EPA 910/R-94-003
£EFft
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Wetlands Section
March 1994
U.S.
F1SH&WII.DUKK
SKRVICK
m
Partnerships &
Opportunities in
Wetland Restoration
Proceedings of a Workshop
A Joint Product of:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers arid
The University of Washington
ymf*.
*.rL^ y,//
U^ ST >'> ¦ *
tk •?*>'/ ,t+«
'« ^ > - / -
IV <
-------
4UWatV
*8fc^ c*
(3e otS^'
303^
Partnerships &
Opportunities
In Wetland Restoration
Proceedings of a Workshop
Seattle, Washington
April 16-17,1992
Workshop Coordinator. Kathleen Kunz
Editors: Merri Martz, Andrea Jarvela,
Kathleen Kunz, Charles Simenstad, Fred
Weinman
Cover Photo: Restored tidal creek in a Salmon
River estuary salt marsh 10 years after dike
removal in 1978. Photo by Bob Frenkel
Published by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington
1994
-------
Cooperating Parties
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
School of Fisheries, Wetland Ecosystem Team, University of Washington
These proceedings have been prepared by staff of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, and the School of Fisheries, Wetland Ecosystem Team of the
University of Washington. However, the opinions expressed herein are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the cooperating or
sponsoring agencies. These proceedings reflect the diverse points of view and
writing styles of the contributing authors. The aim of the editors was to
present the papers in an effective format, not to change the author's intent or
overall wording.
First published in 1993 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the University of Washington.
Copyright 1993 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Printed in the United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication maybe reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The state of Washington and the United States Government are
authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.
The workshop of which these proceedings are a record was sup-
ported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, University of Washing-
ton Cooperative Agreement for Coordination of Wetland Ecosystem Studies,
-------
Contents
Acknowledgments viii
Preface ix
Introduction: Partnerships and Opportunities in
Wetland Restoration - A Workshop x
Wetlands: Infusion of Restoration into the
Management Formula, Fred Weinmann and
Kathleen Kunz 1
Opportunities and Challenges in the Restora-
tion of Riverine/Riparian Wetlands,
Robert L. Beschta 18
Discussion Panel: Interests in Wetland
Restoration
The Nature Conservancy's Wetland Restoration
Partnerships, Edward R. Alverson 28
Wetland Preservation and Creation: Everett's
Experience, Gerry Ervine 31
Wetland Protection under the Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan, Ginny
Broadhurst 34
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service Wetland Reserve
Program, David E. Chalk 38
The Role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
Wetland Restoration, Curtis Tanner 40
The Washington Public Ports Association's Role
in Wetland Restoration, Eric D. Johnson 45
Wetland Restoration in Oregon, Emily Roth 48
iii
-------
The Washington State Department of Ecology's
Interest and Role in Restoration,
Jane Rubey Frost 52
The University of Washington Landscape
Architecture Department's Involvement with
Wetland Restoration, Sally Schaumann 56
Technical Expertise in the Private Sector,
Dyanne Sheldon 57
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Damage Assessment and
Restoration Center Northwest,
Robert A. Taylor 59
Wetland Restoration from an Industry
Perspective, Bilinda Townsend 62
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
Mitigation Banking: An Overview,
Marc E. Boule 64
Wetland Banking in Eastern Idaho: Two
Wetland Restoration Projects, Marv Hoyt 72
The Development of Mitigation Banks,
Robert B. Tiedemann 76
Washington Department of Transportation
Strategies for Wetland Mitigation Banking,
David W. Stevens 78
Biringer Strawberry Farm: A Wetland Restora-
tion Project for Mitigation Banking, C.J. Ebert
and Karl J. Biringer 81
Habitat Banking in the North Fraser Harbour,
British Columbia, Gary L. Williams 83
Designing Guidelines for Wetland Mitigation
Planning and Monitoring in King County,
Mason Bowles and Tina Miller 86
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
Skokomish River Delta Restoration Project
Philip Jordi 89
Dynamics of a Passive Saltmarsh Restoration in
the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon,
Janet C. Morlan 93
Elk River Saltmarsh Restoration,
Ronald M. Thorn and Robert Zeigler 97
Integration of Eelgrass Biology into Design of
Restoration Projects, Sandy Wyllie Echeverria
and Mary Ruckelshaus 99
Crab Mitigation in Grays Harbor Estuary,
BertBrun 102
Changing Perspective on Wetland Restoration:
Bolsa Chica Lowland, 1970-1992,
Keith Macdonald 106
The Politics of Wetland Restoration: Two Case
Studies, Eric Metz 110
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
Tumble Creek Road Obliteration Project, Dallas
Hughes and Earl Ford 116
Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan,
Michael Scuderi 118
An Approach to Improving Decision Making in
Wetland Restoration and Creation,
Mary Kentula 121
Intertidal Habitat Restoration in the Duwamish
River Estuary, Curtis D. Tanner 125
Wetland Restoration Efforts in the Willamette
Valley, Rob Tracey 128
v
-------
Case Histories: Lef s Get Technical
Restoration of Placer-mined Wetlands in Inte-
rior Alaska, David Cooper 130
Evaluation Techniques for Restoration: Using
Functions and Values in Restoration Plans,
Kenneth R. Brunner 132
Design and Construction Considerations in
Wetland Restoration Projects,
Eric E. Nelson 136
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
How to Adopt a Stream, Tom Murdoch 138
Adopt a Beach Estuarine Wetland Projects,
KenPritchard 142
Collins Elementary Wetland Restoration
Project, Nancy Smith 148
Case Histories: Research and Preservation
Opportunities
An Overview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers Wetlands Research Program,
Mary C. Landin 152
King County Wetland Preservation Program
KateStenberg 159
Work Group
Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking,
Tracey P. McKenzie and Michael Rylko 162
Work Group
Development of Restoration Goals on a Re-
gional Basis, Ginny Broadhurst and
Curtis D. Tanner 184
-------
Work Group
Discovering Choices: Goal-setting for Ecologi-
cal Restoration, Jamie G. Wyant 191
Work Group
The Special Area Management Process: Can
National and Local Interests be Merged?
Marc J. Hershman and Kent A. Lind 205
Work Group
The Role of Research and Monitoring in
Wetland Restoration, Charles Simenstad and
Richard Horner 222
Work Group
Environmental Partnering Opportunities for
Restoration, Mark Dunning 234
Appendix A Workshop Agenda 239
Appendix B Workshop Participants 242
vii
-------
Acknowledgments
This workshop and proceedings were provided partial
funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region
10) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Special Thanks
The workshop and these proceedings would not have
been possible without the help of many people who volunteered
their valuable time and support. Their assistance in coordinating
registration, room preparation, timekeeping, and note-taking
during the work groups was (and still is) hugely appreciated. A
very special thanks to Tracy McKenzie, who used her seemingly
limitless energy to coordinate all of our private sponsors and
helped us structure the workshop effectively.
This truly was a multipartnered event, which boasted
many enthusiastic supporters and sponsors from both the public
and private sectors. We would like to recognize and heartily
thank sill of our workshop partners: Adolfson and Associates,
CH2M Hill, Dames and Moore, David Evans and Associates,
Ebasco Environmental, Jones and Stokes, Inc., Oregon State
University, Parametrix, PENTEC Environmental, Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, Reid Middleton, Shapiro & Associates,
Sheldon & Associates, Springwood Associates, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Soil Conservation Service, University of Washington, W&H
Pacific, and the Washington Public Ports Association.
Additionally, this document would never have been
published without the design and editorial support of Andrea
Jarvela, for which we are forever grateful. Charles Simenstad also
provided tremendous support in developing the proceedings.
Finally, thanks to all of the excellent speakers and
attenders whose enthusiasm carried us through to the end.
Kathleen Kunz, Workshop Coordinator
viii
-------
Preface
This collection of papers is designed to impress upon the
reader the numerous opportunities available for wetland restora-
tion. The papers are drawn directly from a two-day event en-
titled Partnerships and Opportunities in Wetland Restoration; A
Workshop. The workshop was held at the Washington State
Convention Center in Seattle, Washington, on April 16 and 17,
1992.
Wetland restoration can seem like a daunting and com-
plicated task, but with the help of partners that can range from
the federal government to elementary school children, a great
deal of real restoration and continued management can occur.
This workshop was the first attempt to collect a number of
restoration case studies from the Northwest. The projects de-
scribed range from the small and simple to the large and complex.
Additionally, the working groups provided an opportunity for
tiie many regional experts in attendance to brainstorm their ideas
about different approaches to restoration.
Also included in this volume is an introduction to the
development of restoration as a tool (perhaps the most important
one) of achieving no net loss of the nation's wetland resources. In
addition, workshop attendees and their addresses are appended
at the end of these proceedings for those who wish to follow up
on a particular project.
Wetland restoration is a promising art in the process of
becoming a science. We know that this volume will only be the
beginning of true partnering among agencies, communities,
businesses, universities, and others in the business of restoring
wetlands. We hope that the papers will be of assistance in future
projects.
ix
-------
Introduction: Partnerships and Opportunities
in Wetland Restoration - A Workshop
There are at least two axiomatic ingredients for a success-
ful wetland restoration program:
1. All wetland restoration projects will require interdiscipli-
nary technical skills.
2. All significant wetland restoration projects will require
interagency cooperation and will frequently require part-
nerships with private sector groups.
These two fundamental requirements provided the
motivation and objectives for an event that was held on April 16
and 17,1992, in Seattle, Washington: Partnerships and Opportunities
in Wetland Restoration ~ A Workshop.
The goals of the workshop were twofold:
1. To provide an interactive opportunity for participants to
develop workable concepts and partnerships for wetland
restoration.
2. To provide an opportunity for people with interests in
wetland restoration to meet and share information.
Approximately 350 people from varied disciplines and
interests were in attendance. The workshop was structured as
three interlocking events. First, participants were introduced to
panels of different players in the wetland restoration arena. The
panels were composed of representatives from private industry,
the consulting community, and all levels of government. Next,
many case studies were presented to illustrate the technical,
managerial, and process complexities faced in wetland restora-
tion. Finally, all workshop participants were asked to interact in
working groups that were intended to begin to resolve issues
identified by restoration efforts to date. This structure was
intended to provide an opportunity for stimulating interaction
between potential partners in a nonconfrontational setting.
The many topics that were presented and discussed at the
x
-------
workshop are reflected in the body of this work. We had a
tremendously diverse and interesting group of presenters and it
is our hope that this document will be of use to future wetland
restoration activists.
In the opening paper, we have attempted to set the scene
for the restoration game - where we have been and where we
might go in a general sense. The remainder of the papers in the
proceedings provide the detailed routes and pathways. Hope-
fully, this work will provide some much needed trail mainte-
nance and perhaps even open up some new routes.
xi
-------
Wetlands: Infusion of Restoration
Into the Management Formula
Fred Weinmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Seattle, Washington
Kathleen Kunz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Ideas must work through the brains and arms of people or they
are no better than dreams ...
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Introduction
The most often repeated goal for wetland managers in the
last few years has been "no net loss" of wetlands. Although the
concept remains largely undefined, no-net-loss goals or policy
statements are usually accompanied by language that emphasizes
a long-term increase in the wetland resource base. Not unfore-
seen, the attempts to manage for no net loss have caused some
reflection on past regulatory and management practices.
From such reflection, several deductions have emerged.
The over-arching conclusion is that wetland regulation, while
being the foundation of most programs, cannot by itself achieve
no net loss, let alone produce an increasing resource base. For
this reason, noncompensatory wetland restoration is an impor-
tant and viable ingredient of wetland management programs.
Wetland restoration is not a new concept or an
unpracticed technique. Habitat managers have spent many years
manipulating resource areas to achieve waterfowl or other
wildlife production goals. However, under the learning curve
instigated by wetland regulation, restoration has gained more
respect as a method for regaining and improving the functions of
wetlands upon which we have placed high value.
Within the body of this paper, we will explore some of the
-------
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
limitations of the regulatory process for achieving no net loss and
some possible solutions to move us toward an increasing resource
base. Wetland restoration offers some exciting opportunities to
work toward the important goals of the Clean Water Act and to
build partnerships with all of the individuals and groups that
benefit from a stable wetland resource base.
Regulatory Limitations
The past decade has yielded important progress in
wetland protection. Much of this progress has been directly
related to a more effective Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
program. For example, extensive work has been completed on
two wetland delineation manuals, which were designed to assist
field personnel in recognizing wetlands at all times of the year.
The Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1987) and the Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Com-
mittee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) are both sound technical
manuals for recognizing field characteristics of wetlands.
Progress has also been made in policy issues. Specifically,
a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990)
was developed to guide the consideration of mitigation in the
Section 404 permit process. This clearly established, for the first
time, a national policy for requiring compensatory mitigation
under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230). The wetland
delineation manuals and the mitigation MOA represent the
culmination of much effort devoted to the interpretation of the
federal role in protecting wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
At the same time, the states of Washington and Oregon
have greatly enhanced their wetland protection programs in
recent years. Oregon has initiated preparation of a statewide
wetland conservation plan and has funded several local govern-
ments to initiate local comprehensive wetland management
plans. The regional plan prepared for West Eugene, Oregon, has
received national attention as a potential local government model
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula
3
approach. A model wetland protection ordinance has been
completed by the Washington Department of Ecology, and
technical assistance to local governments has multiplied.
The state of the art related to wetland restoration, en-
hancement, and creation within the regulatory context has also
improved. At a minimum we have identified the most serious
obstacles, important considerations, and research needs for
further progress in technical feasibility of restoring and creating
wetlands (Kusler and Kentula, 1990). As a result we can predict
with greater confidence the potential for success in achieving
compensatory mitigation.
It is important to note that much of the progress in wet-
land protection summarized above is related to enhancement of
regulatory programs. However, even with these improvements
we are experiencing, and will continue to experience, significant
loss and degradation of wetlands. The main reason for this is that
many activities that affect wetlands are beyond the reach of the
Clean Water Act. Even for activities covered by the federal
process, protection is limited to the wetlands proper without real
authority to enforce buffer requirements. Last, should a permit be
issued for a wetland fill, compensatory mitigation has been
ineffective in replacing the lost resource (Kunz et al., 1988; Rylko
and Storm, 1991). The following is a brief summary of the limita-
tions of regulations:
• Only some activities are regulated.
• Only some wetlands are regulated.
• Buffer requirements are not firmly established or technically
based.
• Case-by-case permit programs do not provide for landscape
or watershed considerations in designing compensatory
mitigation.
• Case-by-case permit management does not provide flexibil-
ity in determining the type or location of wetlands to en-
hance or restore.
• Compensatory mitigation is frequently constrained by land
availability.
-------
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
• Attitude of those undertaking creation or restoration is
created by legal requirement rather than a desire to increase
wetland resources or provide long-term management
objectives.
Because of the above factors, no net loss becomes an
unrealized goal and perhaps an unrealistic expectation. To
achieve a stable or increasing wetland resource base will require
significant effort beyond regulatory programs. One of the most
promising opportunities is restoration of former or degraded
wetland systems.
Legislation
Several land and resource management agencies have
clear authority to pursue wetland restoration initiatives. The goal
of the Clean Water Act to "... maintain and restore the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters..." is
unequivocal. This legislative requirement can be implemented
through several programs at the Environmental Protection
Agency including nonpoint, stormwater management,
Superfund, Coastal Waters, and Clean Water Act Section 404
programs. Other significant federal and state authorities include:
• North American Waterfowl Management Plan
• Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (includes a no-
net-loss statement)
• Natural Resources Damage Assessment (required by court
order)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA)
• Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
• Coastal America Program
• Federal Wetland Reserve Program
• Puget Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan (in the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan)
• White House Policy Statement, "Protecting America's Wet-
lands: A Fair, Flexible and Effective Approach." August 24,
1993
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula
These, along with numerous other authorities provide a
legislative basis for immediate initiation of restoration planning
and implementation at the federal and state levels. Some of the
many programs being implemented under several of these
authorities are described in these proceedings. A purposeful
inventory and documentation of all the federal and state authori-
ties and programs pertinent to wetland restoration would be a
useful addition to the literature.
Policy Basis
"... to achieve no overall net loss of the Nation's remaining
wetland base, as defined by acreage and function; and to restore
and create wetlands where feasible, to increase the quality and
quantity of the nation's wetlands resource base." (The Conserva-
tion Foundation, 1988)
The above goal has been adopted as policy in one form or
another by virtually every federal and state agency (as well as
many local governments) involved with wetland management
Most notably, it has been stated and restated by the President of
the United States and is codified in the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1990.
Proclamation of no-net-loss goals and policies has cata-
lyzed serious reflection and discussion regarding appropriate
wetland programs and initiatives. Two significant realities
emerge:
1. We must expand beyond regulatory mechanisms to achieve
the goal.
2. Purposeful, carefully planned restoration is integral to the
success formula.
Definition
Definitions of wetland restoration, both theoretical and
practical, have proliferated in recent years. Some are single-
purpose oriented, others are more generalized to encompass
multiple types of environmental restoration (e.g., ecological
restoration, habitat restoration, stream restoration, lalce restore-
-------
6
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
tion, or sediment restoration). The discussion below is limited to
those definitions relating specifically to wetland restoration.
Examples of wetland restoration definitions from the literature
and/or currently in use include:
• Returned from a disturbed or totally altered condition to a
previously existing natural or altered condition by some
action of man. Restoration refers to the return to a preexist-
ing condition. It is not necessary to have complete knowl-
edge of what those preexisting conditions were; it is enough
to know a wetland of whatever type was there and have as
a goal the return to that same wetland type. Restoration
also occurs if an altered wetland is further damaged and is
then returned to its previous, though altered, condition.
That is, for restoration to occur it is not necessary that a
system be returned to a pristine condition. It is therefore
important to define the goals of a restoration project in
order to properly measure the success. (Lewis, 1990)
• Actions performed to intentionally reestablish wetland
functional characteristics and processes which have been
lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within
an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetlands.
(Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991)
• Return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its
condition prior to disturbance (Note: This definition is
generalized to apply to all aquatic ecosystems). (National
Research Council, 1992)
• Actions performed to reestablish historic wetland functions
and processes in areas where wetlands have been converted
to nonwetlands. (Stevens et al., 1993)
• The conversion of a piece of property to a former state.
Examples include returning hydrology to a previously
drained wetland or replanting shrub and forest communi-
ties along streams and other water bodies. (Bob Ziegler,
Washington Department of Wildlife, personal communica-
tion, 1993)
• The rehabilitation of a degraded wetland or a hydric soil
area that was previously a wetland. (U.S.D. A. Soil Conser-
vation Service, 1992)
• To return a wetland to a state which mimics its original,
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula 7
natural state or condition. (Washington State Department
of Ecology, 1986)
• Returning a wetland to a predisturbed condition. (Boule,
1987)
While there are other definitions in current use, the above
examples seem to represent the spectrum. Several important
concepts pervade these definitions. Taken in total they empha-
size that successful restoration involves reestablishment of struc-
ture, function, and processes,
A second theme is that restoration of function does not
imply identical replication of a previous condition. This is logical
since the dynamism of wetlands on the landscape constrains any
precise knowledge of previous conditions either at a single point
in time or over time. However, we can make reasoned decisions
regarding the function or suite of functions most feasible and
desirable to restore within a project area or watershed.
Current definitions are also clear that restoration can
occur in areas where wetlands currently exist. For example,
restoration of diked tidelands may involve introduction of tidal
saline waters to freshwater areas meeting a technical definition of
wetlands even though current functions are completely unlike
prediked conditions.
This workshop encompasses all the definitional concepts
set forth above. We have attempted to capture these concepts, as
well as adding a requirement for results, in a single statement in
the following proposed definition of wetland restoration:
Actions taken which result in the reestablishment of wetland
structure, processes, and functions in areas where wetlands have
been altered, degraded, or destroyed.
Scope of Wetland Restoration Opportunities
Restoration (and creation) opportunities exist in a wide
variety of situations across the nation and in the Pacific North-
west. Examples summarized here are not exhaustive, but serve to
indicate the breadth of opportunity that could be captured by an
aggressive restoration program. Agency sponsorship would
-------
8
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
depend on the specifics of the individual projects. For example,
restoration of agricultural lands is more likely the purview of the
US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service where active programs exist or are being developed. In
addition, the US. Army Corps of Engineers has played a signifi-
cant role in restoration of wetlands damaged from past construc-
tion activity via the 1135 Program of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 19B6. The Environmental Protection Agency
clearly could play a leading role in several situations; for example,
in restoration of diked tidelands, at Superfund (CERCLA) sites, as
an adjunct to wastewater management, in riparian zones, and in
restoration of placer-mined streams and valleys. All of these
situations relate directly to the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
Diked Tidelands
Large acreages of coastal tidelands have been diked (and
sometimes drained) in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries and in
Puget Sound. Frequently these diked lands have been devoted to
agricultural use. In many cases, agricultural production has
either been terminated or consists of marginal pasturing and
haying activities. Restoration of tidal circulation with concomi-
tant return of the lands to high-value estuarine habitats is clearly
feasible. Such feasibility has been carefully documented in the
Salmon River estuary (Frenkel and Morlan, 1990). An inventory
of potential restoration sites has been prepared for Oregon and
Washington (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988).
Restoration of approximately 240 hectares (600 acres) of diked
tidelands is being actively pursued by the Skokomish Tribe in
southern Hood Canal, and plans are in place to restore tidal
action to diked tidelands in the Snohomish River delta near
Everett, Washington.
Agricultural Lands
About 80 percent of wetland alteration and loss nation-
wide has accrued from agricultural activities. This has created a
reservoir of restorable wetlands in virtually every region of the
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula
9
country. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington State
is aggressively pursuing restoration of agricultural wetlands, and
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service is working with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service nationwide to restore agricultural lands
under the authority of the Food Security Act.
Degraded Intertidal Lands
In urbanized estuaries, intertidal lands are frequently
degraded from actions such as channelization, dredging, riprap,
and contaminated sediments. These areas provide critical habitat
for anadromous fish and are also important to resident marine
species. Restoration can be directly beneficial to increased sur-
vival and production of commercially important species (Tanner,
1990).
Superfund Sites (and Other Contaminated Sites)
Many Superfund sites are partially or wholly composed
of wetlands in various states of degradation. In some instances,
remedial solutions can be designed to result in restored wetlands.
Opportunities for the integration of remedial activities with
restoration are just beginning to be evaluated (Shapiro and
Associates, 1992).
Placer-mining Sites
The moonscape aftermath of placer mining exists in
stream valleys throughout the western United States and Alaska.
Widespread restoration is limited by high costs and limitations in
technology. Information is beginning to accumulate that could
lead to large-scale, cost-effective restoration of placer-mined areas
(see paper by Cooper in this volume). Generically similar are
wetlands degraded through temporary industrial activities, such
as in the oil production fields of Alaska's north slope.
Non-native Plant Control
In many instances non-native plant species have signifi-
cantly reduced the habitat value of natural wetlands. Typical
-------
10
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
examples in the Northwest include the spread of reed
canarygrass (Phalaris aundinaceae), the invasion of wetlands by
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and the rapid spread of
smooth cordgrass (Spartina spp.) in intertidal mudflats (Washing-
ton State Department of Agriculture et al., 1993).
Storm waterAVater Quality Management
Constructed pretreatment ponds could be designed to be
integrated with natural wetlands to provide habitat, water quality
benefits, and flow mediation. Similarly, municipal wastewater
effluent might have potential for use in creating and restoring
multifunctional wetlands. Such an approach is being utilized in
northwest Florida and other locations (Esry, 1989).
