Creating Successful Wetlands

Creating Successful Freshwater Wetlands

Ynes S. ArochoBIO 690: Qualifying Exam

M.S. Environmental Science

http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html

Overview

Wetland Loss

Ecosystem Services

Wetland Policy

Wetland Mitigation

Mitigation Banks

Wetland Function

Wetland Plant Development

Wetland Soil Development

Salvaged Soils

Reference Wetlands

Restoration Costs

Urban Wetlands

West Creek Reservation

Conclusions

Wetland Loss

56% of US wetlands (Dahl, 1991)

90% of Ohio wetlands(Dahl, 1991)

Over half the world’s wetlands are lost or severely degraded (Yallop and O’Connell, 2000)

Source:http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/wetstatus.pdf

Wetland Policy

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Compensatory

mitigation “No Net Loss”

Regulation has three levels: Avoidance Minimization Compensation

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00333.x/full

Wetland Mitigation

Four options Establish a new site Restore a previously

exiting site Enhance function of

an existing site Preserve an existing

site

Mitigation ratio Type and size of

wetland destroyed determines type and size of created wetland required.

Required ≠ Actual

National Research Council Study, 2001

Purpose: evaluate wetland mitigation practice.

Plant species composition = 10 or more yrs to stabilize

Soil development = 3-30 yrs to stabilize

Plant assemblages do not replace function

Recommendation: Both plant community

structure and wetland function should be considered during mitigation.

Resulting wetland should be self-sustaining Wetland hydrology

Mitigated Wetlands in Ohio

Kettlewell,2005 101 mitigation sites 425.3 acres impacted 697.8 acres required 496.8 acres actual

(71.2% of required) Mitigation ratio 1.17:1

1.17 acre created / 1 acre destroyed http://www.ohiodnr.com/Home/wild_resourcessubhomepage/

ResearchandSurveys/WildlifePopulationStatusLandingPage/WoodDuck/tabid/19334/Default.aspx

Compliance Performance Standards

Vary among permits Vary among similar

wetland types Some too stringent or

too modest Difficult to determine

success or failure Examples: minimum #

native plants, survival of # woody species

http://andreawilliamsministries.com/what-does-success-really-mean-anyways/success-and-failure-road-sign-with-dramatic-clouds-and-sky/

Mitigated Wetlands in Illinois Matthews and

Endress, 2008 76 mitigation sites

113.6 hectares proposed

31.7 hectares deficit Applied performance

standards 8 failed all goals 45 met some goals 23 met all goals

Matthews and Endress, 2008

Mitigation Banks

Large wetland area Sell mitigation credits

(hectares of wetlands) to parties required to mitigate.

2005 estimates: 363 active banks 75 sold out banks 169 proposed banks 78% are for-profit

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/DIVISIONS/TRANSSYSDEV/ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGICAL_RESOURCES_PERMITS/MITIGATIONINVENTORY/Pages/default.aspx

ODOT Mitigation Inventory

Wetland Function Federal standards

measure vegetation for 5 yrs.

Do not measure: Biotic integrity Nutrient cycling Trophic dynamics Hydrology Soils Fauna Microbial characteristics

Recommendation:Mitsch and Wilson, 1996 and

Zedler, 2004

Require longer monitoring periods

Plant characteristics alone are not adequate measurements of wetland function

Wetland Plant Development Mitsch et al. 2005 Planted vs. unplanted Vegetation cover vs.

plant diversity Pulsing experiment:

Planted wetland: plant cover from 73% to 62%.

Unplanted wetland: plant cover from 74% to 38%.

Mitsch et al., 2005

Wetland Soil Development Mitsch et al. 2005 Prior to creation: no

hydric wetland soils 2 yrs later:

78% of samples

(0-8 cm) 24% of samples

(9-16 cm) 10 yrs later: 94% of

samples in both layers. Supports NRC, 2001

Mitsch et al., 2005

Salvaged Soils

McKinstry and Anderson, 2005

Soil from donor wetland used to create new wetland

Increased plant composition compared to control group

Combination of salvaged soils and plantings?

http://www.pacificexc.com/projects/main.php?g2_itemId=468

Reference Wetlands Campbell et al., 2002 Compared soils and

plants Soil chroma, defines

soils; low = wetland; high = upland

Higher in created sites Plant species richness

lower in created sites. Higher percent of upland

plant species in created sites.

Stolt et. al., 2000 Compared wetland

topography Created sites: 40-60%

less elevation change across area

Created sites: very little microrelief

Provides habitat variety thus increasing biodiversity

Restoration Costs

Gutrich and Hitzhusen, 2004

Ecological-economic computer simulation model

Functional indicators: plant species richness, hydric soils and native plants

Prediction: 7-44 yrs to reach functional equivalency

Prediction: $5190-$309,108 lag cost above private cost

Recommendations:

1) Require a bond equal to estimated benefits provided by wetland – high restoration cost with low lag cost vs. low restoration cost with high lag cost

2) Delay issuance of drainage permit until functional equivalence is achieved in replacement – no lag costs

3) Use wetland banks – functional equivalency already established

Urban Wetlands

Obstacles: hydrology, habitat, infrastructure, pests and people

Goal: rehabilitation not restoration to their original condition

Difficult to evaluate success: criteria must reflect ecology of wetland with reality of urban context.

Source:http://www.biohabitats.com/ndg_newsite/newsletter/2010spring/article.urbecrest.php

Urban Wetland Assessment

Correct use of reference wetland

Undisturbed site Degraded sites

Success: restored site more similar to undisturbed reference site without similar response in the degraded control site.

Grayson, et al., 1999 http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=grades#mt:0

Maximize Benefits of Restorations

1) Involve the public

2) Community-based initiatives

3) Facilitator (stakeholder representative)

4) Environmental education

5) Small-scale demos

6) Evaluate progress (questionnaires)

Casagrande, 1997

Source: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/

Source: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/

West Creek Reservation

West Creek Preservation Committee (citizen goup)

Part of Cleveland Metroparks System

Parma, Seven Hills, Brooklyn Heights and Independence

Highly urbanized area Tributary to Cuyahoga

Riverhttp://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html

West Creek Wetlands

Old municipal landfill Created and planted

in 2002 Wetland design (step-

down wetlands) Plant surveys –

increased range Usage: recreational,

educational and habitat for animals.

Source: www.maps.google.com

Photo by: Ynes Arocho

Aug 2002

http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html

Aug 2004http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html

May 2002Photo by: Ynes Arocho

Conclusions

Progress so far: Replace function Salvage soils Plantings Hydrology Mitigation banks Ecosystem

services

Ideas for the future: Reevaluate policy Standardize

permit requirements

Encourage use of mitigations banks

Further research on function

Further explore valuing services