An Assessment of Wetland Mitigation Practiced
Pursuant to Section 404 Permitting
Activities in Washington State*
INTRODUCTION
Of the many issues associated with the Clean Water Act
Section 404 program, the one debated most often is the policy
of replacing natural wetlands with created or "artificial"
wetlands. The concept, which has come to be known simply as
"mitigation", originated as a method to allow development to
occur without suffering a net loss of wetland habitat. (1)
Habitat creation is a concept which has long been used in
the management of wildlife preserves. Eventually the idea
was applied within the regulatory arena to offset or mitigate
for resources lost to development. Not surprisingly, it has
been readily accepted within the Section 404 permitting
process. But, after the approval and construction of numerous
wetland mitigation projects, various researchers began to
question their success. The cries for caution are best
summarized by Zedler's (1986) statement that "on a national
level, the technology of wetland creation/restoration is
experimental and unpredictable."
Today, realizing that habitat creation may not work,
regulators often cite this lack of technology for creating
wetlands as the reason for many project failures. This
statement may be well-founded. However, a closer look *
reveals that other factors are contributing to the poor success
rates. Inadequate mitigation negotiation, documentation,
planning, monitoring, and enforcement may doom many
projects before they ever reach a stage at which we can blame
technology. The focus of this study was to evaluate the
effectiveness of the mitigation negotiation and planning
process in achieving the intended goal of offsetting the loss of
wetland ecosystem.
*Authors- Kathleen Kunz, Michael Rylko, and Elaine Somers
of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, Seattle.
(1) For the purposes of this study, the term mitigation is
defined as compensation for wetland losses in the form of
wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement.
-------
METHODS
Each mitigation project was evaluated for content of the
mitigated agreement, compliance with the agreement, and a
qualitative assessment of the habitat types, functions and
values of the original wetlands compared to those planned for
replacement. Habitat types were defined according to the
USFWS classification system (Cowardin, et.al., 1979).
Data were obtained from EPA and Corps of Engineers
(COE) project files, from interviews with persons involved
with the various projects, and from qualitative field
assessments. Only projects located in Washington State and
permi ted between 1980 and 1986 were considered (no
mitigation projects were discovered prior to 1980). To
cooperate with a national study by EPA's Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL), all data gathered
were entered into the Wetlands Values Database, a
computerized system designed and provided by CERL. The
database included information on both the original wetlands
permitted for development, and the mitigation sites.
RESULTS
Thirty-five mitigation projects were identified as having
been approved via the 404 process between 1980 and July of
1986. Table 1 illustrates the temporal distribution of these
projects over the seven year period; Figure 1 depicts the
geographic distribution of the projects. After reviewing the
data, several trends and conclusions surfaced:
1. Few wetland losses under Section 404 were mitigated.
2. The number of mitigations required increased steadily
since 1980.
Table 1. Temporal distribution of required
mitigation projects
Year Number of Projects
1980 1
1981 1
1982 4
1983 5
1984 9
1985 6
1986 9
TOTAL - 35
-------
3. Mitigation projects occurred most often in the more
densely populated areas of the state. Western
Washington projects were more often mitigated than
those in Eastern Washington.
4. With mitigation there was still a substantial net loss of
wetland acreage.
5. With mitigation there was a net loss of wetland diversity.
6. Not all wetland functions and values were considered or
replaced.
7. Wetland losses occurred in time as well as in space.
Temporal losses were not taken into account.
8. Mitigation designs were not effectively incorporated into
the final 404 permits.
9. There was no routine procedure for tracking the
functional success of all mitigation projects.
Few Wetland Losses Under Section 404 are Mitigated
Less than 1% of all Section 404 permits required
mitigation (2). In an effort to understand why this was true,
we compared the size of development projects involving
mitigation. The average size of permitted development
projects involving mitigation was 4.3 acres, while the average
size of all §404 projects with or without mitigation was
approximately .5 acre (3).
Apparently there is a tendency to seek mitigation for the
filling of larger wetland parcels rather than for all wetland
losses. This may be due to (a) the large number of permits
issued each year. Pursuing mitigation for projects under one
acre may not be considered an effective use of agency staff
time. And/or (b) agencies may not yet recognize the
significance of smaller wetland losses. Published data on the
cumulative effects of small §404 projects is sparse and has not
yet drawn close attention or wide recognition.
With Mitigation There is Still a Substantial Net Loss of
Wetland Acreage
Few applicants (7 of 35) proposed to compensate lost
wetland acreage on a 1:1 basis; fewer (6 of 35) proposed
compensating wetland acreage on a greater than 1:1 basis.
Between 1980 and 1986, mitigation negotiations resulted in the
exchange of 152 acres of natural wetlands for 100 acres of
created/restored wetlands—a replacement rate of only 67%
(Figure 2).