Riparian Habitats
Diking, channelizing, grazing, and other actions have
caused serious degradation of riparian habitats. In many cases,
some important aquatic functions can be easily restored through
management practices. In other cases, construction can produce
significant increases in wetland values (e.g., reconnection of
oxbows, reintroducing meanders, construction of setback levees).
Greatly increased habitat and aesthetic, water quality, and other
values can accrue in both urban and rural situations. Riparian
habitat restoration is being pursued by several agencies and is a
major national initiative of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Specific information and greater detail regarding these opportuni-
ties is presented in later papers in these proceedings.
Pragmatic Considerations
Given the flexibility to select sites with high potential for
restoration success and the involvement by agencies, organiza-
tions, and individuals committed to increasing our resource base,
noncompensatory wetland restoration costs can be much lower
than creation and restoration required through the regulatory
process. Therefore, the predicted cost (or potential success) of
restoration should not be gauged using examples drawn from
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula
II
regulatory mitigation scenarios. This is demonstrated by the
examples in Table 1. Noncompensatory restoration can involve
hundreds of hectares rather than 0.4 to a few hectares (1 to a few
acres) with concomitant reduction in unit cost. In addition,
flexibility in site selection can reduce unit costs and increase
resource improvement potential.
Need For Partnerships
Frequently, the will and resources of more than one
agency or entity is necessary to successfully implement a wetland
restoration project. This is particularly important because of the
overlapping nature of existing programs and the interdisciplinary
nature of technical skills needed for wetland restoration.
The need for partnerships is most urgent for one very
important reason; the entity that owns or has management
authority for a potential wetland restoration site (whether it be
private sector or governmental agency) is usually different than
the agency conducting the restoration. Many potential restora-
tion sites, for instance, are on privately owned lands. The owner
has property rights, the local government specifies acceptable
uses through zoning, and the state or federal government may be
the restoration proponent. Even if the land is publicly owned,
such as by a port authority or a federal agency, other agencies
may be proponents for wetland restoration on the land. The
above situations are the norm rather than the exception, and they
create an obvious need for partnerships. The Duwamish River
estuary and Skokomish River estuary projects discussed later in
these proceedings are examples of cooperative projects involving
tribal interests, several federal agencies, the state of Washington,
and the port authorities.
Fortunately, a variety of groups have indicated an interest
in playing a role in wetland restoration. Ports (the ports of Seattle
and Everett, Washington, for example) have indicated an interest
in working toward restoration on port-owned lands as part of
their land stewardship role. The Nature Conservancy is taking an
active role in developing management plans for wetlands to be
-------
12
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Table 1
LOCATION:
North Creek, WA
PURPOSE:
Compensatory mitigation
WETLAND TYPE:
Freshwater emergent wetland creation;
stream corridor relocation and
restoration
SIZE:
7 hectares; 17 acres
COST:
$3,000,000 +
COST/ACRE:
$200,000
REFERENCE:
Van Wormer (1992)
LOCATION:
Puyallup River Estuary, Tacoma, WA
PURPOSE:
Compensatory mitigation
WETLAND TYPE:
Restoration of multiple estuarine habitats
SIZE:
2 hectares; 5 acres
COST:
$2,000,000 +
COST/ACRE:
$400,000
REFERENCE:
Simenstad (1992)
LOCATION:
Snohomish River Estuary, Everett, WA
PURPOSE:
Beneficial use of dredged material
WETLAND TYPE:
Creation of intertidal saltmarsh, protected
mudflat and sandy berm
SIZE:
8 hectares; 19 acres
COST:
$50,000
COST/ACRE:
$2,650
REFERENCE:
Smith (1992)
LOCATION:
Salmon River Estuary, OR
PURPOSE:
Noncompensatory wetland restoration
WETLAND TYPE:
Intertidal saltmarsh
SIZE:
71 hectares; 175 acres
COST:
$100,000
COST/ACRE:
$570
REFERENCE:
Frenkel (1992)
LOCATION:
Skokomish River Estuary, WA
PURPOSE:
Noncompensatory wetland restoration
WETLAND TYPE:
Intertidal saltmarsh
SIZE:
243 hectares; 600 acres
COST:
$250,000 (estimate)
COST/ACRE:
$417
REFERENCE:
Jordi (1992)
LOCATION:
Duwamish River Estuary, Seattle, WA
PURPOSE:
Noncompensatory wetland restoration
WETLAND TYPE:
Unvegetated intertidal habitat
SIZE:
0.4 hectares; 1 acre
COST:
$216,000 (estimate)
COST/ACRE:
$216,000
REFERENCE:
Tanner, Rylko, and Smith (1992)
*Note: Cost of land not included in cost estimates.
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula
13
restored in association with a wetland conservation plan in
Eugene, Oregon. High schools and conservation groups have
asked how they could assist in identifying restoration opportuni-
ties. Private utilities have expressed interest in using some of
their excess lands for wetland restoration. Mian tribes have
requested assistance in restoration of tribal lands. Individual
landowners have requested information on how they can con-
struct or restore wetlands on their property. These examples
represent unsolicited contacts to the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers and Environmental Protection Agency and serve to illus-
trate the level of interest among virtually all entities. Similar
interest has likely been voiced in other regions of the Pacific
Northwest.
Wetland Restoration and
Comprehensive Wetland Management
Development of statewide wetland conservation plans
was recommended by the National Wetland Policy Forum (The
Conservation Foundation, 1988). Such planning has been initi-
ated in Oregon here in the Northwest and in several other states
across the nation. These planning activities (along with the local
government wetland management plans) offer significant oppor-
tunities for federal agencies and state and local governments to
cooperate in developing plans for increasing wetland resources
on a regional basis. The private sector, including groups such as
the Nature Conservancy and development interests, can also
make significant technical and management contributions. In
most cases, a plan to achieve an increasing wetland resource base
will require implementation of wetland restoration activities
along with plan elements related to protection and development
Relation to Mitigation Banking
Specific guidelines for implementation of mitigation
banking have not been developed, however several banking
programs have been implemented and several others are being
-------
14
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
considered. For instance, the state of Idaho Department of
Transportation utilizes mitigation banking to compensate for
wetland fills associated with their construction activities. A
similar program is being assessed for the state of Washington.
Noncompensatory wetland restoration might be integral
to some mitigation banking programs where cost sharing contrib-
utes to economy of scale or to take advantage of large project
opportunities where multiple funding sources are the only way to
complete a project. These concepts have been further considered
and discussed in the working group reports of these proceedings.
The Stage Is Set
Much work completed nationwide and regionally has set
the stage for moving forward with a major restoration initiative.
Publication of the two volume report Wetland Creation and Restora-
tion: The Status of the Science (Kusler and Kentula, 1990) provides
excellent background material. Several recent publications
provide extensive information on monitoring of restored wet-
lands. For estuarine systems, the work of Simenstad et al. (1991)
and Zedler et al. (1991) are particularly comprehensive. Detailed
monitoring guidance for freshwater wetlands is contained in the
report of Horner and Raedeke (1989). The recent report by
Kentula et al. (1992) provides extensive guidance on assessing
created and restored wetlands.
Perhaps the most portentous insights politically and
scientifically derive from a report by the National Research
Council (NRC, 1991). The NRC assessed, in detail, the restoration
potential of all aquatic ecosystems. It recommends restoration of
inland and coastal wetlands at a rate that offsets any further
losses and contributes to an overall net gain of 4.05 million
hectares (10 million acres) by the year 2010. Furthermore, the
Clinton Administration has reaffirmed the national policy to
pursue "a long-term goal of increasing the quality and quantity of
the Nation's wetlands" (White House Issue Paper, 1993).
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula
IS
Conclusions
• The Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program alone
cannot achieve no net loss or an increase in wetland re-
sources.
• Legislative authority and current policies are supportive of
wetland restoration.
• Plentiful opportunities for restoration exist, and an aggres-
sive wetland restoration program could significantly in-
crease wetland resources.
• Agencies at all levels, as well as private sector groups
representing both development and conservation interests,
support wetland restoration.
• Restoration can be integrated with current wetland conser-
vation planning efforts and can be integrated with mitiga-
tion banking projects.
• Much study and research to date provides a sound technical
basis for expanding wetland restoration activities.
References
Boule, Marc. 1987. Wetland creation and enhancemnt in the Pacific North-
west. In Increasing Our Wetland Resources, John Zelazny and J. Scott
Feierabend (eds.), Proceedings of a Conference: Increasing Our Wetland
Resources, Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C., October 4-7,1987.
The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action
Agenda. The final report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washing-
ton, D.C. 69 p.
Esry, D. H. and D.J. Cairns. 1989. Overview of the Lake Jackson Restoration
Project with artificially created wetlands for treatment of urban runoff. In
Wetlands, Concerns and Successes; Proceedings of the American Water Resources
Association Symposium, Tampa, Florida, September 17-22,1989, D.W. Fish,
ed. Pp. 247-257
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Cooperative technical publication. 76 p. plus appendices.
Frenkel, Robert E. and Janet C. Morlan. 1990. Restoration of the Salmon River
-------
16 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Salt Marshes: Retrospect and Prospect, Final Report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10. February 15,1990.158 p.
Horner, Richard R. and Kenneth J. Raedeke. 1989. Guide for wetland
mitigation project monitoring. Research Project GC8286 Task 6. Washing-
ton State Transportation Center, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kentula, Mary E., Robert P. Brooks, Stephanie E. Gwin, Cinday C. Holland,
Arthur D. Sherman, and Jean C. Sifneos. 1992. Improving Decision-making in
Wetland Restoration and Creation. Corvallis, Oregon: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. 195 p.
Kunz, Kathleen, Michael Rylko, and Elaine Somers. 1988. An assessment of
wetland mitigation practices pursuant to Section 404 permitting activities in
Washington State. In Proceedings: First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound
Research. Volume 2. Seattle, Washington: Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority. Pp. 515-531.
Kusler, John A. and Mary E. Kentula. 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration:
The Status of the Science. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Lewis, Roy R. III. In Kusler, Jon A. and Mary E. Kentula. 1990. Wetland
Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. EPA 600/3-89/038b).
National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan. Seattle, Washington: Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority.
Rylko, Michael and Linda Storm. 1991. Is no-net-loss a reality: how much
wetland mitigation are we requiring? In Proceedings: Second Annual Meeting
on Puget Sound Research, Volume 2. Seattle, Washington: Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority.
Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1992. Commencement Bay cumulative impact
study, restoration and mitigation goals. Option 1. Development of restora-
tion options for Commencement Bay, Washington. Prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 115 p.
Simenstad, Charles A., Curtis D. Tanner, Ronald M. Thom, and Loveday L.
Conquest. 1991. Estuarine Habitat Assessment Protocol. EPA 910/9-91-037.
Seattle, Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Office of Puget Sound. 200 p.
-------
Infusion of Restoration into the Management Formula | 17
Stevens, Michelle L. and Ron Vanbianchi. 1993. Restoring Wetlands in
Washington: A Guidebook for Wetland Restoration Planning and Implementation.
WDOE #93-17. Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of Ecology.
Tanner, Curtis D. 1990. Mitigation planning on an estuary-wide scale: an
alternative to case-by-case wetland mitigation policy. Master's Thesis.
Institute for Marine Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. 109 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: Wetlands
Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment
Station, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Restoration potential of diked
estuarine wetlands in Washington and Oregon. EPA 910/9-88-9042.
October 1988. Corvallis, Oregon: U.S. EPA Environmental Research Labora-
tory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army. 1990.
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation
under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Washington State Departments of Agriculture, Ecology, Fisheries, Natural
Resources, Wildlife and the Noxious Weed Board. 1993. Noxious emergent
plant management draft environmental impact statement. Olympia,
Washington. June 1993.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1986. Wetland Functions, Rehabili-
tation and Creation in the Pacific Nortkuxst: The State of Our Understanding.
Publication No. 86-14. Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of
Ecology.
White House Issue Paper. 1993. Protecting America's Wetlands. The
Clinton Administration's August 24,1993 Wetlands Plan. Washington, D.C.
Zedler, J.G. and R.L. Langis. 1991. Comparisons of constructed and natural
salt marshes of San Diego Bay. Restoration and Management Notes 9(l):21-25.
-------
Opening Remarks
Opportunities and Challenges in the
Restoration of Riverine/Riparian Wetlands
Robert L. Beschta
College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
The restoration of riverirte/riparian wetland systems
presents a major opportunity for wetland scientists and regula-
tors, with potentially significant beneficial returns to wetland
ecosystems and the general public. Such restoration activities will
not only require the involvement of a great number of partner-
ships, cooperators, and coalitions, but presents significant techni-
cal and managerial challenges to those involved in the planning
and implementation of restoration activities.
Although wetlands involve complex interactions between
soils, hydrology, and vegetation, from a regulatory perspective
these interactions have generally been defined (Figure 1). From a
scientific perspective, research continues to separate complicated
wetland systems into specific components, processes, and func-
tions. Hydrologists often study saturation levels, hydroperiod,
and water quality. Soil scientists may emphasize soil develop-
ment, carbon content, and redox potentials. Vegetation specialists
might focus on plant community types and distributions, species
diversity, or ecological adaptations of various species to stress in
anaerobic conditions. More challenging, however, is the need to
integrate specific wetland attributes and processes to understand
how they individually contribute and interact to alter the func-
tions, values, and overall characteristics of a wetland. For suc-
cessful restoration to occur, a sound knowledge of wetland
components and their integration is of fundamental importance.
Much of the science associated with wetland functions
has unfolded from studies of bottomland hardwoods,
-------
Opportunities and Challenges 19
VEGETATION
prevalence of species
adapted for life
in saturated soils
SOILS
anerobic conditions
in the upper part
HYDROLOGY
inundated or saturated by
face or groundwater at a
sufficient frequency and duration
Figure 1. Components of a basic wetland system specifically utilized for jurisdictional
delineation.
Figure 2. Characteristics and processes associated with riverine/riparian wetlands.
depressional wetlands (lakes to potholes), and coastal environ-
ments of the eastern United States. In the western United States,
due to the general lack of water across much of the landscape,
many wetlands are associated with riverine/riparian systems
These wetlands tend to occur as narrow linear features that
occupy a small proportion of the landscape. The geomorphic
setting, soils, hydrology, and vegetation associated with these
riverine/riparian systems are highly variable (Figure 2). Thus,
attempts to restore many of these systems will challenge our
creativity, understanding, and patience.
Not too many years ago, stream ecologists focused on the
characteristics and processes associated within a stream and its
channel. However, they quickly began to recognize the often
overriding influence of factors outside the immediacy of the
RIVERINE/RIPARIAN VEGETATION
Establishment
Hydroperiod
Growth
SOILS
Texture
Development
Succession
HYDROLOGY
Hydrodynamics
Oxidation/reduction
Water quality
-------
20 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
channel environment, particularly those associated with stream-
side vegetation. As a result, they began to identify specific
functions associated with streamside vegetation and its effect on
aquatic ecology and the character of riverine/riparian wetlands.
Zones of Influence
The functional attributes of streamside vegetation with
regard to riverine/riparian systems are numerous and indicate
the important degree of interaction that often occurs in these
settings. For example, streamside vegetation can provide shading
to a stream, thus moderating stream temperatures. Similarly,
during periods of leaf or needle abscission or during periods of
vegetation mortality, organic carbon is provided to a stream and
its associated wetland. These organic compounds, many of
which may have been produced outside the boundary of a
jurisdictional wetland, in turn provide an important energy base
to wetland and instrearn organisms. Riverine/riparian vegeta-
tion can also have an important influence on the storage, cycling,
and spiraling of specific nutrients.
The underground components of vegetation represents
another important arena whereby plants influence the character
of wetlands and aquatic systems, yet less is known about this
subsurface environment. For example, willow and Cottonwood
species are widely recognized for their ecological importance in
western riverine/riparian systems, yet little scientific quantifica-
tion of root growth, total biomass, or mortality has been under-
taken. This lack of information is remarkable given that the
presence or absence of roots can affect the strength properties of
alluvium by several orders of magnitude. Woody root systems in
particular, because of their ability to resist the hydraulic forces of
flowing water, can have profound effects on bank characteristics
and long-term stability. For many streams, they have a predomi-
nant influence on channel morphology.
Historical evidence indicates that many of the Pacific
Northwest's forested riverine/riparian areas have been cleared,
logged, or otherwise altered so that large woody debris levels in
-------
Opportunities and Challenges
21
streams have precipitously declined. Over the last two decades,
much ecological research of forested riverine/riparian systems
(particularly in western Washington and Oregon) has focused on
large woody debris recruitment and its importance for providing
instream fish habitat. Large woody debris generally originates
from a zone of influence adjacent to a stream or wetland. As part
of a relatively large effort at enhancing and restoring stream
habitat, many federal and state agencies are adding large woody
debris and other structural elements to streams. While such
efforts may have some short-term benefits (short-term within the
context of the age of forest tree species that can extend over
several centuries), they often ignore the long-term importance of
reestablishing the missing riparian forests, particularly conifers.
During the establishment and long-term growth of riparian
forests, woody vegetation is performing multiple functions (e.g.,
shading; carbon inputs from leaves, needles, and branches;
nutrient cycling; and bank stability). These functional attributes
have major effects on the quality of a riverine/riparian system.
Hence, the reestablishment of riparian forests to provide a variety
of functions and long-term large woody debris recruitment
represents a high priority. Only at mortality does a tree poten-
tially provide a large woody debris component to a stream or its
adjacent wetland.
For riverine/riparian wetlands throughout the West, the
"zones of influence" identified above are often crucial to the
maintenance of wetland functions and values. Yet many of the
plants that have such an important influence on the riverine
wetlands lie outside the boundary of a "jurisdictional" wetland.
Hence, eliminating potential impacts to only those areas inside
the jurisdictional boundary may not provide adequate protection
for many riverine/riparian wetlands. Similarly, where restora-
tion activities are proposed, it will generally be necessary to go
beyond the wetland boundaries in trying to establish vegetation
that can and does influence the character and functions of the
wetland. We may also need to think beyond the wetland bound-
ary with regard to sediment and nutrient inputs, and to insure an
adequate water regime.
-------
22
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Spatial and Temporal Concerns
From a restoration perspective, an understanding of
riverine/riparian systems and how they function also requires an
appreciation of spatial scales. In the headwater reaches of a
drainage, streams are small and have limited total hydraulic
energy. Hence, vegetation can exert dramatic control over the
characteristics of stream morphology. As we shift our perspective
farther downstream, the role of vegetation remains important, but
its interactions with the sometimes awesome dynamics of a river
at flood stage occur at a different level. Here, floodplain func-
tions, hydraulic resistance to overbank flows, bank stability, and
other factors become relatively important.
The temporal aspects of wetland restoration have not
been extensively studied. We all realize that a wetland cannot be
restored overnight, but how long does it take to reestablish
wetland functions and values to a degraded riverine/riparian
wetland? In the case of eastern Oregon and Washington, signifi-
cant recovery can occur along many degraded systems in a
matter of a few years. Within a decade or two, some of these
riverine/riparian systems may be fully functional. However,
where severe channel incision or downcutting has occurred, the
concept of restoration takes on a new perspective. Even though
many riparian functions can be reestablished, the channel incision
process may have permanently disconnected the stream from
extensive floodplain surfaces. The loss of overbank processes and
functions (nutrient, sediment, and water storage) can represent a
permanent change, hence restoration goals need to be altered
accordingly.
For streams draining forested watersheds in western
Oregon and Washington, other temporal issues surface. For
example, let us assume that old-growth and late serial stages of
forest vegetation along these streams represent appropriate
restoration targets. If so, full restoration could conceivably
require several centuries in some instances. Thus, for many
restoration projects, the ultimate target may not be achieved
within a project planning period of five years, but instead will
require a much longer perspective.
-------
Opportunities and Challenges
23
Restoration, Time, and Reversibility
The need for relatively long periods of time to attain some
restoration objectives encompasses several important challenges.
First, it indicates that restoration will require a continual effort.
Once set in motion, the decision to restore a particular wetland or
series of wetlands will require coordinated long-term efforts.
Unfortunately, in this age of instant gratification associated with
millisecond responses from personal computers, fax machines,
and express mail, a long-term program of protection, restoration,
and nurturing to reestablish wetland functions may not seem a
high priority. But it is. Furthermore, such efforts require that we
inform the general public about the necessity of long-term com-
mitments. Otherwise, overly optimistic short-range project goals
may result in unrealistically high expectations.
One of the underlying principles of physical chemistry -
given the appropriate changes in environmental conditions or
state variables surrounding a particular process - is that a process
can be shown to be reversible. The concept of "restoration"
embodies a similar principle: if land-use practices or activities that
led to wetland degradation are altered or removed, and if those
conditions that allow or promote wetland functions are reestab-
lished, restoration is a probable outcome.
Several years ago, Wayne Elmore (State Riparian Special-
ist, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Prineville, Oregon) and I presented a schematic that tried to
illustrate this concept of reversibility for many of the riverine/
riparian systems in arid portions of eastern Washington, Oregon,
and perhaps elsewhere in the American West (Figure 3). Part A
of Figure 3 illustrates an example of a degraded stream and
riparian system that may have resulted from loss of beaver,
overgrazing, significant irrigation withdrawals, or some combina-
tion of these or other factors and practices. Part B of Figure 3
indicates there is an opportunity for recovery of numerous
riverine/riparian functions if those practices causing degradation
are stopped, and if the establishment, growth, and succession of
riparian dependant plants are allowed to proceed. The important
-------
24
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
JUNIPER
SAGEBRUSH
L*Y"'
B
ASPE H. COT TOdWOOO,
ALKM.CtC
SAGEBRUSH
«OM*SSES
BUNCH MASSES
CAPILL A
CHANNEL WITH
INTERMITTENT FLOW
SA6E BRUSH
* MASSES
BUNCH MASSES
SATUNATCO rONt
CONFININC LAYER/
BEDROCK
PERENNIAL
STREAM
(A) Degraded riparian area
• Little vegetation to protect and stabilize banks, little shading
• Lowered saturated zone, reduced subsurface storage of water
• Little or no summer stream/low
• Warm water in summer and icing in winter
• Poor habitat tor fish and other aquatic organisms in summer or winter
• Low forage production and quality
• Low diversity of wildlife habitat
(B) Recovered riparian area
• Vegetation and roots protect and stabilize banks, improve shading
• Elevated saturated zone, increased subsurface storage of water
• Increased summer stream/low
• Cooler water in summer, reduced ice effects in winter
• Improved habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms
• High forage production and quality
• High diversity of wildlife habitat
Figure 3. General characteristics and functions of riverine/ riparian areas associated with
streams in the semi-arid west. (From Elmore and Beschta, 1987)
-------
Opportunities and Challenges
25
concept here is that the conditions illustrated by parts A and B are
"reversible" in that we can move systems toward either endpoint,
depending on how the environmental variables are managed.
Although there are numerous technical issues associated with the
simple scenario illustrated in Figure 3, a more fundamental
questions remains: can we overcome the social, political, and
economic barriers that are currently preventing the restoration of
these systems? Therein lies an important choice and an obvious
challenge.
Another Opportunity for
Best Management Practices?
