WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review

8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review

1/13

1 WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review

WDNR Summary and Recommendations

December 2007, revised May 2008Joanne Kline, Ron Grasshoff, Jon Simonsen

Scope

An inventory of wetlands and their condition is the basis for future program improvements

to meet State and national wetland goals. Over the past several years, the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Water Division has initiated major

improvements in tracking wetlands both naturally occurring wetlands and wetlands

restored through voluntary conservation efforts and WDNRs wetland permitting program.

The WDNR Wetland Team, on the recommendation of WDNRs Environmental Analysis

staff, requested a summary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT)

Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Program so that wetlands affected by WisDOT could be

included in the Departments effort.

This report summarizes the WisDOT program based on data available for the period 1990-

2005 and recommends possible improvements. These recommendations have been passed

on to the WDNR Environmental Analysis Management Team, which will recommend an

implementation plan.

Overview

The Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share responsibility for wetland protection under

the Federal Clean Water Act. That responsibility includes ensuring that wetland loss meets

State wetland water quality standards and that unavoidable wetland loss is mitigated

through wetland compensation according to joint guidelines established by these agencies.

Transportation improvements account for substantial wetland loss in Wisconsin. Between

1990 and 2005, highway, airport, and other WisDOT administered projects resulted in

approximately 175 acres of wetland loss per year. In comparison, combined residential,

commercial, and agricultural development projects since 2002 resulted in approximately 70

acres of wetland loss per year.

Since 1990, the WisDOT/WDNR Cooperative Agreement has included an attachment that

outlines the process and expectations regarding the compensation for unavoidable wetland

loss from transportation projects. Since 1993, WisDOT, WDNR, and federal agencies1 have

1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Federal Highway Administration


2/13


followed the WisDOT Wetland Mitigation Banking Technical Guidelines2 (Guidelines) for a

compensatory wetland mitigation program to be administered by WisDOT. Since 1990,

approximately 3600 acres of wetland compensation has occurred to mitigate the loss of

2629 acres.

State and national wetland program goals have changed over the years as understanding ofwetlands and wetland compensatory mitigation has increased. A report from The National

Research Council Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses3, for example, led the Corps and

EPA to develop a Mitigation Action Plan, which is the foundation of the 2008 Federal

Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule. In 2006, WDNRs Office ofEnergy and

Environmental Analysis suggested a review of the WisDOT program to identify gaps in the

data and to recommend program improvements consistent with the concepts in the

Mitigation Action Plan.

This Review has three components: data in the WisDOT wetland database between 1990

and 2005; WDNR files for selected wetland compensation sites; and field reviews of

selected wetland compensation sites. The findings led to three general conclusions:

WisDOT tracks wetland loss, but not wetland gain. WisDOT tracks the loss ofwetland acres and wetland plant community type. WisDOT does nottrack the plant

community type, quality, or function ofwetland compensation acres. While WisDOT

is responsible for much wetland compensation, compensation sites are not always

monitored and the number of wetland compensation acres is not well documented.

The program focuses on short-term rather than long-term goals. WisDOT generallycomplies with the Guidelines fundamental criterion to establish wetland acres, and

to a lesser extent complies with requirements regarding monitoring, maintenance,

and ownership. WisDOT generally also complies with federal permit conditions to

establish wetland acres, but the conditions lack performance standards related to

wetland condition.

Accounting only by wetland acres discriminates against wetland type and function.The location of WisDOT compensation sites has been driven by opportunistic and

economic considerations, not by wetland functional replacement. The result is an

imbalance between wetland loss and gain by location, type, and function. This

imbalance is particularly disadvantageous to wetland types that are increasingly

uncommon, to wetland functions that rely on wetland type and landscape position,

and in general to more urban watersheds where land values are higher.

This document describes the methods and results that led to these conclusions and suggestsrecommended actions for both WDNR and WisDOT to improve the program.

2 The Guidelines were revised in 1997 and again in 2002.3 National Research Council (US) Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. 2001. Compensating for

Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington DC.


3/13


Purpose of the Review

To identify gaps in the mitigation program that are obstacles to meeting State and Federal

wetland program goals and to make recommendations to address them, we developed the

following review objectives:

Determine how well available data tracks wetland loss and gain to allow analysisand evaluation using current assessment methods.

Determine trends in wetland compensation acres, type, function, location, andquality.

Evaluate the effectiveness of practices in wetland compensation site selection,development, monitoring, management, and long-term ownership in meeting

wetland program goals.