(2) Data compiled in EPA Region X Wetland Tracking Database.
(3) Ibid
-------
Further losses occurred when mitigation projects fail to
develop as planned or were never constructed. In this study, 5
mitigation projects were not constructed or restored as
negotiated. Because formal procedures for designing and
implementing mitigation projects were not in place, these
mitigation agreements "fell through holes" in the process and
are not likely to be initiated even though development
occurred.
A margin for error is clearly needed. In order to better
offset losses, some amount of wetlands in excess of that lost
must be planned for replacement. This is supported by
researchers in California who also have reported that
mitigation wetlands typically need to be larger than the
original wetlands to achieve intended goals (Race, 1985; Eliot,
1985; Baker, 1984).
Mitigation Resulted in a Net Loss of Wetland Diversity
A wetland area may contain one or more habitat types.
For example, one system may contain open water, creek bed,
emergent vegetation, and a forested tract. For many of the
projects surveyed (16 of 35), replacement of this diversity was
not fully mitigated.
In this study, 73 wetland habitat types were permitted to
be filled; 49 habitat types were proposed for mitigation—a net
replacement rate of 67% (Figure 3). This loss was not equally
distributed over the major wetland types (Table 2). Estuarine
systems lost the least diversity even though they absorbed the
largest number of projects. The prevailing emphasis on
preserving anadromous or other commercial fishery habitat by
the public and resource agencies may be the reason for this.
In contrast, no forested wetlands were replaced.
Forested wetlands are complex systems which take many years
to mature. It is likely that the ecological understanding of
these habitat types was not sufficient to create them and,
therefore, replacement was not required.
It is not necessarily a mitigation goal to produce more
wetland types than are lost to development. A small, diverse
wetland may be less ecologically important than a larger
system with less diversity. However, the loss of diversity may
indicate that current mitigation practices fall short in
replacing wetland functions and values.
-------
Not All Wetland Functions and Values Are Considered and/or
Replaced
Specific replacement goals are stated in most mitigation
project files. For example, intertidal wetlands may be created
to improve fishery habitat or have a dual goal of enhancing
fishery and shorebird habitats. We compared a number of
functional values that were associated with the developed
wetlands with the number of intended values of the mitigation
projects (Figure 4). The following is a list of the ecological
wetland functions that were considered: (4)
0 fisheries habitat
0 wildlife habitat
0 ecological food chain support
0 endangered species habitat
0 nutrient retention
0 sediment trapping
0 flood storage and desynchronization
0 uniqueness/rareness
The ecological functions lost were assessed using a
qualitative method created for this study. Only functions
rated as having a "high" potential value with respect to the
original wetlands, were included in this comparison. Similarly,
only those functional objectives of the mitigation projects that
were documented somewhere within the project files were
included.
The assessment revealed that 128 functions provided by
the original wetlands were lost to development while the
stated objectives of the mitigation projects only sought to
replace 78 functions. The results (Figure 5) support Baker's
(1984) observation from San Francisco Bay studies; the
objective of almost all mitigation plans is to secure fish and
wildlife habitat rather than to replace the full spectrum of
wetland values. Sediment trapping, nutrient retention, and
shoreline stabilization are usually not considered for
replacement.
This type of comparison is helpful for evaluating the
mitigation process. However, one should realize that although
a given function may not have been specified for replacement,
it may develop via natural processes. To an unknown degree,
these inadvertent "gains" may be offset by the fact that not
all planned objectives are fulfilled. To better anticipate these
trade-offs, more research and better planning are required.
(4) As we lacked the tools to adequately evaluate
groundwater recharge and discharge, these functions are
not addressed even though they may be in operation.
-------
Wetland Losses Occur in Time As Well As In Space
Substantial time lags exist between project construction
and mitigation completion (Figure 6). Between 1981 and 1984
the time lags ranged from 45 to 165 weeks. These lag times
are underestimates. Many of the projects permitted in 1985
and 1986 have only recently been initiated and, therefore,
have time lags which are still accruing. Data represent an
average lag time as of 4/87, reflecting a minimum possible
value. Projects with development impacts not yet initiated
have not been included in this evaluation. Also, the mitigation
completion dates were obtained from the contractors and
represent official construction completion dates—not the
beginning of ecological function, which is assumed to evolve
sometime later.
Of the 26 completed projects (9 have not been
completed), in only 2 cases was the mitigation project
complete prior to the destruction of the original wetland.
These extensive time lags represent losses of at least 1 to 3
growing seasons per project. In none of the projects reviewed
was the loss of resource functioning time considered as a value
requiring compensation.
It appears that much of the lag time between project
impact and mitigation completion is due to delays in initiating
the mitigation project. The time lags will diminish as
mitigation >jects are initiated earlier. Unless mitigation is
completed 't,i ior to destruction of the original wetland, this
functional loss of habitat will continue to occur and should be
acknowledged in the negotiations.