In some instances, restoration may require ©(tensive
physical modifications of topography. For example, the func-
tional restoration of placer-mined areas, areas where roads have
altered stream location, or where streams have been channelized
may require a comprehensive design involving an understanding
of physical processes (hydrology, channel morphology,
hydroperiod, sediment budgets), biological factors (species
establishment, growth requirements), and other factors affecting
restoration activities. However, in most cases, local conditions
will still retain some aspects of the original hydrology, soils, and
vegetation associated with prior wetland conditions. In these
instances, removal of the land-use practices that contributed to a
degraded condition may be the most important means of initiat-
ing and ultimately attaining the restoration of functional wetland
systems.
Since the early 1970s, forestry operations in many western
states have utilized "best management practices," or BMPs, as a
means of trying to attain water quality goals. Although existing
forestry BMPs related to riparian and wetland areas are currently
being revised in Oregon, changes in management prescriptions
over the last twenty years would indicate that they will continue
to evolve with increasing emphasis on providing improved
protection to streams and wetlands. BMPs could also be used to
attain widespread changes in management practices associated
-------
26
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
with agricultural, range, or urban riverine/riparian systems.
However, BMPs for these areas have not yet been formulated or
implemented. Such a dichotomy in regulatory stance between
forested landscapes and others cannot last.
The Data Base Is Meager, But the Time Is Now
The concept of "'restoration" implies a return toward an
original condition. For many riverine/riparian systems in the
American West, a return to pristine conditions (defined as envi-
ronmental conditions prior to the effects of European settlement)
is no longer possible. The changes to the landscape from a wide
range of land uses and other factors have been too extensive and
persistent to achieve such a target. Even so, most degraded
riverine/riparian systems have great potential for improving
their functional attributes and characteristics.
Currently, there is widespread interest in how riverine/
riparian systems function and a desire to initiate restoration. But
the knowledge base is relatively recent and incomplete. For
example, it wasn't until 1985 in Tucson, Arizona, that the very
first North American Riparian Conference was assembled.
Because of the infancy of scientific information associated with
many western riverine/riparian wetland systems, understanding
of restoration techniques, opportunities, achievable targets,
functions, etc., has only begun. Nevertheless, major opportunities
and challenges await those willing to initiate and sustain the
restoration of western wetlands. These challenges are certainly
worthy of our best efforts as scientists, as wetland practitioners,
and as a society.
References
Abell, D.L. (Technical Coordinator). 1989. Proceedings of the California
Riparian Systems Conference. General Technical Report PSW-110. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
Bedient, P.B. and W.C. Huber. 1988. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. New
York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 650 p.
-------
Opportunities and Challenges
27
Brown, M.T. and J. Schaefer. 1987. Buffer Zones for 'Water, Wetlands, and
Wildlife. Gainesville: University of Florida, Center for Wetlands. 163 p.
Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Perceptions in manage-
ment. Rangelands 9(6):260-265.
Gore,J.A. 1985. The Restoration of Rivers and Streams. London: Butterworth
Publishers. 280 p.
Hill, M.T., W.S. Platts, and R.L. Beschta. 1991. Ecological and geomorpho-
logical concepts for instream and out-of-channel flow requirements. Rivers
2(3):198-210.
Kusler, J.A. and G. Brooks (Eds.). 1988. Proceedings of the National Sympo-
sium: Wetland Hydrology. Technical Report 6. Berne, New York: Association
of State Wetland Managers. 339 p.
Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula (Eds.). 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration:
The Status of the Science. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 594 p.
National Research Council, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and
Resources. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press. 552 p.
Sedell, J.R., and R.L. Beschta. 1991. Bringing back the "Bio" in bioengineer-
ing. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:160-175.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. General
Technical Report RM-120. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 523 p.
Windell et al. 1986. An Ecological Characterization of Rocky Mountain Montane
and Subapline Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology
Center. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 298 p.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
The Nature Conservancy's
Wetland Restoration Partnerships
Edward R. Alverson
The Nature Conservancy, Eugene, Oregon
The Nature Conservancy is an international, membership-
based, nonprofit conservation organization that works to protect
natural diversity. Founded in 1951, the Nature Conservancy has
617,000 members, and owns 1,430 natural areas, protecting 516,00
hectares (1.29 million acres) of land (1992 figures).
Traditionally, the Nature Conservancy has focused its
efforts to protect biological diversity on acquiring and managing
high-quality natural areas. However, in recent years, the Nature
Conservancy has placed increased emphasis on restoring de-
graded habitats adjacent to the core natural areas, both to increase
the extent of the habitat and to provide buffers between the core
natural areas and adjacent commodity-producing or developed
lands.
The Nature Conservancy's success has been founded on
the premise of working with private landowners, businesses,
other conservation organizations, and government agencies to
achieve conservation goals. Partnerships are especially important
in successful restoration efforts. Public-private partnerships in
particular are a useful vehicle for increasing funding opportuni-
ties, increasing public support, and broadening the nature of the
effort of the project so the end result meets a wider variety of
objectives. Strategic planning has proven to be an effective tool
for developing and implementing wetland protection and resto-
ration partnerships.
Restoration projects are developed in response to the
requirements of specific conservation goals. They are typically
implemented by local or state stewardship staff, with assistance
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
29
from the staff of the regional and national level, who are often
able to provide specialized expertise. Research and monitoring
are important aspects of restoration projects. Local Nature
Conservancy staff, as well as staff of affiliated Natural Heritage
Programs, are often able to use their knowledge of undisturbed
wetland systems such as those found on Nature Conservancy
preserves to develop ecological models for use in designing
restoration projects. The Nature Conservancy's preserves are
often suitable sources of propagation material (seeds, cuttings) for
local gene pools of wetland plant species. The organization's
policy is to use local genotypes for restoration projects to the
maximum extent possible.
The Nature Conservancy is in the implementation phase
for a number of projects that involve both wetland restoration
and partnerships. In Eugene, Oregon, the organization is a
partner in an effort to protect, restore, and maintain a viable
urban wetland system in west Eugene. This project is a coopera-
tive effort involving the city of Eugene, Lane Council of Govern-
ments, and the Bureau of Land Management, along with a
number of other organizations and agencies that play an advisory
or oversight role. The Nature Conservancy has been active in
protecting a 120-hectare (300-acr)) natural area in west Eugene for
over ten years, and will continue to play this role, as well as
providing botanical and natural areas expertise to the larger
wetland restoration effort.
In the Carson River drainage in Nevada, the Nature
Conservancy has been assisting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to protect the Stillwater Marsh, a terminal wetland system that is
an important link in the Pacific Flyway. The size of the marsh has
decreased dramatically due to diversion of flows upstream for
irrigating agricultural lands. The Nature Conservancy is purchas-
ing water rights to restore flows to the wetland system.
In California, the Nature Conservancy is working with
Ducks Unlimited, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to protect and restore an extensive remnant of
-------
30
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
riparian forest, freshwater marsh, and native grassland in the
Sacramento Valley. Much of the 5,600-hectare (14,000-acre)
project area is agricultural land. One objective of this project is to
develop techniques for restoring riparian forest on large tracts of
agricultural land.
These projects are representative of the types of wetland
restoration partnerships that the Nature Conservancy has become
involved with in the western United States. As the Nature
Conservancy works on larger landscape-scale conservation
efforts, the importance of both restoration and partnerships will
undoubtedly increase.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
Wetland Preservation And Creation:
Everett's Experience
Gerry Ervine
City Planning Department, Everett, Washington
This paper summarizes examples of the ongoing wetland
preservation activities of the city of Everett, Washington, and a
brief description of the saltmarsh development on Jetty Island by
the Port of Everett, in conjunction with the US. Army Corps of
Engineers. On the west side of Jetty Island, located immediately
west of downtown Everett, a sand berm was constructed from
over 192,308 cubic meters (250,000 cubic yards) of clean sand
dredged from the lower reaches of the Snohomish River channel
in 1990. The dredged material was designed to create a saltmarsh
east of the berm and west of the existing Jetty Island.
This demonstration project is being carefully monitored to
determine how successful this saltmarsh creation has been and to
determine if this technique could be used elsewhere to increase
the amount or diversity of habitat. The saltmarsh is beginning to
demonstrate more natural characteristics over time, with fines
collecting in the bottom of the marsh and small drainageways
forming. Much of the dune grass that was planted on the berm
did not survive the first year and required a second planting prior
to being adequately established. In addition, much volunteer
vegetation is adding to the diversity there.
A number of refinements to the city's wetland regulations
will be necessary to better address development in an urban
setting. The first example is a proposed industrial park develop-
ment in an area that was designated "urban" on the city's shore-
line master program and has been highly modified by log-yard
activity. In this case, offeite mitigation may be the best approach
-------
32
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
to wetland habitat enhancement This mitigation could possibly
be provided at a nearby mitigation banking site on the fringe of
the urban area providing high-quality wetland creation opportu-
nities. Another example is a subdivision where a small wetland
had been preserved as part of a subdivision. In this case, a
neighbor destroyed the wetland to enhance his view. This action
can be avoided in the future by taking firm enforcement action
and by educating the public about the benefits of wetland preser-
vation.
A second subdivision preserved a wetland buffer zone
that contained only a limited amount of vegetation. This buffer
zone contains a sewer line and maintenance road. These facilities
are very unattractive and provide little benefit to either the
subdivision or the wetland. In this case, the utility corridor could
have been incorporated into the lots within the plat, with the
wetland being protected by a substantial physical barrier in the
form of a fence. Buffer areas should reflect reality in regard to
their effectiveness, with the buffer zones width and improve-
ments being modified accordingly.
In the case of a major multiple family project located near
Silver Lake, the city learned that the preservation of a wetland in
the middle of a project site is very difficult. In this case the site
had to be regraded to run all stormwater through a grass-lined
swale prior to entering Silver Lake. This changed the hydrology
of the site, with the end result being that numerous trees in and
around the wetland died. In this case, offsite mitigation may have
been the better solution, rather than attempting to preserve the
wetland in the middle of this intensively developed multiple-
family project.
In another multiple-family case, a wetland was preserved
on the perimeter of the site. This wetland was long and narrow
and had suffered significant blowdown problems resulting from
increased exposure to wind. The solution to this problem would
appear to be to leave a greater buffer around the wetland (current
code requires greater buffer widths than provided under this
earlier Environmentally Sensitive Area Ordinance).
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
33
Another multiple-family project that appears to have
successfully related to Silver Lake, had a 15-meter (50-fooO
setback from the lakeshore, with limited landscaping in the
setback area. This site is situated so that a large percentage of the
site fronts on the lake, and there is an undisturbed wetland
directly adjacent to the lake. Based on this site configuration and
the adjacent use (expensive multiple-family units), the wetland
seems to function quite well with minimal buffer improvements.
In summary, it appears that a number of refinements
need to be made in the city's Environmentally Sensitive Area
Ordinance to provide a greater variety of options to the develop-
ment community to properly address wetland issues in the urban
setting.
-------
Panel Discussion; Interests in Wetland Restoration
Wetland Protection under the
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
Ginny Broadhurst
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington
The mission of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
is to enhance and protect the water quality of the Puget Sound.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (1990) identifies
the major threats to water quality in the Puget Sound basin and
provides strategies for solving these problems. In 1991, US.
Environmental Protection Agency Director William Reilly
adopted the 1991 Puget Sound plan as the first Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plan in the nation.
Many elements of the Puget Sound plan are funded by
the Washington State legislature. Money is allocated directly to
agencies to perform specific tasks identified in the plan. The
wetlands program is one component of the Puget Sound plan.
This biennium, several enhancements were made to the wetlands
program, enabling the Washington Departments of Ecology,
Natural Resources, and Wildlife to be more involved in protect-
ing Puget Sound wetlands.
The goal of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority's
wetlands program is to achieve no net loss of wetlands in the
short term, and to increase wetland acreage and function in the
long term. Wetland protection will be achieved as state and
federal agencies implement cooperative wetland programs, as the
public is educated on the importance of wetland protection, as
local governments enact comprehensive wetland protection
programs under the growth management planning process, and
as you and I and our neighbors take every little step we can to
ensure that the wetland on our property or down the road is still
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
35
a functioning wetland 20 and 100 years from now. The wetland
program contains specific strategies to protect and preserve our
wetlands, and this is a critical time for such action.
In theory we might expect to achieve no net loss through
the normal regulatory process. No net loss means that, theoreti-
cally, for every wetland that is filled there is another one created
of equal value and equal size. We know that this is not the case,
however. Exemptions, exceptions, and all the problems associ-
ated with mitigation mean that regulations alone can not achieve
no net loss. We are exploring ways to improve the permitting
process, but we are also looking to other methods to protect and
preserve wetlands. Nonregulatory tools are increasingly impor-
tant as we continue to lose not just wetland acreage, but the
quality of the remaining wetlands as well. We need to enhance,
restore, and maintain wetlands that have been degraded from the
variety of ailments afflicting our regional wetlands - trash dump-
ing, water diversion, invasion of exotic species, poor water
quality, increased siltation, and continual filling.
The term "nonregulatory tools" refers to a number of
things: education programs that teach landowners about wetland
stewardship, land trusts that enable landowners to set aside
wetland areas with conservation easements, comprehensive plans
that steer development outside of wetland areas, field trips to
wetlands for school children to learn the important functions of
these areas, direct acquisition of wetlands for preservation in
perpetuity, and more. Each one of these tools is encouraged in
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority wetlands program. In
some cases, the authority has been able to provide funding for
small projects through the public involvement and education
grant process.
Acquisition is another important tool for the preservation
of unique, high-quality wetlands. For the 1992-1993 biennium,
the Washington Department of Natural Resources received $1
million under element W-3 of the Puget Sound plan to acquire
previously identified, high-quality wetlands in the Puget Sound
basin.
-------
36
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Element W-8 of the Puget Sound plan calls for state and
federal agencies to work together to develop a pilot wetland
restoration project at two or three sites in the Puget Sound area.
In response to W-8, federal money has come through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to fund a significant restora-
tion project in the Duwamish River basin and another on Spencer
Island in the Snohomish River. The Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority anticipates the benefits of these projects will go beyond
physical restoration and will develop workable procedures for
making restoration happen.
On Spencer Island, the list of ecological goals include
reestablishing tidal conditions to approximately 16 hectares (40
acres) of historic estuarine wetland, displacing the monotypic
community of reed canary grass with native species, and provid-
ing an increase in habitat for fish. The programmatic goals of this
project are equally important and include such mundane items as
documenting a process for implementing noncompensatory
wetland restoration projects and demonstrating the feasibility of
particular restoration techniques. These goals may sound bu-
reaucratic, but they provide agencies with the basic information
they need to get restoration off the ground. These sites' restora-
tion also provide a forum for increased public awareness and
education of wetland functions and restoration possibilities.
Cooperation among agencies will make this project successful.
These are challenging times for wetland protection. We
can not afford to make the mistake of assuming that the public
knows what policymakers, resource managers, and stakeholders
mean when they talk about a "wetland," or if they can agree
about what to do with areas that they agree are wetlands. Most
of the decisions being made about wetland protection are coming
from local elected officials acting under the state's Growth Man-
agement Act. We must do a better job of reaching out to them
and providing constructive assistance. We must respond to
misinformation in the media. And, we must work to provide
even the most basic information about wetland functions and
values to anyone who will listen.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration 37
References
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990.1991 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan. Adopted November 21,1990. Seattle, Washington: Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Soil Conservation Service
Wetland Reserve Program
David E. Chalk
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Portland, Oregon
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wetland Reserve
Program was authorized by the 1990 amendment to the Food
Security Act. The goal of the program is to restore and protect
404,858 hectares (1 million acres) of wetlands in the United States.
The objectives are to restore the hydrology and vegetation and
protect the wetland's functions and values, including migratory
bind habitat, water quality, flood control, groundwater recharge,
open space, and environmental education.
In order for land to be eligible for the program it must be
a prior converted cropland, a farmed wetland that has had its
hydrology manipulated, or a wetland that is cropped under
natural conditions. In all cases, the area must have had a crop
grown on it for one year between 1986 and 1990. In addition,
some riparian areas, existing wetlands, and buffer areas may be
eligible for the program if they are important to the protection of
the restored wetland.
Prior converted cropland is defined as a wetland con-
verted to cropland before December 23,1985. Farmed wetlands
are those that were manipulated prior to 1985 and planted to a
crop. Riparian areas will be eligible if they link two protected
wetlands. Additional selection criteria can be developed at the
state level and concurred in at the Soil Conservation Service's
National Technical Centers.
The landowner has the responsibility to grant and record
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
39
a long-term easement, restore the wetland, and maintain it in
accordance with an approved wetland restoration plan of opera-
tions. The landowner will retain compatible uses to the wetland
area, including hunting and fishing, haying, grazing, and timber
production. The landowner can receive up to 75 percent cost-
sharing for the restoration, a payment for the easement not to
exceed the value of the agricultural land. These payments can be
made in either a lump sum or annual payments for ten years.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service has the primary responsibility
for program administration. The Soil Conservation Service has
the responsibility for all technical aspects of the program, includ-
ing eligibility determination and the plan of operations. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service assists in eligibility determination and
planning. The U.S. Forest Service will assist in planning where
tree plantings are part of the plan. The Agricultural Extension
Service has primary responsibility for the dissemination of related
information. Other agencies and conservation groups can assist
in promotion, planning, and some restoration costs.
The Wetland Restoration Program was tested as a pilot
program in fiscal year 1992. Congress authorized $46 million to
establish the program in nine states. The goal for 1992 was to
restore 20,243 hectares (50,000 acres). If more than 50,000 acres
are offered, a bid-ranking procedure would begin in which the
percent of hydrology restored, percent of bid area that is actually
restored to wetland (not buffer), location of the wetland in rela-
tion to other wetlands, management risks, length of easement,
and environmental importance would be rated to determine
which plots go into the program. The signup period for the
program began July, 1992. The program was expected to be well
received and likely to exceed the 50,000-acre limit during the first
year.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
The Role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In Wetland Restoration
Curtis Tanner
U-S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington
To gain an understanding of the role of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in undertaking restoration projects, it is instruc-
tive to review our mission statement, as expressed in the publica-
tion Vision for the Future:
It is the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide
leadership to achieving a national net gain of fish and wildlife
and the natural systems which support them ... (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1991)
One of several overall principles pursued to achieve this
mission is an emphasis on habitat restoration. The Fish and
Wildlife Service recognizes that degradation of habitats has been
extensive and merely conserving those that remain is not ad-
equate. A combination of protection, enhancement, and restora-
tion activities will be necessary to ensure'that an adequate re-
source base is maintained. It is important to realize that as
wetland regulations become increasingly politically charged and
unpopular, we anticipate increased emphasis on wetland restora-
tion at the federal level.
The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service leads to
involvement in wetland restoration from a variety of perspec-
tives. First, in the agency's review of permit applications under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, we have the opportunity to
comment on the sufficiency of mitigation plans. While this role is
largely reactive, it does afford an opportunity to provide parties
involved in wetland creation and restoration with technical
expertise. Second, the agency has become increasingly active in
design, cost-sharing, and construction of noncompensatory
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
41
wetland and riparian habitat restoration projects. Third, in
addition to move-the-dirt-type projects, we are also involved in a
variety of planning and assessment efforts designed to facilitate
ecosystem-scale restoration efforts.
To the extent the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient
information and opportunity to do so, it attempts to undertake its
noncompensatory restoration efforts within an ecosystem or
landscape perspective. In doing so, the agency's focus includes
not only wetlands, but also riparian, upland, and other habitats
that support fish and wildlife. Furthermore, the agency attempts
to seek partnerships to stretch limited resources and implement
as many projects as possible.
Private Lands Programs
Under the broad heading "private lands," two programs
in the Fish and Wildlife Service's Olympia Enhancement Office
are pursuing restoration opportunities on private property.
1. In the first program, staff working under the Farm Bill
Initiative review properties obtained by the Farmers Home
Administration through foreclosure. Many farms in Wash-
ington State have significant wildlife potential. Such prop-
erties can be placed under conservation easement, or trans-
ferred in fee title to management by the federal refuge
system or the Washington Department of Wildlife. Oppor-
tunities for restoration, such as fencing to exclude livestock
from streams, are noted.
2. Another very active program in the Olympia office is the
Washington Ecosystems Conservation Project, a cooperative
effort with the Washington Department of Wildlife. The
program received $1.75 million in congressional support
during its first year (fiscal year 1991), and $1.45 million for
fiscal year 1992. These funds are shared by the two agen-
cies. Through this program, the Fish and Wildlife Service
cost-shares wetland and riparian habitat restoration projects
with private landowners, providing up to 30 percent of
project costs. The Washington Department of Wildlife
-------
42
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
pursues fee title acquisition and upland habitat enhance-
ment with its program funds. During 1991, Fish and Wild-
life Service staff completed some 29 projects, restoring or
enhancing approximately 546 hectares (1,365 acres) of
wetlands and 75 kilometers (47 miles) of riparian habitat.
The Holmquist project in eastern Washington is an
example of the type of interagency approach the ecosystems
project attempts to foster. In this project, the Fish and Wildlife
Service is working with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and
Forest Service, the Washington Department of Wildlife, and
private landowners. The project involves restoring nearly 2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) of stream to its natural channel. Riparian
habitat along the channel will also be restored and the project will
result in the restoration of some 40 hectares (100 acres) of
submergent and emergent freshwater wetlands.
Another program involved in habitat restoration in the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Olympia office is the Puget Sound
Program. Staff pursue a systemwide approach to restoration from
both a planning and project implementation standpoint. In doing
so, the agency is attempting to respond to the 1991 Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan (Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, 1990). This document represents the first comprehen-
sive conservation management plan adopted under the National
Estuary Program, and directs Fish and Wildlife, along with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engi-
neers, and the Washington Department of Ecology to develop a
program of wetland restoration. Fish and Wildlife is working
closely with these agencies in pursuing several pilot restoration
projects in the Puget Sound region. It is our intention to use these
pilot projects as a springboard to establish a long-term restoration
program within the agency that relies heavily on interagency
cooperation.
In addition to the above programs, the U.S. Department
of the Interior serves as a trustee for fish and wildlife resources,
(e.g., anadromous fish, migratory birds, and endangered species)
and program staff are involved in natural resource damage
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
43
assessment processes in both Commencement and Elliott bays. It
is the department's aim to foster an estuarywide approach to
habitat restoration in these urban bays by systematically assessing
habitat needs and applying damage settlement funds to filling
these needs. Puget Sound program staff are also involved in
implementation of three pilot wetland restoration projects along
the Duvvamish River in Seattle. These projects are a cooperative
effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Corps of Engineers, and National Marine Fisheries
Service, and they were funded by a grant from the federal Coastal
America Program. In addition to activities in Seattle and Tacoma,
Fish and Wildlife staff are also working with Snohomish County
staff in developing a tidal wetland restoration project on the
Snohomish River.
Another example of the ecosystem approach fostered by
the Fish and Wildlife Service is work in progress by its Fishery
Resources Office. With congressionally appropriated funds, the
Olympia group is completing a watershed analysis of the
Chehalis River drainage. The focus of this study is factors limit-
ing fishery production. Logging debris, cut banks, pollution,
livestock, and encroachment problems are being mapped along
the Chehalis River and its major tributaries. This information will
be used to identify and prioritize restoration and enhancement
projects, which will include revegetation, fencing, road removal,
erosion control, and bank stabilization. If federal funding is
received in 1994, the ecosystems conservation project will be
involved in implementing some of the identified restoration
options.