Assess the current condition of selected mitigation sites. Promote interagency cooperation to improve meeting the intent of the WisDOT

program.

Elements of the Review

In June 2006 representatives from WDNR, WisDOT, Corps, EPA, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service developed questions to address each review objective. We then modified the

questions to make the best use of available data and resources and planned three

components to the review:

WisDOTs wetland database, WDNR files for selected wetland compensation sites, and Current conditions at selected wetland compensation sites.

WisDOTsWetland Database (WMBAS)

WisDOTs wetland database, the WisDOT Mitigation Banking Accounting System or

WMBAS, was the only data source that proved useful. Data from the Corps database was

not available. Data from WDNRs database is incomplete.

WMBAS is a relational (Microsoft Access) database maintained by WisDOT that tracks

wetland acres lost by wetland community type, county, and WisDOT Project ID number. It

also tracks the acres, and generally the location, of wetland compensation sites. WisDOT

assigns sites to one of three types Bank Sites, which are generally large parcels that

provide wetland compensation for projects statewide; Consolidation Sites, which provide

compensation for a specific set of regional projects; and On/Near Sites, which are generally

smaller and associated with a single project.


4/13


Findings from the WMBAS Review

For the period 1990 to 2005, WMBAS accounts for 2629 acres of wetland loss or an average

of 175 acres of wetland loss per year. During the same period, WMBAS accounts for 3586

acres of compensatory mitigation. Our review of WMBAS data for 2100 projects from 1991

through 2005 showed the following:

75% of projects involve less than 0.5 acres of wetland loss (Figure 1). TheGuidelines recommend compensation at or near where the wetland loss occurs.

However, for small projects this is not always feasible and so the Guidelines allow

compensation to occur at a Bank or Consolidation Site. This occurred for most

projects with less than 1 acre of wetland loss, and therefore most wetland debits

and compensation acres occur at bank sites (Figure 2).

85% of wetland loss occurs in either dry-end wetland types, such as wet or

sedge meadows, or in wooded wetland

types, such as swamps, floodplain forests

or shrub carrs (Figure 3).

While WMBAS does not track wetlandcompensation by wetland community

type, staff report that compensationgenerally results in shallow and deep

marsh habitat and rarely in wooded, wet

meadow, or sedge meadow wetland types.

This corresponds to an imbalance in

wetland functions. For example, an

isolated marsh community type cannot

Fig. 2. Distribution of the number of projects and

the area of wetland loss by the type of wetland

compensation site.

1016

181

1302

45184

0

500

1000

1500

Wet or

Sedge

Meadow

Deep &

Shallow

Marsh

Wooded

Wetland

Bog Unknown

Acres

Plant Community Type

Wetland Loss by Plant Community Type

Source: WisDOT Report to WDNR, September 2006, for Districts 1 - 8, 1991 through 2005

Fig. 3. Distribution of wetland acres lost by plant

community type.

1569

147266

54 66

0

500

1000

1500

2000


5/13


replace ecological functions unique to floodplain forests.

On a county basis there is uneven distribution between the location of wetland lossand wetland compensation. Counties with Bank Sites generally have a positive

wetland balance, while counties without them have a negative balance (Figure 4).

While WMBAS data does not allow analysis by watershed, it suggests that theimbalance applies to watersheds as well. Large potential wetland restoration sites,

favored for Bank Sites, tend to occur in agricultural watersheds. Tracking only by

County, and not by watershed, may obscure important trends. Dane County, for

example, has a positive wetland balance due to Bank Sites; however, most wetland

loss in Dane County occurred in a different watershed than that where the Bank

Sites occur.

WisDOT does not have adequate staff to manage the database and assure qualitycontrol. Over the past year, WisDOT has corrected many errors, but the staffing

issue remains. WisDOT Bureau of Environment and Equity Services (BEES) does

not have senior environmental or data management support staff to administer the

Fig. 4. Net wetland gain by county and the

location of WisDOT Bank Sites and WDNR

Watersheds.


6/13


database. Wetland losses and mitigation are tracked in the WisDOT regions without

central office oversight4.

WisDOT Southeast Region and WDNR Northern Region are the only ones with staffdedicated mainly to wetland issues. In other regions substantial staff time is

devoted to other environmental concerns.

WMBAS, like WDNRs and the Corps databases, tracks wetland loss by county,number of acres, and wetland community type. It tracks wetland compensation by

county and number of acres, but not by wetland community type. WMBAS does not

track either wetland loss or wetland compensation by wetland function or by WDNR

watershed.