Mitigation Designs Were Not Effectively Incorporated Into the
Final 404 Permits
Documentation of mitigation plans and their various
components within the §404 permits was inconsistent and
incomplete. Figure 7 illustrates how these permit
specifications varied over the seven year period. In only 22
(63%) of the 35 issued permits requiring mitigation was the
concept of mitigation even mentioned. Resource agencies
required monitoring studies in 18 cases (51%), but in only 11
permits (31%) were the monitoring requirements actually
documented.
Nineteen of the 35 permits (54%) included some type of
design criteria. No criteria were mentioned prior to 1982.
The following is a list of the various design criteria included in
the permits reviewed:
0 acreage of the mitigation
0 location
0 methods of construction
-------
0 objectives (mitigation goals)
0 completion deadlines
0 authorization deadlines (to make
application for mitigation
within a certain timeframe)
0 contingency planning (if certain
performance standards are not
satisfied)
0 maintenance requirements
0 performance bonds
If any of the above design criteria were incorporated in
the written permit, permit blue print, or blue print notes, it
was included in this tally (Figure 8). No permits included all
of the above criteria and 16 permits (46%) did not specify
any. The design criteria most frequently incorporated into the
permit were area, location, and construction methods. Though
these are potentially the easiest to enforce, they do not
determine or guarantee ecological success.
Routine Follow-up For Mitigation Projects is Lacking
Since wetland restoration and creation is still an
experimental science, there are expectations that even the
best intentioned and designed projects may not function as
planned. Clearly, routine follow-up in the form of compliance
tracking, project monitoring for success/failure, and
contingency planning are needed.
There was no routine procedure for tracking mitigation
compliance. This may have contributed to the fact that 5
mitigation projects were never constructed or restored as
negotiated. Monitoring was required in 18 of the 35 mitigation
projects. Contingency planning was only required in 3 of 35
projects. Monitoring studies applied within the mitigation
process should trigger the use of contingency plans as needed,
and yet these two project components were rarely required
together.
To date, there is no consistent, standardized process for
negotiating, planning, implementing, or evaluating wetland
mitigation projects. No single agency, federal or state,
maintained comprehensive records of wetland mitigation
projects. The information contained in federal agency Section
404 project files was dispersed and incomplete. Monitoring
results were sparse, construction/restoration completion dates
were inconsistent, and the degree of functional success was
rarely documented.
-------
The fragmented regulatory design of the Section 404
program invites this chaos. The multiple agency approach may
offer some check and balance advantages, but it inhibits
effective project management with respect to wetland
mitigation. Either (1) an assemblage of regulatory agencies
must monitor, analyze results, and respond to inadequacies; or
(2) this responsibility must be assigned. Zedler (1986) cites the
importance and advantage of an adaptive management-type
approach which would allow the developer some freedom to
determine the most effective methods in meeting mitigation
goals while still fulfilling specific requirements. In view of
the awkward alternative, this recommendation may be a good
one. But in order for regulatory agencies to learn from the
process, they must remain informed through efficient project
follow-up—a prerequisite to adaptive management.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our understanding of wetland ecosystems is far behind
that needed to consistently replace lost wetlands. The rates
of mitigation failure and wetland losses are higher than we
might expect. This may be partially attributed to the failure
of regulatory and resource management agencies to
adequately negotiate, plan, and track mitigation projects.
Filling of wetlands will continue until the public places a
higher value on the resource. Because of this fact, regulators
will continue to require mitigation to offset the losses. We do
not recommend that all mitigation work be abandoned; as
Race (1985) states "the technology is an important tool for
balancing the demand for coastal development with the need
for the conservation of wetland habitats." However, we do
recommend significant improvement in the mitigation process
to ensure a higher degree of success for created/restored
wetlands and to reduce net losses. Mitigation negotiations
have improved over time, but serious inconsistencies still exist.
Several authors have recommended procedures for the
development of mitigation plans which, in theory, might
improve our chances of resource replacement both at the
negotiated level and in reality (Race, 1985; Race and Christie,
1985; Baker, 1985; Zedler, 1986; Harvey and Josselyn, 1986; and
Cooper, 1987). We have compiled their recommendations and
our own in the following list of criteria for mitigation projects:
-------
ELEMENTS NEEDED IN MITIGATION PLANS
1. Ecological Assessment of Wetland(s) To Be Lost Through
Development. It is critical to understand the chemical,
physical, and biological interactions of a system in order
to replace it.
2. "Statement of Goals. The mitigation goals should include
a discussion of the functions and values lost, and those
planned for replacement.