Conclusion
The challenges facing those charged with natural resource
protection are significant. Restoration of fish and wildlife habitat
remains an uncertain business - part science, part art, part deal-
making. Reliance on restoration as a management tool will
require abandoning the traditional delineation of responsibilities
fostered by the regulatory approach. Success necessitates adopt-
-------
44
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
ing a broader perspective, one that encompasses an ecosystem
approach for guidance and diverse partnerships for implementa-
tion.
References
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990. 2992 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan. Seattle, Washington: Puget Sound Water Quality Author-
ity. 344 p.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
The Washington Public Ports Association's
Role in Wetland Restoration
Eric D. Johnson
Washington Public Ports Association, Olympia, Washington
This presentation is on behalf of the Washington Public
Ports Association, which represents the port districts of the state
of Washington. Before discussing ports and their place in the
effort to restore wetlands, it is important to have a brief general
introduction to Washington's port districts.
Washington's port districts are more than just docks -
they are the public's economic development arm. In this capacity,
they own and operate shipping terminals, airports, marinas,
parks, and industrial areas. There are over sixty ports in Wash-
ington; more than in any other state. They range in size from very
large to truly tiny. But, their number and diversity point out that
Washington is the most trade-dependent state in the country.
Because ports are the public's development arm, they
have a keen interest in the overall climate of development and
land use in Washington. One of the most contentious and confus-
ing aspects of development and land use today is the area of
wetland regulation. There are a multitude of wetland issues, and
restoration is just one of them. Ports are generally interested in
restoration efforts because restoration is a creative way of solving
some wetland problems. Ports in Washington State have already
had some experience with wetland restoration projects. The large
ports in particular, such as the ports of Everett and Tacoma, have
already completed some restoration projects, often in cooperation
with many agencies.
Ports are, in many ways, very good entities to be address-
ing wetlands restoration. They have much to offer for three
reasons:
-------
46
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
1. Ports are public entities and have accountability, stability
and predictability.
2. Ports sometimes have access to resources that do not imme-
diately have to be applied to a bottom line." These re-
sources may be used for land-use planning. This type of
planning is now encouraged by the state's Growth Manage-
ment Act.
3. Ports own a relatively large and well-known land base,
frequently in sensitive areas and containing degraded
wetlands. In other words, ports have many sites to restore.
If these advantages are to be successfully translated into
usable and successful wetland enhancement and restoration
efforts, several things will need to happen:
Resource and regulatory agencies need to understand that ports
do not exist solely to restore habitat. Their primary mission is to
create and sustain good jobs, which they do very well. It is a
legitimate mission. Resource and regulatory agencies should not
enter into discussions with a port without understanding the
importance and legitimacy of the port's mission. In a reciprocal
way, the port needs to understand the legitimacy of the agency's
point of view. We will get much further if we acknowledge the
legitimacy of each other's mandates. After all, the public doesn't
want one or the other; the public wants everything.
Habitat restoration cannot be approached in a vacuum. Ports,
and others, are currently trying to operate in the midst of a
variety of laws and programs, such as the Comprehensive Envi-
ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund), state Model Toxics Control Act, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the Washington State
Growth Management Act, the State Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA), and many others. We must all try very hard to fit restora-
tion opportunities into the constraints and requirements of other
laws and programs. Progress can be made in restoration if we are
creative, pragmatic and flexible. For example, the NPDES
stormwater requirements will be generating a lot of swales and
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
47
retention ponds throughout the state, especially in urban and
industrial areas where we need habitat. If we are creative and
anticipate the needs of the regulated community, we can make
some habitat progress. But for this to work, the agencies will
need to become better at something that they are not very good at
now: telling people what they can do, instead of what they cannot
do.
Incentives must be created for people to engage in behavior that
will result in wetland restoration. Individuals and organizations
will respond to restoration needs if they are given clear signals
that it will do them some good. Development credits and mitiga-
tion banking are crucial tools that must be used more. Ports, for
the reasons mentioned earlier, are logical entities to support these
efforts - if they are given incentives.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
Wetland Restoration in Oregon
Emily Roth
Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, Oregon
The Oregon Division of State Lands Program
The Oregon Division of State Lands is responsible for
regulating fill, removal, and alterations in wetlands. Through the
use of a joint permit application with the Portland District of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the lands division allows wetland
impacts and requires compensatory mitigation for them. In three
years (1988-1991), 70 percent of the permits issued in Oregon
were Corps Nationwide Permit 26 Authority, therefore, under the
joint permitting authority the Division of State Lands is respon-
sible for overseeing most of the wetland mitigation projects in
Oregon because the Corps does not require mitigation for nation-
wide permits. The majority of mitigations are excavations in
existing wetlands.
In addition to mitigation required with permits, the land
division has a general authorization for wetland restoration and
enhancement. This expedited permitting process encourages
wetland restoration through a fee waiver and a two-week re-
sponse from the division once a completed application is re-
ceived. Since July 1991, when the general authorization was put
in place, the division received fifteen applications, mostly for
waterfowl restoration on agricultural lands. Presently, the
division is writing guidelines for general authorization that will
encourage restoration of historical wetlands and overall land-
scape diversity.
Another important component of the division's coordi-
nating role in restoration is through wetland conservation plan-
ning efforts. Local governments may opt to do large-scale plan-
ning for wetlands within their urban growth boundaries. As a
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
49
part of the planning process, the wetlands inventoried, evaluated,
and designated for protection, conservation, or development
must be compensated in the planning area through wetland
restoration enhancement and/or creation. An example of the
planning process is the West Eugene Wetland Area Study.
Wetland Restoration Tour of Oregon
While the state lands division encourages wetland resto-
ration through its coordinated permitting and planning responsi-
bilities, the actual on-the-ground work is done by numerous
coordinated efforts across the state. The following examples are
just a few that are taking place.
Oregon Coast
Salmon River estuary restoration. An ongoing research
project coordinated by Dr. Bob Frenkel of Oregon State Univer-
sity, Dr. Frenkel and graduate students have been monitoring the
restoration of the Salmon River estuary after dikes were removed.
(See Morlan, in this volume, for more information.)
Astoria mitigation bank. Located at the mouth of the
Lewis and Clark River on Young/s Bay in the lower Columbia
River estuary, the goal of this restoration was to return diked
pasture to tidal marsh through dike removal. However, the
contractor did not remove the entire dike. Instead of a function-
ing tidal marsh, there is a sedge marsh habitat with minor tidal
influence. Even though the goal wasn't met, it is a functioning
wetland system.
South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve.
This large research area has numerous pending proposals for
wetland restoration projects. The Winchester tidelands restora-
tion project focuses on restoring structural and functional at-
tributes to existing diked wetlands. A key research component to
this restoration is that they will be able to compare human-
manipulated restoration to natural dike breaching. Another
concept incorporated in the proposal is a resource garden to grow
plant materials for restored sites.
-------
50 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Willamette Valley
Jackson Bottom restoration along the Tualatin River.
This is a coordinated project with Friends of Jackson Bottom,
United Sewage Agency, city of Hillsboro, and the Oregon Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife. This restoration has multiple objec-
tives - wildlife habitat, recreation, and water quality. The overall
goal is to expand wetland areas and create a diversity of wildlife
habitats. The cooperating groups are achieving these goals
through a series of ponds, nesting islands, emergent marshes, and
replanted forest areas. The water for the restoration is from
secondarily treated wastewater. Viewing platforms and trails
give people access to the site.
Spectra Physics site in west Eugene. This is a large
compensatory mitigation site for a federal Clean Water Act
violation and subsequent fill permit. The consultant team is
restoring Deschampsia caespitosa (tufted hair grass) prairie and
creating seasonal marshes in former agricultural fields. Several
restoration methods cire being tried and monitored, including the
following:
• Sod mats were removed from the fill site and placed on an
excavated and graded site. By the following summer,
wetland conditions were apparent.
• Deschampsia was seeded on an excavated and graded site. It
has been somewhat successful and is doing well in places
that are not too wet.
• Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) was eradicated
through spraying and burning. The grass has been success-
fully killed and returning vegetation is being monitored.
• Ryegrass (Lolium spp.) was eradicated using standard
agricultural practices. This has not been very successful
because of the root structure of ryegrass and compaction
problems from agricultural machinery.
Wetland restorations on agricultural lands funded
through provisions in the 1990 Farm Bill. Projects designed,
funded, and conducted through the cooperative efforts of the US.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wild-
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
51
life, and the Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture. The primary goal is to restore historically altered wetlands,
though many are currently open-water areas for waterfowl.
Central and Eastern Oregon -
Large River-dominated Systems
Middle fork of the John Day River. This four-mile
stretch of river and wet meadows is a Nature Conservancy
preserve purchased and managed cooperatively by the Nature
Conservancy, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
Oregon Trout. The goal is to restore a naturally functioning
riparian ecosystem through passive restoration. All human-
placed constraints and cattle are being removed to let the river
meander again. Monitoring will be done, including invertebrate
plots, as the river chooses its own path.
Ladd Marsh wetland restoration. This is an Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife state wildlife management area
on the outskirts of the city of La Grande. The primary purpose of
management areas is to provide resting and production areas for
waterfowl. Similar to Jackson Bottom along the Tualatin River,
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is considering using
secondarily treated wastewater to restore agricultural fields to
emergent marshes and open-water ponds.
Conclusions
Many of the restoration projects across Oregon, both
passive and active, are trying new techniques and monitoring the
results. As we gain more information on what is working, we
need a system to transfer that knowledge to other restoration
sites. Also, we need to use what we learn from these restoration
experiments and apply them to appropriate locations through
watershed and landscape planning.
As the number of wetland restoration sites increase, it is
essential to share information and work cooperatively to ensure
that we restore historically lost wetland and increase diversity in
the landscape.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
Washington State Department of Ecology's
Interest and Role in Restoration
Jane Rubey Frost
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington
To place the Washington Department of Ecology's inter-
est and role in restoration in context, it is helpful to know the type
of work conducted by the Wetlands Section of the Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program.
The Department of Ecology's Wetlands Section focuses its
wetland protection work on education and technical assistance.
The education unit produces documents, brochures, and videos
for distribution to school children, wetland landowners, decision
makers, and the general public. The technical assistance unit,
provides four regional teams offering direct assistance to local
governments on ordinance development, wetland assessment
and delineation, rating, mitigation, the Washington Shoreline
Management Act, the State Environmental Protection Act, and
federal Clean Water Act Section 404 issues. They provide direct
hands-on training to local planners and provide wetland technical
expertise when requested by local governments.
The two policy units of the Washington Department of
Ecology's Wetlands Section deal with regulatory and
nonregulatory program issues. They address critical wetlands
issues that arise to meet local and state needs, conduct back-
ground research, coordinate participation in decision making,
prepare guidance documents, and implement programs. Their
responsibilities include development of technical documents on
issues such as buffer widths and replacement ratios, model
ordinance development, water quality standards, development of
wetlands inventory standards, preparation of a geographic
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
53
information system wetlands database, wetlands acquisition
programs, and restoration and mitigation banking.
Although the Department of Ecology's interest in restora-
tion is high, it is still in the process of identifying its role. In all
wetland protection activities there are two main objectives:
1. To apply comprehensive wetland protection approaches to
achieve the goal of no net loss.
2. To provide state-of-the-art technical guidance on wetland
issues to local governments and others to improve protec-
tion of wetlands in Washington.
Toward this end, wetland restoration and the sister issue
of mitigation banking are key components.
Technical Information Dissemination
What role can or should the Department of Ecology play
is the question it faces. Thus far, the department has begun some
activities to meet the increased demand for technical information.
The development of a technical guide to wetland restoration is
near completion. Its purpose is to provide reference information
for wetland resource professionals dealing with restoration
issues. It contains information on the process of conducting
restoration on a programmatic and project-specific level. The
guidebook has ecoregion descriptions as templates for restora-
tion, reference information on plant propagation, and details on
site-assessment needs.
To better understand the mitigation banking issue, a
paper outlining the components of mitigation banking and
examining mitigation banking programs around the county has
been completed. This effort will be useful to a pilot banking effort
now being designed by the Washington Department of Transpor-
tation with Department of Ecology participation.
Restoration Efforts
Regarding the broader issue of restoration, the 1991 Puget
Sound Water Quality Management Plan (Puget Sound Water
-------
54
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Quality Authority, 1990) now contains an action element for
wetlands restoration. The Washington Department of Ecology
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Army Corps of Engineers are directed to complete
two tasks:
1. Conduct an early action pilot restoration effort.
2. Develop and implement a program to restore wetlands in
the Puget Sound basin.
At this time, the first task of implementing pilot restora-
tion efforts has begun. Projects are underway in both the lower
Duwamish and Snohomish rivers. The two broad objectives of
the pilot projects are to address the technical issues identified in
the Puget Sound plan and to establish the foundation for
interagency collaboration on restoration. These projects will
allow for cooperation among federal, state, and local players to
define respective roles and achieve broader restoration goals.
Also, in working through the pilot projects, technical or coordina-
tion issues needing further attention should be uncovered.
The information and relationships established in the pilot
project will feed directly into the second task of restoration
program development and implementation, which is yet to be
initiated. The tasks here are to describe goals and objectives for
restoration, identify appropriate areas of focus, and design and
implement a restoration plan.
The Department of Ecology's goal in this effort is to
integrate the new restoration plan into existing regulatory and
nonregulatory approaches to achieve comprehensive wetlands
protection on the landscape. Restoration easily fits both regula-
tory and nonregulatory approaches - as mitigation for develop-
ment impacts and as government-sponsored wetland recovery
programs. To best use restoration to achieve long-term goals for
no net loss, making wise restoration choices on the landscape is
going to be critical. Utilizing a landscape design approach will be
the most effective means of achieving these goals, as well as
directing both regulatory and nonregulatory choices.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
55
Summary
The Washington Department of Ecology's restoration role
will likely concentrate on integrating restoration actions into other
existing and developing programs at the state and local level that
are directed at achieving comprehensive wetlands protection and
no net loss of wetlands in Washington State.
References
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990.1991 Puget Sound. Water Quality
Management Plan. Adopted November 21,1990. Seattle, Washington: Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority. 344 p.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
The University of Washington Department of
Landscape Architecture's Involvement
With Wetland Restoration
Sally Schaumann
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of
Washington, Seattle
Each year during Autumn Quarter (October-December), I
teach a graduate studio on wetland landscapes at the University
of Washington. Professor Richard Horner (Civil Engineering) co-
teaches this six-credit course. Our students include urban plan-
ning, urban horticulture, forestry, fisheries, public affairs, marine
affairs, and landscape architecture majors.
This studio is an opportunity to gain information, re-
source management options, and conceptual design solutions.
We work with real projects on public landscapes. This is not a
course in wetland delineation nor wetland ecology. Rather the
educational focus is on wetlands as they relate to the surrounding
landscape patterns, often urbanization.
If you have a project area that would be a good candidate
for the class to use, contact me. We have many more requests
than we can pursue, but we are always looking for the best site.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
Technical Expertise in the Private Sector
Dyanne Sheldon
Sheldon & Associates, Seattle, Washington
I would like to speak to you of the opportunity presented
by the technical expertise provided by the variety of consultants
experienced in wetland restoration. So far from this panel we
have heard from representatives of resource agencies, regulatory
agencies, policy organizations, local governments, and port
authorities. In addition, we will hear from academicians and
representatives of private industry. I have noted that many of the
resource and regulatory staff people have spoken of their
agency's interest in pursing cooperative restoration efforts, at the
same time noting that their staff time isoften overbooked. Many
regulatory and resource agency staff can provide technical
guidance on the restoration process, but may not be available to
the extent they would like to be in order to provide all the needed
technical expertise.
The role of consultants in a cooperative restoration
process can often be that of a source of technical expertise, in any
discipline necessary, to assist in a complete restoration design. In
addition, consultants may provide a role as intermediary or
facilitator for restoration projects involving a broad coalition of
participants. The role can vary from that of interpreter of regula-
tory requirements and processes to that of technocrat.
The spectrum of consultants within this region includes a
wide range of technical expertise and decades of cumulative
hands-on experience in all the technical realms necessary for
detailed restoration design. Consultants can be used for detailed
civil engineering analysis, hydrological analysis, topography and
survey mapping, vegetation characterization, fisheries studies, or
wildlife assessments, to list a few of the issues to be considered
during restoration design.
-------
58
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Some local jurisdictions and community groups may not
have technical expertise on staff or be readily available to assist in
restoration design. Technical consultants can be seen as a pool of
resource people available to tap into for input and guidance.
Some projects may utilize a consultant for only one particular
area of expertise. At other times, a full range of expertise may be
required.
In the process of undertaking, or considering to under-
take, a wetland restoration project, it may be to the project's
advantage to use as many qualified personnel as possible during
the design process in order to provide the broadest range of input
and expertise. Technical consultants can provide a pool of
seasoned experts for cooperative restoration projects.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Damage Assessment and
Restoration Center Northwest
Robert A. Taylor
Office of General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle, Washington
The Damage Assessment and Restoration Program of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
composed of scientists, economists, and lawyers from NOAA's
National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
Office of General Counsel. The program was formed to fulfill the
responsibilities of NOAA's trusteeship for the marine resources of
the United States under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §
9601, et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA, 33 US.C. § 2701-
2761), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251-1387), and the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA, 16
U.S.C.§ 1431-1439 9).
Under these statutes, NOAA, by delegation of authority
from the Secretary of Commerce, is responsible for natural
resource damage assessments regarding NOAA trust resources
injured as a result of releases of hazardous substances (CERCLA),
discharges of oil (OPA or the Clean Water Act), or in the case of
National Marine Sanctuaries, any other causes (MPRSA). Once
the extent of resource injuries and the dollar value of those
injuries are determined and collected from responsible parties in a
damage assessment, NOAA is required to use the collected funds
to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured re-
sources. Given the importance of wetlands to many marine
resources, and the feet that oil or hazardous substances spills
often impact wetlands, NOAA's restoration efforts under these
-------
60
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
statutes are frequently focused on restoring/ creating, or enhanc-
ing wetlands.
NOAA's trusteeship over marine resources in many cases
is shared with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies,
and Indian tribes - particularly where the injured resources
include wetlands or anadromous fish. In those cases, NOAA
typically enters into agreements with co-trustees to jointly con-
duct damage assessments and restoration planning. Such ar-
rangements allow the trustees to devote time and attention to
determining the extent of the injury and restoring affected habi-
tats rather than arguing over the limits of each trustee's jurisdic-
tion and the allocation of funds among trustees. The joint action
also provides opportunities for drawing on each trustee's experi-
ence and expertise.
A typical example of this type of cooperative action in the
Pacific Northwest is the Commencement Bay-wide, natural
resource damage assessment currently underway. In that case,
the trustees for the bay's natural resources - NOAA, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Washington Departments of Ecology,
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Natural Resources, the Puyallup Tribe,
and the Muckleshoot Tribe - are conducting a damage assess-
ment and the restoration planning under CERCLA. A group of
Tacoma-area businesses and the city and the port of Tacoma are
also participating in and helping to fund the damage assessment
and restoration planning in the hope that this joint action will
lead to quicker resolution of natural resource damage claims and
the initiation of meaningful restoration actions.
Another example is the action now in progress to imple-
ment the settlement of a CERCLA lawsuit involving injury to the
marine resources of Elliott Bay. Here, the parties to the suit
(NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department
of Ecology, the Muckleshoot Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, the city
of Seattle, and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle [Metro])
are jointly developing plans to remediate contaminated sedi-
ments and develop habitat in Elliott Bay and the lower
Duwamish River. In this exercise, the parties have actively
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
61
sought the advice and participation of other agencies and govern-
ments with particular expertise or interest in the area.
NOAA has entered into collective habitat restoration
actions such as these in the hope and with the expectation that the
results of acting in this fashion will generate greater benefits for
the environment In the Elliott Bay case, the prospects look
promising. A case like the Commencement Bay natural resource
damage assessment, on the other hand, involving potentially
responsible parties in gathering the data that will be used to
define legal claims against them, is in effect an experiment. The
question the experiment should answer is whether beginning the
collective action at an even earlier stage can lead to earlier restora-
tion, yet still produce the scope and scale of restoration effort
needed to respond to natural resource injuries.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
Wetland Restoration from
An Industry Perspective
Bilinda Townsend
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
There are several reasons why a company like Boeing is
affected by wetland restoration issues. The continuing needs of
facility expansion, protection of shoreline property, maintenance
of water quality, and improved quality of life for employees
makes wetland restoration an issue of primary importance.
Boeing is already involved in several water-related issues,
including:
• The Duwamish Industrial Council, a cooperative group of
all Duwamish River industries, the city of Seattle, King
County, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Me), and
the Washington Department of Ecology.
• The Green River Watershed Committee, a cooperative
group of all Puget Sound cities, counties, federal and state
governments, industry, and other interest groups.
• Adopt-a-Stream, a public interest group with activities
involved with industry and the Washington Department of
Ecology.
Boeing has a wetland restoration project located in
Everett, Washington. This project was undertaken because of the
south flight line expansion and is being carried out with local
governments, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the
Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Boeing also
has a storm water facility in Bellevue, Washington. This project
was undertaken for mitigation and to comply with Bellevue's
storm- and surface-water regulations. This is a cooperative
activity with the local governments and the University of Wash-
ington.
-------
Panel Discussion: Interests in Wetland Restoration
63
Boeing has four goals it would like to achieve for coopera-
tive wetland restoration projects:
1. Standardize the delineation process. To standardize the delin-
eation process, one delineation manual needs to be used
uniformly and by delineators with consistent training.
However, each region in the country has different needs
and rules for creating wetlands need to be regionally flex-
ible. Wetlands also have seasonal variability, and adjust-
ments need to be made for these variations. One govern-
ment wetlands person should remain with a project over its
lifetime.
2. Provide opportunity for innovative wetland offsets. Policy
guidelines must be clearly established for wetland offsets.
Additional research on creation and restoration/enhance^
ment of wetlands must be carried out. Wetland banking is a
new and exciting field to expand into the regulatory pro-
cess. Guidelines for combining multiple small wetlands
into larger wetlands need to be established.
3. Have governments be open to buffer flexibility. Wetland buffers
should be adapted to the needs of each wetland based on
the site-specific characteristics of geography, geology, and
biology. Also, drainage canals and stormwater swales are
not natural wetlands and should be excluded from buffer
requirements.
4. Coordinate wetland permits in each jurisdiction so only one
permit need be issued. Wetland permits should be coordi-
nated by identifying a lead government agency within each
jurisdiction to make final delineation and issue a single
permit. All agencies should agree on delineation criteria to
be used by the lead agency so that only one delineation
needs to be done.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
Mitigation Banking: An Overview
Marc E. Boule
Shapiro & Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington
As conflicts between development needs and environ-
mental concerns increase, so does the need to find creative solu-
tions to these seemingly incompatible issues. Environmental
awareness may address many concerns, but in recent years,
wetlands have received particular attention. Recognizing the
sometimes unique development constraints created by wetland
habitats, a variety of regulatory approaches and other techniques
that might reconcile these issues have been investigated. Wetland
mitigation banking is recognized as a potential technique for
resolving some of the issues surrounding the desire to preserve
and protect wetland functions and values while allowing some
development activity within wetland areas. Transfer of develop-
ment rights has also been suggested as a means of reducing
environmental impacts, not only to wetlands, but to other sensi-
tive habitat areas as well.