WMBAS has no spatial component other than tabular Township Range and Sectionvalues for Banks and for some Consolidation Sites. The location of remaining

compensation sites may be available in regional WisDOT or WDNR files, but they are

not readily accessible. A few of the five WisDOT Regions and the five WDNR Regionskeep an informal geospatial database, but none of these databases link to WMBAS

and there is no statewide data standard.

Only WisDOT has direct access to WMBAS. WisDOT provides a summary annualreport to WDNR and USCOE. WisDOT will provide custom reports to other agencies

by request and as time allows, however custom reports are difficult to obtain since

WisDOT lacks staff to manage WMBAS. Without access to WMBAS it takes

considerable time to analyze its data beyond what the annual reports provide. One

needs to enter data from the paper reports into electronic files, before one can begin

analysis to answer specific questions. We used this method to prepare Figures 1-4

above.

WDNR Review of Selected Files

We developed a survey form (Appendix A) for the file review. The purpose of the form was

to standardize reviews that regional WDNR staff would conduct independently. Survey

questions covered basic site information, agency involvement, permitting requirements,

monitoring, management, invasive species, and ownership.

We then asked staff in each WDNR Region to select a sample of site files they agreed to

review using the survey form. We asked staff to use three criteria in their site selection:

first, to include Bank Sites, Consolidation Sites and On or Near Sites; secondly, to include,

based on their judgment, sites that were typical of their geographic area and not necessarily

the best, the worst, or the unusual; finally, to include sites constructed between about

1995 and 2001. By confining reviews to this period, we purposely selected sites that were

designed and built after both agencies had some experience with the wetland compensation

process, and that also had sufficient history to supply data on the entire process, from initial

4 John Jackson, pers. comm.


7/13


planning through the end of the monitoring period. Staff availability limited the number of

sites reviewed in each Region.

Using the criteria above, staff surveyed files for 44 sites covering about 1800 acres, or

nearly 50% of all WMBAS wetland compensation acres as in Table1.

Table 1. Total numbers of Bank, Consolidation and On/Near Sites constructed and included

in this Review.

Site Type #Sites Reviewed Total #Sites5 #Acres Included Total #Acres

Bank Sites 13 34 ~ 1250 ~ 2000

Consolidation Sites 12 37 ~ 416 ~ 600

On or Near Sites 19 186 ~ 143 ~1000

The completed survey forms are available from WDNRs Environmental Analysis Section. A

spreadsheet that summarizes the survey responses is also available, along with a data

dictionary that explains how each field relates to the survey questions.

Findings from WDNR File Reviews

A comparison of WMBAS data and the file reviews shows that wetland compensation acres

are not well documented. For most sites, the number of wetland compensation acres in

WMBAS is the same number estimated in the site design plan and not based on a wetland

delineation at the end of the site monitoring period. The magnitude of the uncertainty in

wetland compensation acres is not known and cannot be determined from current data.

Figures 5a and 5b summarize results for documented agency actions during the

development of wetland compensation sites. In each chart, the first set of bars shows the

number of Bank (13), Consolidation (12) and On/Near (19) Sites that WDNR staff reviewed.

The rest of the bars in each chart indicate the number of positive responses for each action

listed. The responses are based on what is documented in the WDNR file, or in some cases

supplemented by regional WisDOT staff, and may not completely represent what actually

occurred.

Figure 5a includes actions during the planning phase, prior to final permitting and

construction. Figure 5b includes actions in the permitting and post-construction phase.

The following are based on the review results and staff comments after the reviews were

completed:

5 John Jackson, pers. comm.


8/13


Figure 5a. Pre-construction agency involvement based on WDNR files.

13

12

11

9

13

11

5

3

1

4

5

12

10

8

5

9

10

7

2

9

19

10

4

6

5

5

1

13

DNR Files Reviewed

Specific 404/401 Permit Requirements

DNR Finds Reporting Requirements Met

DNR Finds Report Quality "Good"

Sites Have a Management Plan

Management Has Occurred

Monitoring is Linked to Management

DNR Concurrence on Final Report

COE Concurrence on Final Report

WisDOT Planned Long Term Owner

WisDOT Plans to Transfer Ownership

Number of Sites by Type

Bank Sites

Consolidation Sites

On or Near Sites

Documented Post-Construction Activity

Figure 5b. Permitting and post-construction agency involvement based on WDNR files.


9/13


WDNR appears to be more active throughout the planning phase than the Corps.Both agencies however appear to be less active once a site is designed, when

monitoring and management plans are developed.

