale based on professional judgment. About half of the sites were at least 5 years old. DeWeese ranked only 1 of the 30 sites high, 13 were average or above average, and 6 were below average (Table 6–14). Two sites had low value, and two others were judged to have no value. The average value was 4.7 for 30 mitigation projects. There was no net loss in area as a result of permitting, but there was a net loss in ecological functionality.

Allen and Feddema (1996) examined 75 sites in California using three simple criteria evaluated subjectively: weed invasion, plant cover, and vegetation status. They found a 69% “success rate” and estimated that 77 ha replaced 81 ha lost, for a net loss of 5%. Storm and Stellini (1994) found a mixed result in their review of 17 compensatory mitigation projects in Washington (Table 6–15). Fifty-three percent could not be verified as being in compliance with the permit, 29% were verified as being out of compliance, and two-thirds were not ecologically equivalent to the wetlands lost through the permitting program. Monitoring was done for only

TABLE 6–13 Compliance (Area Basis) for Mitigation That Was Attempted Based on Field Inspection or Monitoring Reports

Location

No. of Permits

Impacted Hectares

% Area Gain (loss)

Source

California

Orange County

68

128

(92)

Sudol (1996)

San Diego County

N.A.

102

(8)

Fenner (1991)

Southern Sacramento

75

80

(8)

Allen and Feddema (1996)

San Francisco

30

168

44

DeWeese (1994)

Florida

29

269

(32)

Lowe et al. (1989)

Indiana

31

14

10

J.T.Robb (personal commun. 2000)

Ohio

5

24

(33)

Wilson and Mitsch (1996)

Tennessee

50

38

(13)

Morgan and Roberts (1999)

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–14 Ranking of Compliance for 30 Sites in San Francisco Bay That Were Issued Section 404 Permits

Permits (No.)

Compliance (%)

3

100

6

85 to 95

6

75 to 85

12

45 to 75

1

1 to 14

2

0

NOTE: DeWeese (1994) ranked sites (scale 1 to 10) to determine their ecological success rate.

one-third of that required. These subjective measures of equivalency suggest that compliance is much lower than expected.

The historical and national perspective of mitigation in the United States that has been presented comes from a wide range of studies, and we do not think that our review is a parochial or geographically restricted one. A summary of key data reviews is in Table 6–16. Between 70% and 76% of the mitigation required in the permits is implemented, and about 50% to 53% of the implemented mitigation projects did not meet the permit requirements. In addition, the estimate of functional equivalency of mitigation wetland was about 20% of that intended. These estimates (based on the mean or median value in the tables) suggest that there is a substantial net loss in wetland area from wetlands permitting program. In terms of the ecological equivalency of these wetlands, there is a low value of the wetlands actually built.

TABLE 6–15 Results from an Analysis of Compliance for 17 Mitigation Projects with Field Investigation in Western Washington

Condition

Number

Percent

Not verified as being in compliance

9

53

Out of compliance

5

29

Not functioning ecologically

11

65

In compliance with regulatory requirements

3

18

Monitoring done/required

9/17

53

Monitoring done when required

3

33

SOURCE: Storm and Stellini (1994).

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

TABLE 6–16 Summary of Data from Previous Tables on Wetland Permit Implementation, Compliance, Ecological Success, and Monitoring Frequency

Parameter

No. of Studies

No. of States

Range

Mean

Median

1. % Mitigation attempted for required mitigation permits (778+ permits; Table 6–3)

8

7

28 to 100

76

70

2. % Compliance for mitigation required, based on field inspections

 

a. % area gain (loss) (Table 6–13)

8

5

(92) to 44

(17)

(32.5)

b. % permits issued (Table 6–12)

19

6

0 to 100

58

53

3. % Ratio required and ratios met (post-construction; Table 6–5)

9

4

17 to 90

61

62

4. % Functional equivalency of completed mitigation (Table 6–11)

9

4

0 to 67

21

18

5. % Sites insufficiently monitored for permitted mitigation (Table 6–7)

7

6

40 to 90

63

61

NOTE: The average of a tie for the median value is given.

Record Keeping

The committee found that in many cases, mitigation was required to offset impacts; however, some project files did not contain a mitigation plan or other explicit agreements on the size and type of mitigation to be provided. Because mitigation projects extend over many years, mitigation plans need to be on record, with mitigation requirements clarified, so that all subsequent parties involved in the evaluation of the mitigation site know exactly what was required.

Many of the problems of tracking wetland loss and gain resulting from mitigation implementation could be addressed by improved recordkeeping on the part of the Corps. Through improved compliance inspections described in Chapter 8, information should be included in a national database, such as the Corps Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) database. If each Corps project manager followed data-entry quality-assurance measures, then wetland losses and gains could be tracked more accurately on a national scale.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. It appears that the performance standards sought in compensatory mitigation have not often been well defined.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
  1. Wetland restoration and creation trajectories do not suggest equivalency with reference sites within the commonly used 5-year monitoring period.

  2. The literature and testimony provided to the committee indicate that the national goal of “no net loss” for permitted wetland conversions is not being met.

  3. The gap between what is required and what is realized is not precisely known; however, the evidence strongly suggests that the required compensatory mitigation called for by wetland permits to date will not be realized.

  4. Permit follow-up is sparse or too infrequent, and a higher post-monitoring rate will increase permit compliance rates. Compliance monitoring is commonly known to be nonexistent after 5 years. Better documentation and monitoring will increase compliance rates.

  5. The sparse compliance monitoring is a direct consequence of its designation as a “below-the-line” policy standard. Raising compliance monitoring to “above the line” will greatly enhance mitigation success. Chapter 8 further discusses mitigation compliance issues; specifically, recommendations 4 and 6 in that chapter addresses concerns outlined here.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee makes the following recommendations relative to future mitigation compliance to ensure that the nation has an accurate reporting of wetland losses and gains:

  1. The wetland area and functions lost and regained over time should be tracked in a national database. This database may or may not be the Corps Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) database.

  2. The Corps should expand and improve the quality-assurance measures for data entry in the RAMS database.

  3. Mitigation goals must be clear and those goals carefully specified in terms of measurable performance standards in order to improve mitigation effectiveness. Performance standards in permits should reflect mitigation goals and be written in such a way that ecological viability can be measured and the impacted functions replaced.

Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"6 Mitigation Compliance." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 122
Next: 7 Technical Approaches Toward Achieving No Net Loss »
Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $68.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Recognizing the importance of wetland protection, the Bush administration in 1988 endorsed the goal of “no net loss” of wetlands. Specifically, it directed that filling of wetlands should be avoided, and minimized when it cannot be avoided. When filling is permitted, compensatory mitigation must be undertaken; that is, wetlands must be restored, created, enhanced, and, in exceptional cases, preserved, to replace the permitted loss of wetland area and function, such as water quality improvement within the watershed.

After more than a dozen years, the national commitment to “no net loss” of wetlands has been evaluated. This new book explores the adequacy of science and technology for replacing wetland function and the effectiveness of the federal program of compensatory mitigation in accomplishing the nation’s goal of clean water. It examines the regulatory framework for permitting wetland filling and requiring mitigation, compares the mitigation institutions that are in use, and addresses the problems that agencies face in ensuring sustainability of mitigated wetlands over the long term.

Gleaning lessons from the mixed results of mitigation efforts to date, the book offers 10 practical guidelines for establishing and monitoring mitigated wetlands. It also recommends that federal, state, and local agencies undertake specific institutional reforms. This book will be important to anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the “no net loss” issue: policy makers, regulators, environmental scientists, educators, and wetland advocates.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!