3. Methods. The questions of what, where, when, and how
should be answered, i.e., acreage of mitigation; wetland
habitat type(s) to be constructed/restored; location;
dates for beginning and completion of the project;
methods of construction; and maintenance
requirements. Ensure fair compensation in both time
and space, by requiring more acreage for replacement
than that lost to development.
4. Standards of Success. A qualitative, and to the extent
possible, a quantitative description of what will be
considered a successful, functioning wetland must be
included.
5. Monitoring Strategy. Design a monitoring system to
determine whether or not the mitigation goals and
standards of success are met.
6. Contingency Plan. If the mitigation should fail or only
partially succeed, a plan outlining possible restorative
measures is necessary. A performance bond should be
included to ensure the applicant's compliance with the
terms of the mitigated agreement.
To ensure that all the above criteria are included, a
single, structured format for the development of mitigation
projects should be developed. Lack of information and
conflicting agency goals for wetlands regulation have resulted
in the haphazard and ineffective process existing today. All
information and all requirements and monitoring results
pertaining to mitigation projects should be located in at least
one comprehensive file system. Similarly, a complete
mitigation plan should be attached and alluded to within the
404 permit from which the agreement originated.
Mitigation plans should be discussed with all agencies
and groups involved with the permitting process. Agencies'
goals for wetland habitats sometimes differ. It is important to
consider these during negotiations.
-------
And finally, it is important for policy and decision
makers to realize that mitigation is not "the only answer" to
development/preservation conflicts. We must fully understand
the limits of the technology of wetland creation. Some
habitats (e.g., bog systems) cannot be replaced within our
short time references. This understanding must be reflected
in the implementation of public policy.
-------
1380
1981
1986
Figure 2
Mitigation Area vs. Project Impact Area
-------
40-4
_~ 30-«
en 5
0
W 4)
§1
** o
O 4>
Is
<0 <0
o c
o c
O 3
UJU.
•*» *^
o o
k. W
-------
i c
13
2
.S
o c
P o
a.
30-4
2S-4
20-4
16 -4
£ ? ti
6-4
i
1980-1986
Key:
M
Q
n
n
Wildlife Endangered Shoreline Fish Habitat
Habitat Species Stabilization
Food Chain Sediment Nutrient Flood Rare
Support Trapping Retention Desynchronbatlon
Figure S
Total Number of Functions Lost vs. Mitigation Functional Objectives
-------
200-4
§
_c
c
o
0
o>
SO*
0-4
Key:
1980
/
/ A
/ • \
//
T
1981
\
\
1982
1983
T
1984
1985
1986
• Average Lay Between P'Oiect -'nination and Mitigation i^iti/H"*"
-Av»tf^{je Mitigation Como'eiion Lag - Lag Between Pfot^r; C;-j'T-f:>Mt'
Figure 6
Time Lags Within the 404 Mitigation Process
-------
CO "D
.t; a>
§1
0> (j
Q-
c.2
«B *•
2S
££
"• o
0) (0
x: a
H- W
Monitoring Speo'"?d When Required
By Resource Agencies
1986
Figure 7
Permit Specifications
-------
10
15
Acreage
Location
Methods
Completion
Deadlines
Authorization
Deadlines
Maintenance
Requirements
Contingency
Plans
Performance
Bonds
Objectives
PHH;H'". out ot 3f> Toial M.|i,|.ilii
10
15
Figure 8
Total Number of Times Mitigation Design Criteria Were Specified in the
404 Permit
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Baker, Gregory F. (1984) "An analysis of wetland
losses and eompensationunder the Clear Water Act
•Section 404 program: managing natural resources
through mitigation." Unpublished master's thesis,
University of San Francisco. 116 pp.
Cooper, John W. (1986) "An overview of estuarine
habitat mitigation projects in Washington State."
Prepared for USFWS. 18 pp.
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet,
and Edward T. LaRoe.(1979) "Classification of wetlands
and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
Eliot, Wendy (1985) "Implementing mitigation
policies in San Francisco Bay: a critique." Prepared for
California State Coastal Conservancy. 36 pp.
Harvey, H. Thomas and Michael N. Josselyn "Wetlands
restoration and mitigation policies: comment."
Environmental Management 10(5):567-569.
Race, Margaret and Donna R. Christie (1982) "Coastal
zone development: mitigation, marsh creation, and
decision-making." Environmental Management.
6(4):317-328.
Race, Mararet Selek. (1985) "Critique of present
wetlands mitigation policies in the United States based
on an analysis of past restoration projects in San
Francisco Bay." Environmental Management. 9(l):71-82.
Zedler, Joy B. (1986) "Wetland restoration: trials
and errors in ecotechnology?" From "Wetland Functions,
Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest;
The State of Our Understanding." Proceedings of a
Conference held April 30-May 2, 1985, Fort Worden
State Park, Port Townsend, Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology, pp. 11-16.
------- |