Only two site plans included measurable objectives or performance standards.Permit conditions for only five sites reflected the minimum requirements (Level A)of the Guidelines. Most Bank and Consolidation Sites, but not On/Near Sites,

complied with permit conditions.

While most sites had specific permit requirements, they were typically formonitoring to evaluate sites for jurisdictional wetland criteria, rather than

requirements to meet the minimum standards in the Guidelines or specific

requirements for measuring success.

Extensive monitoring for floristic and hydrologic data occurred at many sites. Staffreported that this level of detail generally was not needed. Staff suggested that less

detailed monitoring is often adequate to document where wetland vegetation and

hydrologic criteria are met and to make management decisions.

Monitoring data related to other wetland functions is generally absent. Wildlifedata, if it is collected at all, consists of incidental observations made during floristic

surveys and water level monitoring, rather than through efforts designed to obtain

valid information on target species or groups. Similarly monitoring reports

typically identify water quality improvement as a wetland function, but include no

evidence to support this.

While most Bank and Consolidation Sites had a Management Plan, and managementactivity occurred, that activity was opportunistic and not guided by previous

monitoring reports or performance standards. No management was intended or

occurred at about 75% of On/Near Sites. Obstacles to management include lack of

consistent funding by WisDOT, lack of an effective way to transfer available funds

from WisDOT to WDNR to accomplish management activity, the lack of incentives

from permit requirements, and the difficulty of effective invasive species control.

The Guidelines require that WisDOT prepare a final report for each site thatincludes wetland delineation and an analysis of the information collected from

project initiation through the final season. The files typically do not document that

either WDNR or the Corps have concurred with these final reports at the end of themonitoring period. Note that 6 of the 44 sites were constructed after 2001, and so

had not reached the end of their monitoring period by the time of the file review.

This means the Concurrence on Final Report numbers in Figure 5b should be

compared to 38 sites, rather than 44, the total number of files reviewed.


10/13


Identification of a sites long-term owner is generally made in the site planningstage. On/Near Sites, which often occur in highway right-of-ways, usually remain in

WisDOT ownership. Whenever possible, the larger Bank and Consolidation Sites are

planned for transfer to WDNR or another owner that can provide long-term legal

protection and financial assurance for management. There is no routine process to

accomplish transfers of ownership and most transfers planned have not occurred.

Figure 6 shows the extent of majorinvasive species in terms of the

number of reviewed compensation

sites based on the opinion of WDNR

staff. Invasive species cover data is

not available from a current database

or from individual files.

Reed canary grass is the majorinvasive plant species and occurs at a

Moderate or Severe level at 16 of the

24 Bank and Consolidation Sites we

reviewed. Giant Reed Grass also

occurs at a Moderate level at one Bank

Site.

With the exception of purple loosestrife, WisDOT and the resource agencies have no

documented and agreed upon expectations for control of invasive species

Finally, although the Guidelines require specific file documentation, wetlandmitigation files among WDNR staff and regions are inconsistent in organization,

content, and availability.

Field Tour of Selected Sites

During 2007 we conducted field visits to 17 sites in all WDNR regions to obtain a snap shot

of projects across geographic regions and to validate the file review results. The file data

and information from staff contributed to these qualitative assessments. Appendix B lists

each site with a brief assessment.

Findings from the Field Tour

Current site conditions are consistent with staff file review data on the extent ofinvasive species and identified management issues.

Sites in the same region were typically similar in design strategy and level ofmanagement.

0

5

10

15

20

25

None Minimal Moderate Severe Unknown

NumberofSites

Degree of Invasive Plant Species Cover

at 44 Wetland Compensation Sites

Purple Loosestrife

Hybrid Cattail

Reed Canary Grass

Figure 6. Extent of Invasive Plant Species


11/13


Most sites fit into the landscape with respect to surrounding land uses. Except for a few younger sites, where introduced vegetation was a major

component of the design, floristic quality was generally low (Mean C < 3, Floristic

Quality Index < 20). Where plant species diversity was greater, a few species

including invasive ones accounted for most of the vegetative cover.

Except for sites dominated by reed canary grass, sites had medium to high wildlifefunctional values for a broad range of species.

Sites open to the public appeared to receive intensive use.Recommended Action Items

To expedite program improvements we divided recommended action items into two

groups: those that do not require a review or change to existing policy, and so can be

implemented by Environmental Analysis staff at any time; and those that may require policy

changes.