In its broadest sense, wetland mitigation banking pro-
vides an opportunity to mitigate for project-related wetland
impacts offsite in a manner that better ensures success of the
mitigation efforts. Success is ensured by the fact that mitigation
typically would occur before the impact. Transfer of develop-
ment rights allows redistribution of development opportunities
from lands considered more sensitive to development impacts to
lands considered less sensitive. The purpose of this paper is to
explore some of the issues, opportunities, and constraints associ-
ated with these two techniques for preserving sensitive areas,
while permitting development activities.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
I
65 I
Background and Definitions
Under existing environmental regulations, mitigation is
that action or collection of actions incorporated as part of, or
imposed upon, a development project to compensate for any
impacts that might occur as a result of that project. Mitigation
might include widening a roadway or installing a traffic signal to
offset transportation impacts, constructing detention facilities to
reduce stormwater runoff impacts, or contributing to construction
of a school to offset an increase in student population. Typically,
wetland mitigation involves enhancement, restoration, or creation
of wetland habitats to compensate for impacts on wetlands that
result from project development.
The concept of mitigation banking is evolving at several
regulatory levels. Wetland mitigation banking has been defined
in several ways. According to the interim aquatic resource
protection policies of Snohomish County, Washington, wetland
mitigation banking would enable a developer to mitigate the
alteration of wetland resources by depositing funds with an
authorized agency to be used to create or restore a wetland
somewhere other than on the original site. In a recent study for
the Washington Department of Ecology, mitigation banking is
identified as the "offsite creation, restoration, or enhancement of
wetlands to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts associ-
ated with future development activities7' with an emphasis on the
construction phase "before impacts to existing wetlands occur"
(Castelle et al., 1991). The California Coastal Conservancy has
indicated that "a mitigation bank is created when a bank sponsor
locates, acquires, and enhances a large parcel with little existing
wetland habitat value in advance of accepting reimbursement
through mitigation fees" (Riddle and Denninger, 1985). The US.
Environmental Protection Agency notes the purpose of a mitiga-
tion bank is to provide "... compensatory mitigation in advance
... where mitigation cannot be achieved at the site of the impact"
(Seraydarian, 1991).
Although each of these definitions offers common themes,
it is valuable to compare and contrast the specifics. The
-------
66
Partnerships Ac Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Snohomish County aquatic resource protection policies empha-
size that wetland creation or restoration will be implemented by
an "authorized agency/' implying the project proponent is
involved only through funding of the actions of that agency. In
contrast the other three definitions leave open the opportunity
for a project proponent to "own" the bank but emphasize that
mitigation should occur in advance of any impacts, a concept not
mentioned in the aquatic resource protection policies. Similarly,
only the aquatic resource protection policies suggest compensa-
tion from a developer to an "agency," implying developers might
provide "fee-in-lieu" of actually compensating for impacts.
It should be noted that wetland mitigation banking is
strictly a process for coordinating wetland mitigation efforts; it is
not the act of creating or restoring wetlands. It is also not the
same as a project proponent providing mitigation for a single
project offsite. At the same time, if a project proponent has
several projects and proposes to develop a single offsite mitiga-
tion site to provide mitigation for all projects, that development
might be coordinated in a manner to be considered a mitigation
bank The key element of a wetland mitigation bank is the
process or program for effecting some form of mitigation, not the
actual creation or restoration of wetland habitats.
Mitigation Banking Issues
Issues relating to mitigation banking can be divided into
two basic, but often closely related, subjects: technical or ecologi-
cal concerns and regulatory concerns. Most of these concerns are
consistent regardless of what entity owns or operates the bank;
only a few are specific to the concept of a privately owned bank.
Technical or Ecological Concerns
• What criteria are used to determine the success of a mitiga-
tion effort?
• What is necessary to maintain the success of the mitigation
effort?
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
67
• What technique should be used to determine the "value"
(credits) of the mitigation project?
• What will protect the mitigation bank from adversely
affecting other properties?
Regulatory Concerns
• How is wetland mitigation banking related to county wide
wetland protection, both site specific and cumulative?
• Who is responsible for maintenance, monitoring, and
ownership of the mitigation bank?
• Which wetland impacts should be allowed to be mitigated
within a bank - the same habitat type? same watershed?
same city or county?
• Which wetland impacts should not be eligible for mitigation
within a bank?
• Should there be size limits for projects using a mitigation
bank?
• What mitigation actions are appropriate for banking -
enhancement? restoration? creation? acquisition and preser-
vation?
• Once established, when should a bank be usable?
• What detail should be provided in mitigation project plans?
• Who maintains a record of bank credits?
• How is the cost of mitigation credits determined?
• How do various regulatory programs interrelate?
Wetland Mitigation Banking Approaches
Ideas for mitigation banking were first discussed about
two years ago, and the earliest attempts were implemented in the
early 1980s. Mitigation banking approaches now being used or
considered can be divided into the basic categories described
below.
-------
68
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
One Owner, One User, Public or Private Sector
Several of the early approaches to wetland mitigation
banking were developed by state highway departments to
compensate for wetland impacts resulting from construction of
roadways. Transportation departments in Virginia, Minnesota,
Louisiana, California, and Idaho, often with the assistance of the
Federal Highway Administration, established some of the
nation's first wetland mitigation banks. Other state highway
departments, notably Maryland and New Jersey, are actively
pursuing the mitigation banking concept. Even today, most
mitigation banks have been developed by an agency or large
property owner specifically to compensate for wetland impacts
associated with its own project development
In part, because of encouragement and support from the
Federal Highway Administration, state transportation depart-
ments probably have been the most proactive in developing
mitigation banks. Most departments recognize the need to avoid,
minimize, and reduce wetland impacts before considering com-
pensatory mitigation. They also recognize the difficulties associ-
ated with avoidance when a project is confined to an existing
corridor or right-of-way. Most highway departments prefer to
complete their mitigation within the scope and corridor of the
proposed project. At the same time, they are not averse to creat-
ing larger wetlands for banking purposes when the opportunity
arises, or to using those banks when they feel it is necessary.
The mechanism for banking may vary considerably. In
Minnesota, each highway department district within the state has
its own mitigation bank, which may consist of several projects
within the district. The bank is not a single project; it is only an
accounting system for crediting wetland creation and debiting
adverse impacts within the distract. Habitat credits are based on
the US. Fish and Wildlife Service's habitat evaluation procedures,
and a record is maintained by the department. The highway
department does not guarantee the success of any particular
project it undertakes; rather, it guarantees a net "credit" within
the district bank. The effectiveness of this approach depends on a
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
69
consensus among the highway department and the various
resource agencies that regulate wetland development activities
(Foote, 1991).
By contrast, in Louisiana a single large mitigation bank
has been established on a wetland site "saved" from conversion
to agricultural activities. The property was transferred to the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries/ and although no
new wetland was created, wetland values have been enhanced
through hunting limitations, fencing to restrict access by domestic
and feral animals, and selective planting. Habitat credits and
debits are based on a habitat evaluation procedures analysis
conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is preferable
that the bank be used only for projects within the watershed, but
this apparently is not a strict rule (Pizzolato, 1991).
In another example, the Port of Los Angeles, California,
provided mitigation for the fill of deepwater habitat within the
port area through restoration of saltmareh in Anaheim Bay. In
this case restoration was neither in-kind nor onsite. It was per-
ceived, however, that restoration of a habitat in limited supply
adequately mitigated for the loss of an abundant habitat type. In
this case, a habitat evaluation procedures analysis was used to
determine how much saltmarsh was to be created to compensate
for the amount of deepwater habitat lost. Substantial negotiation
with federal and state resource agencies was necessary to reach
an agreement on the extent of mitigation required (Radovitch,
1991).
Public-sector Owner, Multiple Users
A bank was established at the Port of Astoria, Oregon,
when expansion of the airport required the creation of a wetland
mitigation site. Creation of the site involved breaching a dike
along an abandoned pasture and returning the area to tidal
influence. Since the area created was larger than necessary to
compensate for airport-expansion impacts, the excess wetland
values formed the basis of a mitigation bank. In the memoran-
dum of agreement establishing the bank, a specific value (credit)
-------
70
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
was attributed to the bank based on the estimated habitat value
gains that likely would occur. It also was noted the bank would
be available for use as mitigation by water-dependent projects
where onsite mitigation was unavailable or insufficient to com-
pensate for wetland losses, provided other conditions of the
memorandum of agreement were met.
An interesting aspect of this mitigation project is that
although it did not achieve the wetland habitats expected, those
that were established are still considered a success. Topographic
information regarding the site was limited, and it was anticipated
the site would become intertidal once the dike was removed,
resulting in the establishment of tidal marsh. Following breach-
ing of the dike, it became apparent the substrate was above most
tidal inundation, but well within regular flood elevation. As a
result, the bank did not achieve its anticipated habitat, but is
evolving toward a floodplain forested swamp, which is also
recognized as a valuable habitat within the region (Bierley, 1991).
It should also be noted that although the bank has been in place
for almost five years, no Astoria development activities have
taken advantage of it (Bierley, 1991).
Private-sector Owner, Multiple Users
To date, these are the least common type of mitigation
bank, although interest is increasing. Several have been proposed
in California and New Jersey, but none has actually been estab-
lished. In most cases, the major difficulties appear to be achieving
consensus on such issues as how credits will be determined and
when the bank will actually be available for use. Less substantial,
but still very real, concerns revolve around ensuring that all
attempts at avoidance, reduction, and minimization will be
implemented on projects before use of the bank is permitted for
mitigation, and emphasizing that the bank is to be used for small,
isolated wetland impacts that might not otherwise reasonably be
mitigated (Radovitch, 1991; Levine, 1991).
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, fills of less than
0.4 hectare (1 acre) in an isolated wetland may not require an
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
71
individual permit from the US. Army Corps of Engineers. At the
Springbrook mitigation bank in Livermore, California, it is
assumed by some people that most fills to be mitigated would be
less than 0.4 hectare (1 acre) in size. With that in mind, the
California Department of Fish and Game has taken the lead in
negotiating the various aspects of the bank, although the Corps of
Engineers and US. Fish and Wildlife Service continue to be
informed of the status of the negotiations. This particular mitiga-
tion bank proposal includes enhancement of habitat for an
endangered plant species, as well as creation of wetland and
riparian habitat. Although substantial interest exists in protecting
and enhancing endangered species habitat, consensus has not
been reached regarding specifically how to credit increases in
habitat values.
References
Bierley, Ken. 1991. Personal communication. Oregon Division of State Lands.
Castetle, Andrew J., Scott Luchesse, Catherine Conolly, Michael Emers, Eric
D. Metz, Susan Meyer, and Michael Witter. 1991. Wetland Mitigation
Banking. Draft. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Foote, Larry. 1991. Personal communication. Federal Highway Administra-
tion, Minnesota.
Levine, Jim. 1991. Personal communication. Wetland X, Fremont, California.
Pizzolato, Vince. 1991. Personal communication. Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development.
Radovitch, Bob. 1991. Personal communication. California Department of
Fish and Game.
Riddle, Elizabeth P. and Melanie F. Denninger. 1985. Coastal Wetland
Mitigation Banks: The California State Coastal Conservancy Experience. Califor-
nia State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California.
Seraydarian, Harry. 1991. Memorandum to Environmental Protection
Agency Water Division Directors and Environmental Services Division
Directors, Draft. Dated August 14,1991.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
Wetland Banking in Eastern Idaho:
Two Wetland Restoration Projects
Marv Hoyt
Idaho Department of Transportation, Idaho Falls, Idaho
The Idaho Department of Transportation began to investi-
gate the feasibility of wetland banking in 1985. The department7s
interest in wetland banking stemmed from the need to provide
replacement wetlands as part of the mitigation plan for highway
projects that impacted wetlands.
To establish the wetland bank program, the department
and eight other state and federal agencies with regulatory respon-
sibilities or interests in Idaho's wetlands held a series of meetings
over a two-year period. The product of those meetings was the
signing of a memorandum of agreement that laid the ground-
work for establishing and operating a wetland banking system
for the Idaho Department of Transportation.
Banking Sites
The first two proposed banking sites are located in eastern
Idaho. An interagency team composed of wetland specialists
from the Idaho Departments of Fish and Game and Transporta-
tion and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted
functional assessments (using the US. Fish and Wildlife Service
Habitat Evaluation Procedures [1980]) for the two sites to estab-
lish baseline conditions.
The first proposed banking site, known as the East Marsh
site, was located on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Mud
Lake Wildlife Management Area in Jefferson County. The second
project, referred to as the Old Beaver site, is adjacent to 1-15 in
Clark County, Idaho, near the Idaho/Montana border. Both
projects were efforts to restore the functions and values of wet-
lands that had been impacted by human activities.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
73
East Marsh Site
For a variety of reasons, including drought, inadequate
funding, and increased groundwater pumping, the Idaho Depart-
ment of Fish and Game has temporarily abandoned active man-
agement of die East Marsh site.
In 1988, the Idaho Departments of Transportation and
Fish and Game developed a plan to share in the restoration of
wetlands at the East Marsh site. The restored wetlands would be
used, in part, as mitigation for a highway construction project; the
balance of any habitat evaluation procedures credits (the currency
for this project) would be put into the transportation
department's wetland banking system.
The Department of Transportation had its first opportu-
nity for operating the project in the spring of 1990. Unfortunately,
the drought prevailed and there was no snow cover, no runoff,
and subsequently no soil moisture. The backup plan was to try to
flood a third of the site using an onsite well and pump. Initially/
this plan was successful. However, when irrigators in the area
began pumping their own wells, the draw-down of the aquifer
led to pump damage, foreclosing the only remaining method of
putting water onto the site.
At the dose of one season of operation, the project proved
to be a dismal failure. The Transportation and Fish and Game
departments assessed the project the following winter. The
decision was to mothball the project, with a possible resurrection
when the drought cycle ends.
Old Beaver Site
A second banking site, the Old Beaver site, is located in
the Beaver Creek valley of northern Clark County, Idaho. Beaver
Creek and its associated wetlands have been impacted over the
years from the building of a main north-south branch of the
Union Pacific railroad, the subsequent establishment of the town
of Beaver Canyon, highway construction, and most recently, by
overgrazing.
Beaver Creek crosses the parcel twice, however the stream
-------
74
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
has been moved and channelized, leaving little of the original
hydrologic connections between the stream and adjacent wet-
lands.
In addition to Beaver Creek, there are three seeps that rise
on the north end of the site, eventually joining the flow from an
offsite spring to form a single stream. At the time the transporta-
tion department purchased the property, the springs had a
combined flow of about 1 cubic meter (3 cubic feet) per second
and they were usually dry by mid-July.
After purchasing the property, the department's strategy
was to immediately remove the cattle and refence the area with
high-tensile fencing designed to keep trespassing cattle out but
allow wildlife to pass.
Through this simple measure, wetlands on the site have
made a remarkable recovery. Willow growth has been phenom-
enal, even though the trees are browsed heavily by moose in the
winter. Willow suckers are popping up throughout the site and
there are literally dozens of new aspen suckers coming in around
the few remnant aspen trees on the site. Ground cover, which
had been reduced to around 40 percent in many areas of the site,
now exceeds 90 percent. The four seeps have become full-blown
springs with a continuous year-round flow.
Conclusions
'"Developed" wetlands may only last as long as the state
has the interest, money, and time to manage them. It may be
unreasonable to expect that the artificially maintained wetlands
developed today, such as the East Marsh site, will last beyond our
own careers, much less for the next 50 or 100 years and beyond.
The state may have a higher rate of success in wetland
restoration if its efforts are confined to wetlands degraded by
draining, filling, or abusive grazing, such as the Old Beaver site.
These types of impacts can often be reversed and usually do not
require active management.
The state still does not have a program set up to deal with
the long-term management/ownership of restored wetlands.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
75
What agencies or entities should manage these wetlands over the
long haul? The Idaho Department of Transportation is not
prepared to take on this type of management and other state
agencies are reluctant to do so. Federal land management agen-
cies are not always the best managers, given their multiple-use
mandates. Perhaps a combination of conservation easements,
land trusts, and reform of land management agencies is the right
answer
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
The Development of Mitigation Banks
Robert B. Tiedemann
Ecological Design, Inc., Boise, Idaho
This paper reviews the science and politics contributing to
the failure of some wetland mitigation. It presents reasons for the
development and use of mitigation banks as an alternative form
of wetland compensation.
The essential dements of a wetland mitigation banking
agreement between a development agency and the resource and
regulatory agencies are described. They are based on observa-
tions made while facilitating negotiations for the Washington
State Department of Transportation and the Idaho Department of
Transportation. Essential elements include the following:
• Acceptance of the philosophy of mitigation sequencing
expressed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency memorandum of agree-
ment. Acceptance of mitigation sequencing restricts use of a
bank to those cases when it is the only remaining, appropri-
ate, and practicable mitigation measure.
• Acceptance that the currency of mitigation banks should be
capable of objective, equitable exchanges of wetland func-
tions and values. Credits and debits based on acres alone
rely on professional judgment and provide limited assur-
ance that an exchange is equitable.
• Agreement on what will be the units that establish credits
and debits.
• Agreement on methods to measure wetland functions and
values.
• Acceptance that mitigation bank sites must be preserved
and protected in perpetuity.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
77
• Agreement on who is responsible for the long-term opera-
tion and maintenance of a mitigation bank site.
• Crafting agreement language that provides sufficient com-
fort to the resource and regulatory agencies, while still
allowing reasonable use of a mitigation bank by the devel-
opment agency.
• A provision in the agreement that allows any signatory to
withdraw, with sufficient notice give to others to allow
them to understand and resolve the issue.
• Regular and frequent communication between signatories
to successfully implement maintain, and modify the agree-
ment.
• Demonstrable benefits to the natural resource.
I believe the success of negotiating an agreement in the
present regulatory climate depends on thorough discussion of
these elements, and perhaps more importantly the resolution of
other issues particular to each state.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
Washington Department of Transportation
Strategies for Wetland Mitigation Banking
David W. Stevens
Washington Department of Transportation,
Olympia, Washington
This presentation summarizes the increasing attention
that the Washington State Department of Transportation is
focusing on wetland issues. The department has a commitment
to carry out national and state policies and directives with regard
to the protection of wetlands. It has a high interest in meeting
protection objectives, for the following reasons:
• The state highway system is largely in place. Few current
projects are new highways or new alignments. Nearly all
deal with either capacity or safety improvements on existing
highways. However, impacts on wetlands can occur from
slope widening for safety enhancements and lane additions
for increased capacity.
• Highway improvements ordinarily are linear rather than
site specific, per se. Improvements can be small or they can
extend for several miles. In either case, existing wetlands
can be impacted. Many such impacts are minor, often just
fractions of acres, yet the effort and costs are as significant
as if the activity was of substantial size. The permitting
process can stretch over a considerable length of time even
when there are minimal impacts.
• The expense of complying with environmental regulations,
including wetland mitigation, is growing. These expenses
can have a substantial impact on the availability of funds
needed to carry out legislatively mandated transportation
programs and projects.
• The mitigation of small segments of wetlands impacted
during the development of a transportation project reduces
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
79
the flexibility of the department for future mitigation,
without noticeable benefit.
A system of advanced compensation for future impacts to
wetlands offers substantial advantages to the Washington De-
partment of Transportation, resource and regulatory agencies,
and the public. Such a system has been discussed for several
years, and programs now exist in a few states and local jurisdic-
tions. The program has substantial potential for use by the
transportation department in Washington State. A banking
system could improve wetland mitigation practices and provide
an additional mitigation tool for use, when appropriate. It should
be recognized that the development of a wetland mitigation bank
would not be a substitute or a replacement for current mitigation
practices or requirements. The department will continue to
avoid, minimize, and carry out existing procedures for onsite
mitigation. However, where such onsite mitigation is not fea-
sible, or is achievable only at extraordinary costs, the use of an
operating mitigation bank would be beneficial to all parties.
The Washington Department of Transportation, along
with about a dozen federal and state resource and regulatory
agencies, has organized a working group to explore issues,
concerns, and the potential benefits of a banking system. The
ongoing discussions have two purposes:
1. To come to an agreement on a currency and a system for
determining debits/credits for functions and values of
wetlands.
2. To develop an interagency agreement covering a wetland
mitigation bank's development and operation.
Some issues have to be resolved in a satisfactory manner
in order for a banking system to be established. They include:
• Number, location, and size of banks.
• Assessment methods to quantify losses and replacements of
functions and values.
• Operation and maintenance of sites.
• Monitoring programs.
-------
80 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
• Sponsorship and ownership of bank sites.
• Appropriate uses of a bank(s).
Potential benefits of a bank include the following:
• Once a bank is in operation and the currency agreed upon,
mitigation credits would be immediately available.
• Operation of the bank will reduce the time needed for
permit approvals, financial planning and will also aid
project timing.
• A mitigation bank, if properly planned, will reduce the costs
of mitigation through the construction of larger mitigation
projects that are more cost effective than numerous small
projects.
• In cases meeting the criteria for using the bank, mitigation
would be accomplished in advance, allowing compensatory
ratios of 1:1.
• The lag between wetland loss and mitigation is eliminated
and mitigation is proven to work, in advance.
• An established bank removes the argument as to whether a
plan would work, since the operating bank shows if it is
working.
• The bank should be expected to provide some interest on
the investment, some unanticipated benefit, or enhance-
ment.
The working group participants are now in the process of
closely examining the issues that have been identified. This effort
will continue over the next several months. If a shared agreement
can be secured, the transportation department can add another
tool to help wetland preservation and enhancement. This is the
department's goal.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
Biringer Strawberry Farm: A Wetland
Restoration Project for Mitigation Banking
C. J. Ebert and Karl J. Biringer
Biringer Strawberry Farm, Everett, Washington
Biringer and Ebert are a private partnership formed to
provide mitigation banking opportunities for both public and
private sector development. This wetland restoration project for
mitigation is located in the lower Snohomish River estuary,
Snohomish County, Washington, on Spencer Island, just north of
Everett, east of Interstate 5, between Steamboat and Union
Sloughs.
The project focus has been to secure all local, state, and
federal permits necessary to create a 124-hectare (310-acre)
intertidal saltmarsh which could, in turn, be used as a candidate
for offsite wetlands mitigation for multiple wetlands impacts in
the Snohomish River drainage basin and nearby shorelines.
We have been involved in land acquisition and the
preparation for permitting since October 1990, and have since
been granted a shoreline substantial development permit from
Snohomish County (April 1992), which was thereafter approved
by the Washington Department of Ecology (May 1992). Cur-
rently, we are awaiting a US. Army Corps of Engineers permit
(public notice was issued in October 1992).
This has been a time-consuming process. A great deal of
lobbying has been exercised on the part of our team. We firmly
believe that mitigation banking is an answer to many wetland
development problems, especially those located in urban areas.
The Washington State Growth Management Act works
toward increasing the density of already defined urban areas by
limiting their expansion. Our proposed mitigation bank will not
only work toward fulfilling the goals of growth management, but
-------
82 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
also to increase the inventory of high-quality estuarine wetlands
in the Snohomish River delta.
Regional wetlands management should now be ad-
dressed by all permitting authorities. The debate over what is
onsite and in-kind should now be refocused on what will work
for the region as a whole. Many projects are now currently
permitted with little or no environmental compensation pro-
vided. A regional mitigation banking program would promote a
"no net loss" of wetlands. Additionally, mitigation banking will
work toward more responsible utilization of existing urban areas,
while at the same time provide for quality wetlands restoration in
key areas that would benefit most.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
Habitat Banking in the North Fraser Harbour,
British Columbia
Gaiy L Williams
G.L. Williams & Associates Ltd., Coquitlam, B.C.
As part of the North Fraser Harbour Environmental
Management Plan, a cooperative initiative between the North
Fraser Harbour Commission and the Canada Department of
Fisheries and Oceans established in September 1988, the harbour
commission obtained approval to commence habitat compensa-
tion banking. This marked the first time habitat banking had
become formally recognized by the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans in Canada and became one of the main components of the
plan. This paper provides an overview of the habitat compensa-
tion banking process in the North Fraser Harbour, as it is cur-
rently being implemented.
As part of the environmental management plan, the
harbour commission and Department of Fisheries and Oceans
have completed a shoreline habitat inventory and classification
system to guide future harbour development. The rating system
consists of a three-color-coded classification based on the produc-
tivity of shoreline habitats (i.e., riparian vegetation, intertidal
marsh, unvegetated intertidal). Highly productive habitat is
coded red, moderately productive habitat coded yellow, and low-
productive habitat coded green. A traffic-light analogy was used
for the color coding; for example, stop at red or highly productive
habitat, caution in yellow or moderately productive habitat, and
proceed with normal mitigation in green coded habitat
The classification system is useful for harbour managers
as it attempts to steer future development away from highly
productive (red) habitat and provides developers with an indica-
tion of the level of mitigation and compensation required for
-------
84
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
development approval. Development in red areas is only permit-
ted if the productive capacity of the habitat is not reduced. The
habitat classification also involves categorizing the harbour into
five reaches based on ecological (e.g., fresh versus brackish water)
and administrative (e.g., municipal boundaries) criteria.
Under the current guidelines for habitat compensation
banking, habitat will be created by the North Fraser Harbour
Commission and habitat credits will be sold to approved devel-
opers, which require habitat compensation for waterfront devel-
opment projects. Habitat credits will normally only be available
to developers for project compensation in yellow or green zones.
The price of habitat credits to developers will be based on the cost
of constructing the habitat. Money from the sale of habitat credits
will used by the harbour commission to construct new habitats
for banking credits. Habitat credits will only become available
once the constructed habitat is proven to be viable, which is
estimated to take one to three growing seasons.
The Canadian approach to habitat banking is cautious
and provides a way to ensure habitat is created "up-front," prior
to it being required as compensation for a waterfront develop-
ment project. This complements the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans' national fish habitat policy and the working principle of
no net loss of habitat.
Habitat credits will usually be used in-kind (e.g., marsh
for marsh), although it may be possible to use more valuable
habitat credits to replace lesser value habitat (e.g., marsh for
unvegetated tideflat). At present, habitat compensation is deter-
mined on an areal basis for marsh and unvegetated tideflat, and
on linear length for riparian areas. Compensation ratios include 2
created: 1 destroyed for marsh, and 1:1 for tideflat and riparian.
Habitat credits can only be used for compensation purposes if
they are located in similar ecological zones of the harbour. For
example, upper reaches in the freshwater zone of the harbour
cannot be used for development in the lower, brackish zone, or
vice versa.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
85
One habitat banking site, currently in the detailed design
phase, is located within the Fraser Lands Riverfront Park situated
in southeast Vancouver. The banking site involves creation of
approximately 5,000 square meters (6,250 square yards) of inter-
tidal bench adjacent to a 400-meter-long (133 feet) section of
existing fringe marsh. The bench will be constructed by installing
a mid-tide-elevation, rock rip rap berm parallel to the shoreline,
backfilling behind the berm with silty sand and transplanting
sedge (Carex lyngbyei) plugs to create an intertidal marsh. As well
as providing marsh for banking purposes, the new habitat will
increase existing marsh areas for juvenile salmon and waterfowl,
provide a natural park feature, and help to reduce erosion of the
park shoreline. The design also calls for installing log boom
storage in front of the berm to provide the North Fraser Harbour
Commission and forestry industry with log storage, which will
also provide protection from boat wave erosion.
The project was approved by the city of Vancouver,
Vancouver Parks Department, and the harbour commission, but
log storage was opposed by upland residents who were con-
cerned with noise, impacts on views, and public safety. To
mitigate the residents concerns, log handling activities will be
restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and midnight, only longer term
storage will be permitted, and public access will be restricted by
storing logs in a minimum-low-water depth of 2 meters (6 feet).
The project is being viewed by many as an example of environ-
mentally and economically sustainable harbour development.
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
Designing Guidelines for Wetland Mitigation
Planning and Monitoring in King County
Mason Bowles
King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services, Seattle, Washington
Tina Miller
King County Surface Water Management Division
Seattle, Washington
The King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance established
specific provisions for protecting wetlands, including criteria for
classifying wetlands, mandatory buffers, and mitigation require-
ments for any alterations to wetlands or their buffers. The impe-
tus for developing guidelines for mitigation and monitoring plans
has been twofold. To begin with, as an adopted code the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance must be accompanied by administrative rules.
These rules detail the specific requirements that an activity must
meet in order to satisfy code. In addition, there is a need to
evaluate and assess the effectiveness of wetland mitigation
projects that have been permitted following adoption of the
ordinance.
This paper summarizes the rationale and standards that
have directed the development of guidelines for compensatory
wetland mitigation plans. The King County guidelines for wet-
land mitigation planning and for monitoring are organized
systematically so that increases in the scale and degree of alter-
ations to wetlands will trigger more detailed requirements
regarding project planning, implementation, and monitoring.
Three thresholds or levels of mitigation plan requirements have
been established that are successively integrated at the next or
higher level These guidelines were adopted and released in early
-------
Case Histories: Advanced Compensation
87
1993 (copies are available through the King County Department
of Development and Environmental Services, Seattle, Washing-
ton).
The guidelines, as they have been developed and are now
being revised, are oriented toward compensatory mitigation
involving the enhancement, restoration, and creation of
palustrine, nontidal wetlands. All plans must demonstrate that
they maintain or improve wetland hydrologic and biologic
values. The monitoring requirements address the frequency and
methods that must be used to determine the success of a mitiga-
tion project.
The process of developing guidelines for compensatory
wetland mitigation planning was based on specific goals, as well
as the need to resolve methodological and procedural issues
regarding monitoring.
Guideline Goals
• Efficient and consistent regulatory guidance for planning,
implementation, and monitoring.
• Standardized project report and plan design requirements.
• Capability to compare and learn from projects to determine
successful wetlands mitigation and restoration design
strategies.
Monitoring Issues
• How do we monitor?
• When do we monitor?
• Who monitors?
• What do we do with the data?
With the adoption of the guidelines for wetland mitiga-
tion planning and monitoring, volunteers will be trained to
perform a reconnaissance of wetland mitigation projects ap-
proved following adoption of the King County Sensitive Areas
Ordinance but prior to the implementation of these guidelines. As
a followup, selected projects will be more rigorously evaluated
utilizing the newly adopted wetland monitoring methodologies.
-------
88
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
This will help to determine whether they have achieved their
design goals and objectives.
Overall, it is hoped that the adoption of standardized
planning and monitoring guidelines, as well as the formation of a
network of community volunteer monitors will promote the
construction and stewardship of successful wetland mitigation
projects.
References
Hairston, A.J., ed. 1992. Wetlands: An Approach to Improving Decision Making
in Wetland Restoration and Creation. Corvallis, Oregon: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
Skokomish River Delta Restoration Project
Philip Jordi
Skokomish Indian Tribe, Shelton, Washington
Abstract
This paper is a summary of a cooperative project between
the Skokomish Indian Tribe, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Skokomish
Tribe is currently developing a restoration and management plan
for the Skokomish River delta estuary and wetlands. The goal of
the project is the restoration of the Skokomish River delta to a
natural state.
Background
The Skokomish River delta is part of a larger wetland
complex that includes upland, tideland, riverine, and estuarine
wetlands located on the Skokomish Indian Reservation at the
southern end of Hood Canal in rural Mason County, Washington.
The entire wetland complex encompasses over 800 hectares (2,000
acres) and is the largest estuary on Hood Canal.
The delta functions as habitat for fish, shellfish, and
wildlife. Eelgrass beds found in the estuary are especially impor-
tant in providing cover and food supply for juvenile salmon and
other species. The estuary is part of a major Pacific Coast flyway
for ducks, geese, swans, and shorebirds. It also provides habitat
for resident bald eagles, osprey, and numerous other wetland and
shorebirds.
The estuary was a traditional site for many cultural and
religious activities of the Twana people, who lived throughout the
Hood Canal region. Since time immemorial, the people of the
Skokomish Tribe have relied on the area's salmon, herring, smelt,
intertidal fish and shellfish, waterfowl, and game. The delta is
-------
90
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
also one of the last areas within the reservation where traditional
basket-makers can gather cattail, sweet grass, and cedar for their
craft
The name Skokomish means "people of the river." Many
historical accounts and legends relate the delta to large encamp-
ments where visitors from neighboring tribes gathered for social
and spiritual ceremonies.
The cumulative effects from agricultural diking and
draining, timber harvesting activities, and hydroelectric dams in
the upper Skokomish River watershed have caused enormous
losses to the ecological functions of the Skokomish River estuary.
The dewatering of the Skokomish River's north fork drainage by
Tacoma City Light's hydroelectric power project during the past
sixty years has altered the river system's stream flows and sedi-
ment transport. Alterations have decreased the Skokomish
wetlands by approximately one-third (from 39 to 10 square
kilometers; 15 to 4 square miles) and reduced its productive
capacity. Habitat destruction and loss of fisheries has signifi-
cantly impacted the livelihood of the Skokomish Tribe and the
people of Hood Canal who depend on the fisheries resources of
this region.
Skokomish River Delta
The delta property, which is entirely within the
Skokomish Reservation, includes approximately 160 hectares (400
acres) of upland delta and 240 hectares (600 acres) of adjacent
tidelands. During the 1930s, 11 kilometers (7 miles) of dikes and
an expansive drainage system were built on the Skokomish River
delta to assist landowners in their agricultural purposes. Conse-
quently, approximately half of the estuary's marshlands and tide
plains on the river's delta were destroyed. Dikes and levees
continue to restrict and concentrate stream flows and sediment
movement that normally would pass through the productive
zones of the adjacent surge and tide plains.
Since the 1960s, the farmland has fallen into disuse, as
seen by the broken tide gates and breached dikes. The
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
91
i
Skokomish Tribe's attempt to acquire the land through a congres-
sional appropriation in 1991 was undermined by the purchase of
the property by the city of Tacoma in 1993.
Delta Restoration Project
Restoration of the Skokomish River estuary to a naturally
functioning wetland ecosystem has been identified as a high
priority of the Skokomish Tribe. In 1988, an Environmental
Protection Agency study (1988) of diked estuarine wetlands in
Washington and Oregon identified the Skokomish River delta for
its high restoration potential and indicated that the natural tidal
influence of Hood Canal would readily restore the estuary if the
dikes were removed.
The Skokomish Tribe, with funding from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, contracted River Masters Engineering,
Inc. to conduct mapping and develop restoration alternatives for
the Skokomish River delta. During the first phase, field data were
collected. During the second phase, various maps were prepared
using autoCAD, which delineated the delta's prominent features
and topography. The third phase will outline the approaches and
phases in restoring the delta's natural functions.
The Skokomish Tribe has met with wetland specialists
from various natural resource agencies to solicit input and ideas
on restoration approaches and possible opportunities for coordi-
nation and collaboration. Wetland specialist Robert Frenkel from
Oregon State University and Charles Simenstad from the Univer-
sity of Washington will be working with the tribe to develop
restoration alternatives for the delta. Final restoration alternatives
will need to consider existing physical characteristics within the
estuary and river system; the interrelationships between biologi-
cal, physical, and chemical processes that occur in a natural
estuary; and the cultural and economic significance of the estuary
to the tribe.
The Skokomish delta restoration project is a cooperative
effort between the Skokomish Tribe, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the US. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is
-------
92
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
part of a comprehensive, reservationwide, estuary management
program.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Restoration Potential of Diked
Estuarine Wetlands in Washington and Oregon. EPA 910/9-88-9042. Corvallis,
Oregon: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Research Labora-
tory. October 1988.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
Dynamics of a Passive Saltmarsh Restoration
In the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon
Janet C. Morlan
Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, Oregon
A 22-hectare (55-acre) diked pasture in Oregon's Salmon
River estuary was restored to tidal influence in 1978 through
partial dike removal. The restoration site is owned and managed
by the US. Forest Service as part of the Cascade Head Scenic
Research Area with the objective of reestablishing the natural
saltmarsh.
A detailed baseline investigation was conducted from
1978 to 1980 by Diane Mitchell, a doctoral student at Oregon State
University. Robert Frenkel and I, with support from the US.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region 10), conducted a ten-
year follow-up evaluation of the restoration process through 1988.
Summary of Results
With restoration of tidal influence, there was a rapid die-
off of pasture species. Pacific silverweed and bentgrass (Potentilla
paciftca and Agrostis alba), prominent components of the wet
pasture community, remained as residual species at the higher
tidal elevations, but diminished or disappeared at lower eleva-
tions. Unvegetated soil was most extensive in 1980 as dead
pasture plant material was removed by tidal action. These bare
flats were revegetated by colonizing plant species that were
mostly absent in 1978, but comprised 31 percent cover by 1980
and 91 percent cover by 1988.
• Ephemeral colonizers sandspurry (Spergularia marinah alkali
grass (Puccinellia pumila), and brass buttons (Cotula
coronopifolia) never became abundant and did not persist,
disappearing completely by 1988.
-------
94
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
• Saltweed (Atriplex pa tula), the major colonizer in 1980,
remained as a widespread, minor component of the flora in
1988.
• Persistent colonizers pickleweed and Lyngbyei's sedge
(Salicornia virginica and Carex lyngbyei) gradually replaced
ephemeral colonizers, and both were dominant species by
1984.
• Seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum) has remained at a
constant, low level.
• Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), absent in 1980, was a significant
component by 1984.
• Carex lyngbyei clearly dominated the study site in 1988 (67
percent cover).
Changes in vegetation composition were rapid following
dike breaching; the three plant communities we identified in 1988
were well established by 1984. While there were substantial
compositional changes between 1984 and 1988, the changes
tended to strengthen, rather than alter, the community patterns
established by 1984.
• A POPA/AGAL (Potentilla pacifica/Agrostis alba) commu-
nity dominated by the residuals Potentilla pacifica and
Agrostis alba occurs at higher elevations of the restoration
site.
• Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) is also an important component.
• The CALY (Carex lyngbyei) community and SAVI/DISP
(Salicornia virginica/Distichlis spicata) community are coloniz-
ing communities within the low-transitional marsh zone.
The CALY community became less diverse over time. By
1988, it was a nearly monotypic (98 percent cover) stand of
Carex lyngbyei.
Although the CALY and SAVI/DISP communities
occupy a very similar elevational range, the SAVI/DISP commu-
nity is confined to the downriver portion of the restoration site
while the CALY community dominates the upriver two-thirds of
the site. We found that SAVI/DISP community soils are signifi-
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
95
cantly sandier and more saline than are CALY community soils.
Both Salicornia virginica and Distichlis spicata are positively corre-
lated with soil texture (percent sand) and soil-water salinity; Carex
lyngbyei is negatively correlated with sand and salinity.
These results indicate that while tidal elevation is a critical
controlling factor on saltmarsh plant community development
salinity and soil texture also influence species composition. It is
likely that potential vegetation at a restoration site can be reason-
ably well predicted by considering these three environmental
factors, along with proximity of propagules.
We estimated primary productivity from a single harvest
of above-ground biomass. Productivity of the diked pasture and
a relatively unaltered control saltmarsh in 1978 were nearly
identical at 1,200 grams per square meter per year dry weight In
1988, primary productivity of the restored marsh was Z300 grams
per square meter per year, almost double that of the pasture and
control saltmarsh.
Elevation surveys conducted in 1978 revealed that the
diked marsh surface had subsided an average of 35 centimeters
(1.1 foot) relative to adjacent undiked saltmarsh. We evaluated
restoration of surface elevation by:
• Resurveying the marsh surface in 1988 to obtain the abso-
lute change in surface elevation over the ten-year period.
• Coring into sand tags laid on the restoration site surface
after dike-breaching.
We found that surface elevation increased by only 5
centimeters (2 inches), a rate of 0.5 centimeters per year. Of the 5-
centimeter increase, 3.6 was due to accretion, largely of inorganic
sediments (63.5 percent).
Redevelopment of cattle-trampled tidal creeks was also
measured. Staked cross sections of eight tidal creeks were sur-
veyed in 1978 and again in 1988. Following dike removal, hh*1
activity began to scour the partially filled-in creeks, which became
both deeper and narrower. At the same time, sediments were
deposited on creek banks. The net effect was that creeks typically
deepened by 20 to 60 centimeters (8 to 24 inches) over the ten-year
period.
-------
96
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Our study suggests that the diked pasture has been
successfully restored to a functioning saltmarsh system. Tidal
circulation has been effectively reestablished, natural Pacific
Northwest saltmarsh plant communities became established
rapidly without planting, and the restored and revitalized marsh
is highly productive.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
Elk River Saltmarsh Restoration
Ronald M. Thorn
Battelle/Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington
Robert Zeigler
Washington State Department of Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington
This paper summarizes the ecological status of the
saltmarsh mitigation site located near Elk River in Grays Harbor,
Washington. In 1983, the Washington Department of Wildlife
acquired 23 hectares (57 acres) of diked saltmarsh as partial
mitigation for wetlands filled as part of the construction of Ocean
Shores Airport. In 1987, the dike was breached in two places for
the purpose of restoring saltwater flow into the system in order to
restore saltmarsh assemblages. The Department of Wildlife has
annually monitored the vegetation changes at permanent sites in
the system. Additional studies by the University of Washington
Wetland Ecosystem Team and Battelle/Marine Sciences Labora-
tory have resulted in a data set that can be used to characterize
changes that have occurred since the dike breaching.
Figure 1 shows that since 1987 saltmarsh plant species
have colonized areas formerly occupied by freshwater species.
The results of the monitoring indicate that the following changes
have occurred:
Hydrology
Salinity
Detritus
Waterfowl
Shorebirds
Otter*
Fish
Erosion
Accretion
Low marsh vegetation
Plant species diversity
Flushing
Salt pan area
Wetland area
Herbaceous cover
Macrophyte productivity
Efc use
Stability
-------
96
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
too ¦
K '
+ Mjcomw
/
ATM1EX
CAREX
PHWAIIK
1M7 MM ltd 1M0 1*1
Figure 1. Changes in the frequency of occurrence [tk percent] of major plant taxa in
permanent quadrats within the Elk River site.
In conclusion, the formerly diked marsh appears to be
changing to saltmaish, although unvegetated area remains
relatively high (about 20 percent). This latter condition may be
due to the fact that the site had subsided during the period of
diking. Accretion due to sedimentation and organic matter
deposition has occurred since dike breaching and is expected to
eventually increase marsh surface elevation to levels similar to
adjacent undiked areas. This will be coupled with expansion of
the saltmarsh vegetation to fill unvegetated areas.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
Integration of Eeigrass Biology into
Design of Restoration Projects
Sandy Wyllie Echeverria
Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Mary Ruckelshaus
Department of Botany, University of Washington, Seattle
This paper includes;
• A summary of existing data on eeigrass (Zostera marina L.)
reproductive, morphological, and genetic variability along
the west coast of North America.
• Discussion of how increasing knowledge of eeigrass biology
can be incorporated into effective design and implementa-
tion of restoration projects.
Section 404 of the Gean Water Act mandates mitigation
for loss of eeigrass meadows, which are increasingly Ming
victim to shoreline and nearshore development A common
method used to offset loss of eeigrass habitat is restoration
through transplantation of adults into previously uninhabited
tidal areas. Unfortunately, in spite of large expenditures of
money over the past ten years, success of eeigrass transplant
projects continues to be marginal (Thorn, 1990, but see Merkel
and Hoffman, 1990). It is our intent to offer new insight into
improving the success rate of eeigrass transplantation by summa-
rizing relevant aspects of eeigrass biology and suggesting areas
where our understanding of the biology is still inadequate.
It has long been recognized that eeigrass meadows
provide an important array of ecological functions/ including
provision of nursery habitat for economically and ecologically
important invertebrate and fish species, food for migratory
waterfowl and protection of nearshore sediments from erosion
(Phillips, 1984; Hoffman, 1986; Kitting and Wyllie Echevenla,
-------
100
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
1991). The continued destruction of such environments as a result
of human activities has reinforced the idea that the restoration of
these habitats can be enhanced by incorporating basic ecological
data into decision-making processes.
The main findings of our review ewe as follows:
Finding 1. Eelgrass exhibits a high degree of variation in
morphology, reproductive characteristics, and genetic composi-
tion at a number of spatial scales throughout its range on the west
coast of North America. Extremes in leaf width (1 to 20 millime-
ters), percent flowering shoots (10 to 100 percent), and genetic
variation (0 to 20 percent heterozygosity) exist both at the edges
of its latitudinal range (Alaska and Baja California) and within
Washington State waters (Phillips et al., 1983; Laushman et al., in
prep.)
Finding 2. Some of this variation may reflect local adapta-
tion, and so have a genetic basis. Results from transplant experi-
ments of adult plants into "foreign" versus "home" habitats show
no indication of local adaptation between tide zones within a
single embayment (Ruckelshaus, in prep.). In other words,
morphological and reproductive variation between tide zones
appears to be a response to environmental conditions. Trans-
plants of adults from environmentally different locations are
needed before local adaptation can be ruled out as a contributing
factor for the variation observed over larger scales (Backman,
1984). If a genetic basis to the variation is indicated by habitat-
specifk survival of eelgrass, choice of donor site for transplants
will be important (see finding 3).
Finding 3. The degree to which the variation in eelgrass
morphology, reproductive biology, and genetic makeup is
consistent at different spatial scales needs to be more adequately
assessed. Results from transplants performed at the within-bay
spatial scale suggest that donor plants chosen from locations near
the restoration site would have a good survival probability
(Merkel and Hoffman, 1990). Plants transplanted from more
distant habitats, on the other hand, appear to be less successful
(Fredette et al., 1987; Phillips and Wyllie Echeverria, in prep). In
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
101
short/ if survival is habitat-dependent the donor population
should be chosen depending on the environmental conditions of
both the donor and target sites.
In conclusion, we believe that the current rate of destruc-
tion of eelgrass habitat is unacceptable. However, to the extent
that mitigation is needed, we suggest the following consider-
ations in design of projects:
• Most criticism surrounding failed transplant projects has
focused on the lack of guidelines for selection of appropriate
planting sites. Inadequate criteria for use in selection of
donor populations is likely to be as critical to the success or
failure of a project. In particular, the success of restoration
projects may be greatly improved with more careful consid-
eration of the genetic composition of donor populations and
the environmental conditions of both donor and transplant
sites. To date, there has only been one study that followed
survivorship of genetically distinct individuals after trans-
plantation into "foreign" and "home" environments
(Ruckelshaus, in prep.), so generalizations about the extent
of local adaptation are not possible.
• More research on natural levels of genetic, reproductive,
and morphological variation in eelgrass is needed. In
particular, we need more information regarding how that
variation is related to survival in a variety of habitats.