Recommended action items that do not require review and/or changes to policy:

Request the Interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) overseedevelopment and implementation of a database system that:

1. tracks wetland losses as well as gains by wetland community type2. tracks wetland losses and gains by WDNR watershed and ecological

landscape

3. includes a spatial component that allows for geographic analysis4. is accessible for reporting to WisDOT, WDNR and Corps staff5. provides adequate data management staff to insure data quality

Improve implementation of the current Guidelines for elements that are consistentwith the 2008 Federal Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule.

Develop a checklist for WDNR staff to ensure consistent documentation ofenvironmental commitments. Improve each compensation site file to include a

summary sheet with file contents, the status of the site, and a listing of outstanding

actions.

Request WDNR, WisDOT, and Corps staff meet regularly to review the status ofWisDOT compensations sites with outstanding issues in the respective regions. The

meetings should result in agreement on the necessary steps and timelines for all

compensation sites.

Organize a technical support group with expertise in site selection, planning,monitoring, management, and compliance to assist regional staff. For example, the


12/13


group would develop, in consultation with WisDOT and the Corps, example site

objectives and performance standards based on regional ecological conditions, and

guidance on monitoring designed to evaluate how well sites meet them.

Develop a procedure to insure timely resolution of long-term ownership andstewardship commitments for all compensation sites and incorporate these stepsinto all new wetland compensation proposals.

In consultation with the Corps, introduce monitoring that includes features inaddition to vegetation cover and floral diversity, such as those related to wildlife

habitat, water quality, and flood storage.

Recommended action items that may lead to changes in policy:

MBRT and WDNR, in connection with implementing its wetland strategy, Reversingthe Loss, revise the Guidelines for consistency with the 2008 Federal Wetland

Compensatory Mitigation Rule. This includes addressing the increasing imbalance

in wetland community types and wetland functions in a landscape context;

supporting watershed plans as a major consideration in site location; identifying

declining wetland types on a regional basis and setting goals to restore them; and

insuring that sites provide priority wetland functions.

The technical support group and land managers develop realistic management goalsand strategies for control of invasive plant species. Reducing the credit value of

wetland compensation acres where vegetation quality is low, as has been proposed,

rather than encouraging invasive species control, may not be the best approach.

WisDOT make a commitment to active management, from construction though theend of the monitoring period, based on adaptive principles and directed at specific

performance objectives.

WDNR, WisDOT, and the Corps reexamine the current monitoring guidelines including methods and length of monitoring period so that monitoring enables site

assessment and guides subsequent management to meet specific site objectives.

WDNR and WisDOT identify opportunities for partnerships at the site selectionstage that may lead to improved wetland restorations, methods and long-term

management.


13/13


Many of the recommended action items are not new. Some were proposed by the Corps as

early as 19926, the 2001 National Research Council report7 and by several agency memos8.

Conclusions

The extent of compensation for wetland losses through the WisDOT program is substantial.

The program has many positive aspects, including examples of quality habitat, valued publicrecreational lands, and cooperation among dedicated staff. As with any major effort, its

evaluation can turn up daunting problems. The solutions here however are feasible ones.

Many can be implemented with relatively little effort. Some require additional staff time

and resources. All require a commitment from many levels at both agencies with a shared

goal of better results on the ground.

Acknowledgements

Many people contributed to planning this review, gathering and analyzing data, interpreting

the results and making suggestions. We thank the members of the Project Team and in

particular the DNR EA and WisDOT Environmental Unit staff who made time in their busy

schedules to assist us.

Project Team

Leahkena Au, USFWS

Cameron Bump, WDNR

Cathy Garra, USEPA Region 5

Ron Grasshoff, WDNR Fitchburg

John Jackson, WisDOT Madison

Joanne Kline, WDNR Milwaukee

Tom Mings, USCOE

Dave Siebert, WDNR Madison

Jon Simonsen, WDNR RhinelanderTim Smith, USCOE

WMBAS & WDNR File Reviews

Amanda Cushman, Jim Doperalski, Ron Grasshoff, Shawn Haseleu, Joanne Kline, Maureen

Millmann, Al Stranz, Nick Schaff, Jon Simonsen

6 Eggers, S. D. 1992. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation: Some Problems and Suggestions for

Corrective Measures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 64 pp.7 National Research Council (US) Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. op. cit.8 For example, Memo from Dave Siebert and Steve Eggers, January 7, 2003, to WisDOT, WDNR and

Corps staff for Mitigation Plans; USCOE Regulatory Guidance Letter 3 August 2006.

Documents

WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review