The most effective way to maintain and promote develop-
ment of functioning eelgrass habitats is for scientists from
academia and resource agencies to work together. Although the
costs associated with destruction of eelgrass habitat are not
known, at a minimum, a number of commercially important
species will be negatively impacted. We hope that this review
illustrates the need for
• More scientific research into how natural levels of biological
variation in eelgrass relates to its survival.
• Greater communication between scientists in different
arenas to facilitate development of successful eelgrass
restoration projects.
-------
102
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Acknowledgments
Sandy acknowledges the support of Malcom Rea and
Harry Bader. He is also grateful for the continued support, in all
areas, from Tina, Victoria, Rebecca, and Tessa Wyllie Echeverria.
They provide valuable field assistance and intellectual brain-
storming. Mary thanks S. Williams and D. Schemske for contin-
ued moral and intellectual support in pursuit of understanding
eelgrass. The support of Washington Sea Grant for a portion of
this research is also gratefully acknowledged.
References
Backman, T.W.H. 1984. Phenotypic expressions of Zostera marina L. ecotypes
in Puget Sound, Washington. PhD. Dissertation, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Fredette, T.J., M.S. Fonseca, W.J. Kenworthy, and S. Wyllie Echeverria. 1987.
An investigation of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) transplanting feasibility in
San Francisco Bay, California. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
San Francisco District. 36 p.
Hoffman, R.S. 1986. Fisheries utilization of eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds
and non-vegetated shallow water areas in San Diego Bay. National Marine
Fisheries Service, SWR Administration Report. SWR-86-4. 29 p.
Kitting, C.K. and S. Wyllie Echeverria. 1991. Seagrasses of San Francisco
Bay: Status, management, and conservation needs. In: Natural Resources
Proceedings.
Laushman, R.L., M.H. Ruckelshaus, and S.L. Williams. In preparation.
Population genetics of aquatic plants: Allozyme variation within and among
populations of the seagrass Zostera marina L. (Zosteraceae).
Merkel, K.W. and R.S. Hoffman, eds. 1990. Proceedings of the California
Eelgrass Symposium, Chula Vista, California. California: Sweetwater River
Press.
Phillips, R.C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific North-
west: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS/-84/
24.
Phillips, R.C., W.S. Grant, and C.P. McRoy. 1983. Reproductive strategies of
eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) Aquatic Botany 16:1-20.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
103
Phillips, R.C. and S. Wyllie Echeverria. In preparation. Populational
structure of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in San Francisco Bay, California.
Ruckleshaus, M.H. In preparation. The causes of population genetic
structure in eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) meadows of northern Puget Sound,
Washington.
Thorn, R. 1990. A review of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) transplant projects
in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washing-
ton.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
Crab Mitigation in Grays Harbor Estuary
Bert Brun
US. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington
This paper is a summary of a mitigation project carried
out by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, with
local sponsor support from the Port of Grays Harbor. The project,
to provide enhanced habitat for young of the year (YOY) Dunge-
ness crabs on the tidal mudflats of Grays Harbor, Washington,
was implemented in order to mitigate for crabs lost when the
navigation improvement project was constructed in the area in
1990.
In addition to the local sponsor and the Corps of Engi-
neers, the crab mitigation project has been carried out with the
active participation of the following agencies: US. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Washington State Departments
of Fisheries, Ecology, Natural Resources, and Wildlife.
The crab mitigation project involves using dean oyster
shell as habitat for small crabs and is based on research conducted
at the University of Washington. The project has been carried out
in two stages, following general guidelines set forth in the envi-
ronmental impact statement (EIS) supplement published in
February 1989. The first stage consisted of experimental place-
ment of shell set out at four 0.4-hectare (1-acre) sites in 1990 and
eleven total sites in 1991 (these sites varied in size between 30 by
30 meters and 15 by 15 meters; 33 by 33 and 16.5 by 16.5 yards).
Avoiding eelgrass impacts was a major factor in site selection. By
August 1991, the principal monitoring objectives were completed:
determining the density of crab present and estimating the
amount of shell left viable.
Results after the two years of test plots indicated that
where shell persisted, crab productivity exceeded the target
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
105
figure in the EE supplement of 10 per square meter. In 1990,
more than 20 per square meter were present in August In 1991/
there were about 50 per square meter at the only two sites where
enough shell remained to seriously consider for future placement
These two sites, one termed "Pac Man" in the North Bay, the
other in the South Channel (a continued sampling site from 1990)
have 40 and 30 percent shell present, respectively.
During April and May 1992, shell was placed on 6 hect-
ares (14.7 acres) at a new adjacent site and on 2 hectares (53
acres) at the Pac Man site. Initial estimates of shell retention taken
in June 1992 show 69 percent at South Channel and 31 percent at
Pac Man. Crab density estimates at South Channel were about 40
per square meter. Crab density estimates were higher at Pac Man
(up to 80 per square meter), even with lower shell retention.
Since 1990, the Corps of Engineers' crab mitigation work
has resulted in much additional knowledge regarding survival of
young Dungeness crab in tidal mudflats using the enhanced
habitat. In addition, more effective techniques for placing the
oyster shell habitat material have been perfected. Mitigation
targets are being met, and the Corps will continue intensive
monitoring efforts for four of the first eleven project years, and
less intensive efforts for the intervening years. A fifty-year shell
maintenance program will also be undertaken by the Corps of
Engineers.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
Changing Perspectives on Wetland
Restoration: Bolsa Chica Lowland, 1970-1992
Keith Macdonald
CH2M Hill, Bellevue, Washington
Wetlands restoration planning and implementation have
become substantially more complex over the past twenty years.
The range of relevant planning issues and regulatory require-
ments has greatly expanded and public involvement has become
increasingly important for project success. Evolution of Bolsa
Chica Lowlands (Orange County, California) coastal wetlands
restoration plan, from 1970 to the present, provides an informa-
tive example of the critical components and changing require-
ments of a major restoration program. This papa- describes eight
components most critical to successful wetlands restoration. Each
section highlights changing requirements and perspectives
regarding the various components that have directly influenced
restoration planning at Bolsa Chica.
Background
A century ago, Bolsa Chica Lowland was occupied by a
pristine estuarine saltmaish complex (approximately 792 hect-
ares; 1,980 acres) open directly to the Pacific Ocean. The ocean
entrance was closed in 1899 and the site subsequently developed,
first as a duck-hunting gun club and later as part of the Hunting-
ton Beach oil field. In 1970, planning began to convert the de-
graded estuary into a waterfront residential community
(Macdonald et al., 1987).
Vision
Wetland restoration planning can only begin when
someone has recognized a site's potential and created a vision of
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
107
what it could become. Transforming the vision into reality then
becomes the driving force behind restoration design and imple-
mentation.
The initial Bolsa Chica development plan (1970) incorpo-
rated a 40-hectare (100-acre) wildlife preserve to be conveyed to
the state, partly to resolve conflicting title claims and "to amelio-
rate any adverse effects on the flora or fauna... from develop-
ment." During the 1970s, as regional development expanded and
open space declined, local residents increasingly saw larger-scale
wetlands protection and enhancement as a desirable means of
preserving Bolsa Chica.
Persistence and Commitment
The persistence and commitment of project proponents is
critical because planning and implementing a major wetland
restoration project typically requires several years. The design
process is slow, requiring increasingly specific plans to be devel-
oped by a multidisciplinary team. Achieving consensus among
the numerous overlapping jurisdictions that typically must
approve and permit a wetland restoration project is also slow.
The Bolsa Chica restoration has been in progress for
twenty years. Early plans were especially controversial offering
limited mitigation for a major development. Tidal action was
successfully restored to the state ecological reserve, presently 60
hectares (150 acres) in 1978, but an additional 340-hectare (850-
acre) restoration is only now moving through the permit process.
Restoration Site
Every wetlands restoration project requires an appropri-
ate site - but ownership, legal title, and any easements, must be
checked prior to the planning process. Bolsa Chica offers an
unusual twist in this regard. Bolsa Chica Gun Club obtained title
to the estuary tidelands under the state Tidelands Overflow and
Reclamation Act. This gave the club legal authority to "reclaim"
the saltmarshes and mudflats for other uses. Further, since
original ownership was as a Spanish land grant it was assumed
-------
106
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
this would preclude any subsequent state claims. As develop-
ment planning proceeded, California reasserted its ownership
interest in the former tidelands. An out of court settlement (1973)
potentially conveyed 223 hectares (557 acres) to the state for
wetlands restoration and a public marina in exchange for clear
title to the remaining lowland.
Functional Site History
Reconstructing a detailed site history from old maps,
aerial photos, and local records can provide critical data on how
and why site configuration, functions, and values have all
changed. Recognizing and reversing these trends to restore a
disturbed or degraded wetland to its earlier historical condition
often provides a practical framework for restoration planning.
Bolsa Chica has been successively impacted by regional
agriculture (altered groundwater hydrology), the Gun Gub
(closed ocean inlet, built duck ponds), oil field development
(roadway fill, further disrupted surface drainage, waste disposal),
and surrounding urbanization. Reversal of these changes began
in 1978 with the opening of the state ecological reserve.
Regulatory Requirements
Wetlands restoration must be accomplished within an
increasingly complex and constantly evolving regulatory frame-
work, usually reflecting the concerns and responsibilities of
overlapping local, state and federal jurisdictions. Some major
regulatory milestones have been enacted since the Bolsa Chica
project was initiated. They include:
• The National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
• The California Environmental Quality Act (1970)
The California Coastal Initiative (1972)
The Endangered Species Act (1972)
The federal Clean Water Act (1977)
Executive Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains (1977)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1979)
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
109
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wetlands Delineation
Manual (1987)
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army
Corps of Engineers mitigation policy (1990)
• The Cortese Bill (California), which requires monitoring of
mitigation measures associated with development impacts
(1989)
Public Involvement
The past twenty years have seen wetlands restoration
grow from a modest academic and resource agency concern into
a highly visible activity strongly supported by knowledgeable
and effective public interest groups. Generating and focusing
public involvement is now a critical prerequisite to both success-
ful planning and receipt of regulatory approvals for a restoration
program. During the 1970s, attorneys dominated the negotiations
between Bolsa Chica's owners and public resource agencies. In
the early 1980s, an attempt at multiagency and interest group
consensus-building fell short, and the project stalled. Subsequent
emergence of a local citizens' group, "Amigos de Bolsa Chica/'
provided new initiatives and support culminating in the "Bolsa
Chica Planning Coalition/' Restoration alternatives developed by
the coalition, which now include 400 hectares (1,000 acres) of fully
functioning wetlands, are presently moving through the permit
approval process.
Planning Strategies
Having developed the vision for a wetland restoration,
how does one get there? Monitoring studies cite an inappropriate
physical environment (topography, soils, and surface and
groundwater hydrology) as the most common cause of restora-
tion failure. While engineers usually claim the ability "to do
anything the biologists want," the biologists are often at a loss to
provide appropriate, rigorous, engineering specifications for
restoration design.
-------
no
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Top-down planning (Macdonald, 1989) proved a useful
strategy for Bolsa Chica. The process focuses on "evaluation
species." These are higher trophic-level species that typically
utilize the (micro) habitat being restored. Habitat characteristics
necessary for species success are identified, followed by the
ranges of physical parameters necessary to sustain these habitat
characteristics. Achieving these physical parameter ranges then
becomes the focus of engineering design.
Actual restoration passes through the reverse sequence:
physical environment > plant community > faunal assemblage.
Satisfactory achievement of each step, measured against control
sites, provides the basis for defining criteria of success and moni-
toring requirements.
Financing
Restoration costs vary tremendously. Returning tidal
flow to reclaimed farmland, followed by natural revegetation, can
provide effective low-cost restoration. Restoring a badly de-
graded site or creating wetland from upland can cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars/acre, with land purchase, grading, and
offsite spoil disposal the most expensive items.
Restoration financing has changed dramatically in the
past twenty years. Initially (1970), Bolsa Chica was to be funded
entirely by the developer. Following the State Land Exchange
Agreement (1973), the Corps of Engineers was to build the public
marina while the state was to fund the 140-hectare (350-acre)
marsh restoration. In 1984, the California Coastal Conservancy
recommended the restoration be expanded to 366 hectares (915
acres), but public funds had evaporated and costs were to be
bome by a local assessment district. Today, new players have
stepped forward to underwrite wetland restoration costs - port
districts, public utilities, and highway departments, for example -
thus providing mitigation for their own offsite development
projects.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
111
Summary
Early wetland restorations were seen as rather academic,
principally biological programs. Regulatory requirements/ public
perspectives/ and restoration costs have all changed dramatically.
To be successful today/ a major wetlands restoration program
requires a truly interdisciplinary planning and implementation
team and needs to encompass each of the components outlined
above.
References
Macdonald, K.B. 1989. Top-down planning: An integrated approach to
restoration goals, criteria for success and monitoring in coastal wetlands.
Society of Ecological Restoration & Management, Annual Meeting, January
16-20,1989. Oakland, California. 10 p.
Macdonald, K.B., T.W. Bilhorn, and C.R. Feldmeth. 1987. Cumulative
impacts of historical hydrologic changes, Bolsa Chica Lowland, Orange
County, California. In Proceedings of the National Wetlands Symposium:
Wetland Hydrology. J.A. Kusler and C. Brooks, eds. Pp. 91-98. September 16-
18,1987. Chicago, Illinois.
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
The Politics Of Wetland Restoration:
Two Case Histories
EricMetz
W&H Pacific, Inc., Bellevue, Washington
This paper highlights the political lessons learned from
my experience as staff project manager with the National
Audubon Society for the Ballona Wetland Project (1985-1990) and
as consultant to the Oregon Department of Transportation setting
up a wetland mitigation bank (Dalton Lake).
Ballona Wetland Restoration Project
Ballona (pronounced "buy-owna") is located in west Los
Angeles, California, with Playa del Rey to the west, Marina del
Rey to the north, Los Angeles International Airport to the south,
and Culver City to the east. The objective of the project was to
restore and develop a natural history interpretive program for a
87-hectare (216-acre) coastal wetland system, including both salt-
and freshwater marsh, coastal strand, coastal sage scrub, and
grassland savannah communities.
The National Audubon Society became embroiled in
controversy as a result of conflicts with a local environmental
group known as the "Friends of Ballona Wetlands," over how
many acres of wetlands were acceptable as mitigation for a 400-
hectare (1,000-acre) development known as "Playa Vista."
Audubon had a contract with the Summa Corporation to conduct
the planning, which would have fully funded Audubon to restore
the wetland. This was not to be. Summa sold the project to a
different developer, and the local political support for the Friends
of Ballona Wetlands solidified. As a result, Audubon's contract
was not renewed by the new developer.
Summa had invested about $1 million in the wetland
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
113
project up to that point, and Audubon had invested about five
years of its time and its national reputation. But Audubon never
restored the wetland, and Summa never received the mitigation
credit.
Dalton Lake Wetland Mitigation Bank
Recent experience (1991-present) with planning a wetland
mitigation bank for the Oregon Department of Transportation
shows that the political problems that faced Summa and
Audubon can be avoided with strategic planning. Dalton Lake is
located 200 to 600 meters (220 to 660 yards) from the Columbia
River, in Columbia County, Oregon, between the cities of Colum-
bia City to the north and St. Helens to the south. Dalton Lake is a
shallow freshwater lake (1-meter [1.1-yard] depth) and approxi-
mately 10.8 hectares (26.6 acres) in size. The Dalton Lake water-
shed is approximately 263 hectares (650 acres).
The Oregon Department of Transportation plans to
acquire the wetland and adjacent uplands. The department will
restore, enhance, and manage the wetland until its full mitigation
potential has been realized, then the site will be turned over to a
third party for permanent management.
There is no dispute over the size of the habitat area, and
the entire ecosystem would be protected. The principle issue is
how much mitigation credit the resource management agencies
will grant for the transportation department's road projects in
Region 1, given various levels of management and cost The
mitigation bank will only be tapped if the department has fully
evaluated project alternatives to avoid or minimize wetland
impacts.
Lessons Learned
Large-scale restoration projects can be the most ecologi-
cally significant and cost-effective approach to wetland mitiga-
tion, but must be managed from both a scientific and a political
perspective.
-------
114
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Wetland mitigation can be carried out successfully at a large
visionary scale if project proponents realize that politics,
perceptions, and people's feelings must be taken into ac-
count up-front.
Public resource management agencies and environmental
groups need to be realistic in advocating the ''ideal" solu-
tion. If the solution is too complex, and the coalition of
decision makers and "influential participants" too vast and
diverse, gridlock will result despite everyone's best inten-
tions.
The agenda must be focused on mitigation, not linked to
multiple secondary agendas. That is, all parties must agree
that the basic premise of mitigation is valid, that all means
have been taken to identify and protect all jurisdictional
wetlands, and that all wetland impacts have been avoided
or minimized to the maximum extent possible. If there is no
agreement on these points, or on a specific plan to resolve
these issues in a timely manner, it is futile to proceed any
further with mitigation planning (see also the following
conclusion).
If mitigation banks or large-scale restoration/mitigation
projects will be used for especially controversial projects,
the mitigation plan will be just as controversial. Until there
has been full and open public disclosure of development
plans, with an adequate environmental review process,
technical studies prepared on habitat assessment or restora-
tion will be called into question, regardless of the credibility
of the authors, no matter how good the mitigation plan
appears to be.
1 Up-front costs for a large-scale restoration project or mitiga-
tion bank can be very high. Some planning is necessary
before the project proponent can determine if the project
will be cost effective. There is inherent risk at this stage for
the project proponent. Early indications must be obtained
from the resource management agencies that a mitigation
-------
Case Histories: Estuarine Studies
US
banking scheme could be acceptable, and under what
conditions.
Resource management agencies must be provided incen-
tives to support mitigation banks. It must be demonstrated
that there will be a net increase in wetland functions and
values, participating in the planning process will save time
in the long run, and that the quality of the proposed pro-
gram is extraordinarily high compared to the alternative of
accepting scattered, isolated 0.4-hectare (1-acre) wetland
mitigation projects that are never properly monitored.
Generally, the mitigation project must be in the same drain-
age basin where the losses are occurring.
Large-scale mitigation planning is for more cost effective on
a per-acre basis than project-by-project mitigation, is less
time consuming in the long-run for all involved, and in the
majority of cases will be the best solution for the environ-
ment.
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
Tumble Creek Road Obliteration Project
Dallas Hughes and Earl Ford
Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Randle, Washington
This paper is a summary of a road obliteration project that
was undertaken to improve water quality and watershed health
conditions in the Tumble Creek drainage/ administered by
Randle Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Wash-
ington State.
The project was planned by Randle Ranger District
personnel. Funds were provided by the U.S. Forest Service,
Region 6. A total of $76,000 was spent to obliterate 35 kilometers
(22 miles) of road. The work was planned in Tumble Creek
because there are more roads than needed for future manage-
ment, many of the existing roads are significant contributors of
sediment to Tumble Creek and/or have high potential for future
sedimentation, these roads have high maintenance costs, and
road maintenance funding is rapidly decreasing. Lands in the
Tumble Creek drainage were recently acquired in a land ex-
change with private timber companies. The Forest Service
inherited an extensive, resource-threatening road system on
steep, unstable slopes. Fill slope failures are numerous. Nearly
all of the timber has been harvested.
The obliteration work primarily consisted of.
• Excavating unstable fill slopes and placing this material
against cut slopes (largely restoring the original contour).
• Removing all culverts at stream crossings/ as well as ditch
relief culverts.
• Revegetating the disturbed soil with grass.
This work was accomplished in fiscal year 1992.
Ideally/ the road obliteration work would have been
accomplished following a comprehensive evaluation of existing
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
117
watershed conditions and a complete inventory of projects
needed to restore all aspects of watershed health. This second
phase of work will be accomplished in fiscal year 1993 with funds
expected to be received from the US Environmental Protection
Agency (the estimated cost is $12,000).
The ultimate goals in Tumble Creek are:
• A complete watershed health assessment.
• Inventory of needed improvement projects.
• Implementation of these improvement projects.
• Monitoring of project effectiveness.
• Development of an educational component.
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
Mil Creek Special Area Management Plan
Michael Scuderi
US. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
The Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
area is located in southern King County, Washington, approxi-
mately 24 kilometers (15 miles) south of the city of Seattle, in the
Kent Valley and the adjacent Federal Way plateau to the west
The majority of the undeveloped land in the 36-square-kilometer
(22-square-mile) Mill Creek watershed is jurisdictional wetland.
Intense pressure exists to develop commercial and residential
establishments in the remaining wetlands on the valley bottom,
plateau, and hillside.
In 1988, the city of Auburn, Washington, which is located
in the SAMP area, contacted the US. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch requesting assistance in planning for the
wetland resources of the area. From this initial request, the Mill
Creek SAMP was started. SAMPs are authorized under the 1980
amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act.
The goal of the Mill Creek SAMP is to develop a wetland
management plan that balances "no net loss" of the basin's
wetland functions and values with reasonable economic develop-
ment. In the plan, wetlands adjacent to and buffering Mill Creek,
and/or of high quality, would be identified for preservation and
enhancement. Low-quality wetlands that are isolated or not
connected to Mill Creek would be allowed to be developed.
No net loss of acreage was an unrealistic goal because of
the lack of upland mitigation sites in the basin. In addition,
existing wetlands in the watershed are in various degraded states
and could benefit from enhancement measures, which would
increase their value. Through the preservation and enhancement
of the Mill Creek corridor, a complete, higher quality - though
smaller - system would be maintained. In addition, the SAMP is
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
119
being dovetailed with ongoing flood control efforts (which
emphasize restricting development in the 100-year floodplain),
and a water quality enhancement plan for the creek.
Consistency would be provided to both developers and
preservation interests in that wetlands which would be preserved
and developed would be identified, with mitigation requirements
determined up-front for any wetland fill project. Advanced
coordination between federal, state, and local agencies would
expedite permit processing for wetland projects covered by the
wetland management plan.
The plan of study was finalized in August 1990, with a
projected study completion by June 1993. An interagency group
was formed consisting of staff members from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and Soil
Conservation Service; the Washington State Departments of
Ecology, Fisheries, and Wildlife; and the Planning and Public
Works Departments of King County and the cities of Auburn,
and Kent. The group was to develop the wetland management
plan and corresponding regional permit from the Corps of
Engineers.
To date, an inventory of the watershed, which identified
128 wetlands over 440 hectares (1,100 acres), and a functions and
values assessment (Wetland Evaluation Technique, or WET
[1987]) for each wetland has been conducted. Based on the WET
assessment, the interagency team is developing a wetland man-
agement plan, which includes a restoration plan for the Mill
Creek corridor. When completed, the plan will identify wetlands
adjacent to Mill Creek that will be targeted for preservation and
enhancement. These wetlands will form the core of the Mill
Creek corridor. When completed, the plan will identify wetlands
adjacent to Mill Creek that will be targeted for preservation and
enhancement. These wetlands will form the core of the Mill
Creek corridor. Wetlands that are of low quality and not adjacent
to the Mill Creek corridor will be allowed to be developed, with
mitigation occurring in the Mill Creek corridor improving the
quality and viability of the corridor for fish, wildlife, flood con-
-------
120
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
trol, and water quality.
The use of a SAMP presents a good opportunity to
develop consistency between all levels of wetland management.
One important benefit of the SAMP will be to direct development
away from sensitive areas and avoid piecemealing the remaining
wetlands of the area. Once this pilot project is completed, the
Corps hopes to conduct additional SAMPs in other areas in
Washington State where development pressures are severe. Each
SAMP will have to be tailored to the unique characteristics of the
particular area (ideally watershed). In many cases, no net loss of
wetland acreage should be possible. The key is to create complete
systems and avoid piecemealing, which decreases the viability of
an area's wetlands.
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
An Approach to Improving Decision Making
In Wetland Restoration and Creation
Mary E. Kentula
Wetlands Research Program, US. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon
This paper presents an overview of An Approach to
Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation, a
recent publication of the US. Environmental Protection Agency's
Wetlands Research Program. This approach uses data from a
monitoring program, including both natural wetlands and those
restored and created, to develop performance criteria, track the
development of projects, and suggest improvements in the design
of future projects.
For the past five years, scientists in association with the
Wetlands Research Program have been developing the approach
by comparing the characteristics of mitigation projects and
natural wetlands to test methods for data collection and to evalu-
ate project design and compliance with permit conditions. In
order to evaluate the techniques, compare the findings from all
studies, and use the results to refine the approach, many of the
same methods were used in studies in Connecticut; Tampa,
Florida; Portland, Oregon; and Seaside, Oregon,
The projects studied were typically less than or equal to
five-years old, and the majority were what is probably the most
common freshwater mitigation project nationally - a pond with a
fringe of emergent marsh. The Wetlands Research Program
chose this type of project because they were abundant compris-
ing a major proportion of the compensatory mitigation projects
required nationally under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Because the approach was developed in freshwater systems, tbe
monitoring techniques and examples presented will bmferxttoot
-------
122
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
readily to freshwater nontidal wetlands. However, application of
the approach is not limited to either mitigation projects or fresh-
water nontidal wetlands; it is determined by the needs of the
agency or organization involved and, ultimately, the status of the
wetland resource.
The Wetlands Research Program approach is based on the
assumption that natural wetlands in a region can be used as
models to define the standards for restoration and creation
projects. Comparison of wetland projects with natural wetlands
located in a similar land use setting and, therefore exposed to
similar ecological conditions, is important to ensure that what is
"expected" of a project is within the bounds of possible perfor-
mance. Major recommendations are to:
• Use information in project files to guide decision making.
• Target areas at greatest risk.
• Base the level of effort used in monitoring on information
needs.
• Consider the landscape setting of the wetlands when defin-
ing the populations to be compared.
• Use the characteristics of natural wetlands and wetland
projects to define the standard.
• Make the process of setting performance criteria and defin-
ing design guidelines iterative.
Chapter 1 of An Approach to Improving Decision Making in
Wetland Restoration and Creation presents an overview of the
Wetlands Research Program approach. This includes discussion
of the above recommendations and the major analytical tool of
the approach, the performance curve. The performance curve
documents the development of the ecological function of wetland
projects over time relative to similar natural wetlands. Chapter 2
details how to use the information from project files in decision
making. Chapter 3 describes a method for sampling populations
of projects and natural wetlands to select sites for study. Target-
ing efforts to areas where the resource is, or is predicted to be, at
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
123
risk is also discussed.
Chapter 4 presents a post-construction monitoring strat-
egy that recommends three levels of sampling depending on the
age and goals of the project, documentation of as-built condi-
tions, routine assessments, and comprehensive assessments. For
each of the variables suggested, a brief rationale relating it to
wetland function is provided. The special insert, Volunteers and
Natural Resource Monitoring, which follows Chapter 4, presents
how to train and coordinate a group of citizen volunteers to assist
in long-term monitoring. In Chapter 5 statistical methods are
outlined for data manipulation that will enable resource manag-
ers to organize incoming data to track the progress of projects,
and to develop criteria for the evaluation of future projects.
Graphical displays are used to illustrate how to evaluate projects
and set performance criteria. Finally, Chapter 6 illustrates how
data collected from local natural wetlands can, and should, be
used to improve the design of projects.
We have developed the Wetlands Research Program
approach to help anyone working to protect the wetland re-
source. We use past data from restoration or creation projects as a
management tool to improve decision making and, thereby, the
ability to restore and create wetlands in the future. Our philoso-
phy is that by looking at the surrounding land use, comparable
natural wetlands, and similar projects, you can design wetland
projects with a better chance of long-term success. Determining
the effects of different land uses on wetland function will be a
major theme of our upcoming research. Such information will be
important to both the protection of the wetland resource and the
success of restoration and creation projects. With knowledge of
the effects of surrounding land uses, appropriate management
strategies can be employed to protect key wetlands. In addition,
knowing how present and projected development of an area will
affect wetland function can influence decisions on how to priori-
tize restoration sites for maximum ecological benefits.
Fundamentally, as we plan and implement new studies
we will continue to treat existing projects as experiments in
-------
124
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
progress and to promote the idea that we all must
... learn by going where we need to go...
Theodore Roethke
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
Intertidal Habitat Restoration
In the Duwamish River Estuary
Curtis D. Tanner
US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington
This paper presents a summary of the impetus, approach,
find results of an estuarywide inventory and analysis of potential
intertidal habitat restoration sites in the Duwamish River estuary.
The study was supported by a grant from the US. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Port of Seattle. The Environmental
Protection Agency was supportive of the proposal because
noncompensatory habitat restoration is expected to become an
increasingly important aspect of its wetland protection program.
Port officials found the idea to be beneficial because it may allow
them to develop a more comprehensive approach to mitigation,
identifying options not previously perceived.
Habitat restoration in urban areas is generally constrained
by lack of alternatives, extensive environmental degradation, and
cost. Urban estuarine systems may be so altered as to no longer
provide the important ecological functions that support a variety
of estuarine-dependent organisms. Overcoming the cumulative
impacts of historic habitat loss and restoring system function will
require an estuarywide approach. Habitat restoration goals
should be developed based on an assessment of current condi-
tions and limiting factors, resource needs, and critical deficiencies,
and a long-term vision of resource recovery. These goals should
identify specific locations within the estuary appropriate for
restoration projects, and the particular type(s) of habitat to be
located at a potential restoration site.
Toward this end, a study was undertaken to identify the
range of options for habitat restoration project [siting] within the
Duwamish River estuary. Potential restoration sites were identi-
-------
126
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
fied as undeveloped shoreline parcels 0.4 hectare (1 acre) in size
or larger. The study area was defined to incorporate the entire
Duwamish River estuary. The upper boundary was the up-
stream extent of salinity intrusion during average low flow, the
lower extent was defined as a line closing Elliott Bay, from
Duwamish Head to Four Mile Rock. Sites were first located by
analyzing aerial photographs. Delineations were verified
through site visits from both landward and waterward sides.
Spatial data for the project was developed in a geographic
information systems (GIS) format. This was accomplished by:
• Obtaining a digital base map of the project area from the
City of Seattle Engineering Department.
• Adding the location and classification of the shoreline to the
GIS data set.
• Transferring potential restoration sites location from the
photos to the digital map.
• Identifying existing habitat areas (wooded upland and
riparian, wetlands, unvegetated intertidal flats).
• Including the location of potential sources of contaminants
(i.e., city of Seattle and Metro [Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle] combined sewer outfalls and storm drains).
In addition to spatial data, a variety of other site-specific
information was developed for the report, including:
• Size
• Ownership
• Historical information (i.e., historic wetland type and land
use)
• Elevation
• Adjacent land use
• Site description
• Possible restoration activities
This information, along with a map produced in ARC/
INFO (Environmental Protection Agency GIS) showing the
location of potential restoration sites and other geographic data,
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
127
was published following completion of the study (Tanner, 1991).
To summarize, 24 potential restoration sites were identified
ranging in size from 0.3 to 10 hectares (0.8 to 25.2 acres). Half of
these sites were in public ownership, which may increase feasibil-
ity of implementing restoration activities. Many of the sites
benefited from proximity to other habitat areas, and/or proximity
to other potential restoration sites. Conversely, habitat potential
for several of the sites may be compromised by proximity to
possible sources of environmental contaminants.
Despite the highly urbanized nature of the Duwamish
River estuary, this study has demonstrated that both the opportu-
nity and impetus exist to achieve meaningful habitat restoration
in this system. The challenges of restoration in the urban environ-
ment are significant. However, knowing that both motive and
opportunity exist, it would be irresponsible to do anything less
than taking our best shot at assisting the recovery of these dam-
aged systems. Success will require a system wide approach to
wetland restoration and an increased emphasis on
noncompensatory habitat restoration.
Reference
Tanner, C.D. 1991. Potential intertidal habitat restoration sites in the
Duwamish River estuary. Prepared for Port of Seattle Engineering Depart-
ment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Evaluations
Branch, Seattle, Washington.
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restorations
Wetland Restoration Efforts
In the Willamette Valley
Rob Tracey
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
McMinnville, Oregon
This paper relates my experiences with wetland restora-
tion efforts on private land in the northern Willamette Valley:
how sites are located, how funding packages are developed, and
how design and implementation proceeds. These relatively small
projects are often cooperative efforts between the Soil Conserva-
tion Service and various other county, state, and federal entities.
The interest in this type of project is increasing dramatically, and
while there is a relatively large number of landowners anxious to
restore wetlands on their private lands, lack of adequate funding
often limits application. The ability to utilize grants and funding
from the various agencies often results in a project that would not
be able to succeed without extensive cooperation.
Because of the Soil Conservation Service's long history of
assistance to private landowners with resource conservation
needs, this agency is often the first place a landowner will inquire
about obtaining assistance with a restoration effort After an
initial evaluation, we attempt to recruit help from whatever
agency may be interested. We have been able to utilize the
technical assistance of the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Yamhill Soil
and Water Conservation District. We have received funding for
these projects from the federal and state fish and wildlife agen-
cies, the US. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, and the Oregon Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board.
-------
Case Histories: Landscape-scale Restoration
129
These projects have been implemented throughout the
Willamette Valley. I am familiar with those established primarily
in Yamhill County and neighboring Polk County. These projects,
range in size from 1 to 10 hectares (3 to 25 acres). The results of
this work remain largely to be seen. While it is one thing to
construct a low dike or excavate a depression to create a shallow-
water area, it is quite another to restore a functioning wetland
ecosystem. We will continue to monitor the projects we have
constructed and adjust our installation and maintenance proce-
dures as needed.
-------
Case Histories: Lefs Get Technical
Restoration of Placer-mined Wetlands
In Interior Alaska
David Cooper
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State
University, Fbrt Collins, Colorado
The research summarized here is an attempt to use
ecological theory in the development of a plan for the restoration
of a placer-mined stretch of Birch Creek in the interior of Alaska.
This is a cooperative project between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Bureau of Land Management. The
study site is located along the Steese Highway, 158 kilometers (99
miles) north of Fairbanks and is a few miles upstream from the
National Wild and Scenic River portion of Birch Creek.
Much of Birch Creek's headwaters has been mined, and
little successful reclamation has occurred. Mining for placer gold
requires excavating stream alluvium and has resulted in valley
bottoms that look like sand boxes, with many tall, unstable piles
and sediment ponds in the area. Streams are unstable or
channelized, and erosion mobilizes sediment from unstable
banks, which degrades stream water quality. Little natural
revegetation occurs because the tailings piles are high above the
water table and are dry.
Successional models for riparian ecosystems provide an
understanding of how valley bottoms are revegetated as streams
meander and permafrost melts then reforms. We are employing
these models to develop our restoration plan. We feel that the
bottleneck is in initiating succession because the sites lack organic
matter and are too dry to establish plants such as felt-leaf willow
from seed (major mode of reproduction). We established study
plots in 1990 and 1991 to determine whether we could establish a
plant cover of felt-leaf willow from seed in plots that were dry by
-------
Case Histories: Let's Get Technical
131
using different combinations of soil amendments and watering
regimes using sprinklers.
Analysis of variance of the large data set indicates that
water at least twice a week and the addition of some peat on the
soil surface are statistically significant treatments. Using these
data we can design relatively inexpensive restoration techniques
using a combination of regrading, stable stream channel design,
peat application, and watering for one summer to initiate primary
succession. Once successful treatment is initiated we feel that, in
most areas, restoration would proceed on its own to produce the
types of natural plant communities that occurred on these sites
prior to mining. We hope to do a pilot project to test these meth-
ods on approximately 0.8 kilometer (one-half mile) of stream
during 1993 and 1994.
-------
Case Histories: Lefs Get Technical
Evaluation Techniques for Restoration: Using
Functions and Values in Restoration Plans
Kenneth R. Brunner
US. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington
This paper tends to be more a philosophical discussion
than an expression of actual application. This is because I feel that
an understanding of the reasons for using tools is necessary
before one actually uses them. So this paper is a background of
two methods: the Wetland Evaluation Technique (appropriately,
"WET" for short), and the Washington Department of Ecology
wetland rating methods (WDOE method).
Paul Adamus is the genius behind WET, which is the first
scientific method developed to assess functions and values of
wetlands. Paul developed what he considered to be a rather
rough draft for the Federal Highway Administration in 1982,
which published it as a final report in March, 1983, without
benefit of review (it has since been revised by the Corps of Engi-
neers' Waterways Experiment Station [Adamus et al., 1987]).
Nevertheless, this report ushered in the era of wetland functions
and values assessment and was hailed by many of us as a classic
work that brought an entirely new way of looking at wetlands to
the scientific community as well as making a huge impact on the
public. No longer would regulatory agencies issue permits willy-
nilly - wetlands would no longer universally be considered
worthless. There was now a concept that some wetlands, at least,
might be worth something to somebody in a real scientific, as well
as economic, sense. This concept has turned the world of wetland
science upside down and has done tremendous good for wetland
preservation (although many people would argue - correctly -
that we still aren't doing nearly enough of the right things in this
regard).
-------
Case Histories: Let's Get Technical
133
There are problems with WET:
• It is difficult to use.
• It takes considerable time to complete a single set of WET
questions
• Many WET questions are unanswerable for a given wet-
land.
• If the computer is used for analysis (instead of free-hand),
the resulting table of h, m, I, or*(h = high, m = medium, / =
low, and * = nonapplicable) is a complete black box, which
often creates more questions than answers.
All of these problems lead to a loss of confidence in the
method, and even a loss of confidence in one's analysis. But the
good aspects of WET far outweigh the bad - and the bad can be
almost overcome, with a bit of effort.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of WET is that it forces
the user to consider - perhaps for the first time in his or her
lifetime - all the functions and values of a wetland, not just the
one or ones with which the user may be most familiar. Another
benefit of WET is that the user is usually driven to learn more
about the watershed in which the wetland is located, then to
realize that the wetland is not isolated in time or place, but is
rather one of many interworking parts. Further, that-like an
automobile engine - all these parts need to be working for the
system as a whole to work.
Returning to the black box for a brief moment, everyone
has trouble with the series of h's (high), m's (medium), I's flow),
and ^s (nonapplicable) that is provided as output. If my wetland
scores 4 h's, or worse, 12 m's, does that really tell me anything? In
other words, how can I use this information? The key is not in
adding up the scores, but in focusing on the particular h or h's, as
well as the I's (a bunch of m's just means that the wetland can do
these functions, though it isn't outstanding in performing them.).
So, an h in flood desynchronization (opportunity) tells you that
your wetland sits in an important area of the watershed that has
high opportunity to slow flood waters. If, however, the wetland
scores / for effectiveness, then you know that the wetland isn't
-------
134
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
large enough, or doesn't have enough trees, or for other reasons
just can't slow down the water very well. So now you know a lot
about your wetland that you may not have realized before. You
can use this information in a restoration plan. Let's say you know
the reason the wetland is ineffective in slowing down flood waters
is because someone chopped down the trees and filled in a third
of the wetland. You can then call for fill removal and planting of
fast-growing trees, such as cottonwood, to restore its former
function. Thus by studying the highs and lows for opportunity
and effectiveness, you can soon discover areas of concern or at
least indications of how the wetland can be "fixed" to restore its
previous function or value.
The second method - which, incidentally, can be used in
conjunction with WET to support it and fill in data gaps - is the
WDOE rating method. This method is based more on obvious
features of the wetland. It basically ignores the watershed, and
rates wetlands on the complexity of communities (i.e., vegetation
species) than on function. But it helps to fill in data gaps that are
often missed by WET, especially with regard to forested wetlands
and buffers.
In summary, then, WET and WDOE rating methods are
tools that get you into the field - an important consideration that
connot be overemphasized (especially in this day of desktop
analysis). WET is valuable in structuring your thinking in a
holistic way about functions and values and about systems. The
WDOE rating method tunes you into the tree component, and the
buffers and interrelationships with adjacent habitats. The user of
these methods can begin to see what is needed to restore the
wetland, and that the restoration may be useless if other factors in
the watershed are not also corrected. By thinking holistkally, we
will begin to truly restore systems, and will have greater success
at restoring individual wetlands, because we will also be restor-
ing the components that enter into the wetland. As we gain a few
successes by working thoughtfully and holistically, we will gain
confidence and enthusiasm. I believe that WET and the WDOE
rating method are tools that can lead us to successful restoration.
-------
Case Histories: Let's Get Technical
135
Reference
Adamus, P.R., ARA, Inc., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987.
Wetland Evaluation Technique. Volume II. Methodology. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of Transportation, Washing-
ton, D.C.
-------
Case Histories: Let's Get Technical
Design and Construction Considerations
In Wetland Restoration Projects
Eric E. Nelson
US. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington
This is a summary of design and construction methods
that are being employed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
reduce the cost and improve the results of wetland restoration
and creation projects. Since most wetland projects require mov-
ing large quantities of material, accurate surveys and precise
designs that minimize the amount of material to be moved are
essential. Computer aided drafting and design (CADD) pro-
grams now allow the designer to explore numerous alternatives
in the effort to minimize costs while optimizing the design goals.
The quantities of material to be moved must be calculated
with unprecedented accuracy to produce a design that remains
cost effective in this day of shrinking budgets and increasing
costs. To be effective the designer must take advantage of many
new computer applications that allow design refinements. These
applications include coastal engineering software packages, such
as the Corps' ACES, MNLONG, and programs developed in the
Dredging Research Program. In addition, commercial software is
available to perform such tasks as making accurate tide predic-
tions around which to schedule construction.
While modern design methods can minimize the cost of
engineering, the selection of construction equipment is just as
important. Projects that are designed to take advantage of the
most cost-effective means of moving material will provide the
highest environmental benefit for each dollar spent. The follow-
ing table provides a rough cost and production rate comparison
for several construction methods.
-------
Case Histories: Let's Get Technical
137
Construction Method Cost psr Cubic Yard Cubic Yards Movsd
Movsd psr Day
Hydraulic Dredge $2-$ 4 10,000
Clamshell Dredge $3 - $ 5 2,000
Tracked Excavators $5-$10 1,000
Two recently completed Corps of Engineers' projects
provide additional information regarding the construction
methods and costs that are applicable to wetland restoration. The
Grays Harbor fish mitigation channel was constructed on the
Chehalis River in 1990. This 360-meter-long, 45-meter-wide
(1,200-foot-long, 150-foot-wide) channel required the excavation
of 76,923 cubic meters (100,000 cubic yards) of material using a
dragline and large backhoes. Excavated material was disposed in
an upland site, which required 1,000 trips with 10-yard dump
trucks. As with most wetland sites, the fish channel was not
accessible to heavy equipment from either water or land. An
access road was constructed down the centerline of the proposed
channel, then excavated as the channel was dug. The project
required six months to complete, at a cost of $1 million.
Another project to create high intertidal habitat was
constructed at Everett Harbor's Jetty Island. Here, a 540-meter-
long (1,800-foot-long) berm, was constructed using ???,??? cubic
meters (300,000 cubic yards) of sand dredged from the
Snohomish River. The sand was dredged with a 30-centimeter-
diamter (12-inch-diameter) hydraulic dredge, and disposed along
the berm alignment, creating approximately 3.2 hectares (8 acres)
of high intertidal habitat at a cost of $600,000. The proximity of a
ready source of berm material, and the efficient method used to
move the material (hydraulic dredge) resulted in a "low-cost"
project and made beneficial use of dredged material that would
have otherwise been lost if disposed in deep water.
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
How to Adopt a Stream
Tom Murdoch
Adopt-a-Stream Foundation, Everett, Washington
The Adopt-a-Stream Foundation is often approached by
schools and community groups seeking guidance on how to
"adopt" a stream. In order to succeed, it will be necessary for
prospective stream "parents" to become stewards of the entire
watershed that surrounds the stream they are concerned about.
There are five basic steps that can be used in "anywhere US. A."
to make the process succeed:
1. Investigate. Gather all available information on your stream
and its surrounding watershed. Don't focus on physical
and biological information alone, as you will need to be
equally versed on land use and the "politics" of your water-
shed.
2. Establish a parent group. Find allies interested in taking care
of your stream. Candidates for the "core" group may be
friends and neighbors, schools, civic organizations, fraternal
groups, and sports clubs. Keep in mind that you will
ultimately need the support of everyone in the watershed
surrounding your stream.
3. Establish short- and long-term goals. Determine what you
would like to have happen in your watershed twenty years
from now. Then decide what you would like to accomplish
during the next six months to a year.
4. Create an action plan. Design a plan of action that will enable
you to accomplish your short-term goals, then build on your
success and create a new plan for the next phase.
5. Become a streamkeeper. Carry out the actions that you
planned, monitor the results, and make changes in your
-------
Case Histories; Citizen Involvement
139
action plan as it moves toward achieving your long-term
goals.
The following is a case study on adopting a stream.
The Pigeon Cieek Experience
In 1983, the Adopt-a-Stream Foundation trained some
teachers from the Jackson Elementary School in Everett, Washing-
ton, how to adopt a stream, using the five steps described above.
Pigeon Creek is a small stream that flows into Puget Sound from
south Everett. A coalition of teachers, students, and parents of
students from Jackson Elementary School were provided organi-
zational development assistance on how to adopt a stream. The
following is an overview of that effort.
During 1983, a core group of people in the watershed
surrounding Pigeon Creek established a long-term goal to restore
a salmon run that had disappeared twenty-five years before. The
group's short-term goal was to create activities that would en-
courage all residents and businesses in the watershed to become
participants in the long-term plan.
The first step was taken by Jackson Elementary School
students. They prepared a brochure that included a map of the
watershed, a statement of the goal to restore the salmon run, and
a plea to the reader for help. The students then delivered the
information to every household and business in the watershed.
This simple act led parents, Mends, neighbors, and
community leaders to recognize that they were a part of the
Pigeon Creek watershed, and everyone had to work together to
solve the creek's problems. Community meetings were sched-
uled, stream identification signs went up, storm drains were
marked with "dump no waste" signs, stream cleanups were
carried out, water quality was monitored. Students raised salmon
in the classroom and released them into the creek. Pollution
sources were identified, and polluters were told by the commu-
nity to "clean up their act."
The Everett City Council was given a presentation on all
-------
140
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
of the activities described above and requested to become part of
the solution. The city council responded in a very positive
manner. In 1987, when the first salmon in twenty-nine years
returned to the creek the city began to move in earnest. They
looked into the feasibility of constructing a stormwater control
facility that would reduce some of the problems caused by
commercial development in the Pigeon Creek headwaters.
A group called the "Everett Streamkeepers" was formed,
made up of Jackson Elementary School teachers, parents, a local
lawyer, and watershed residents. The streamkeepers put the city
on notice that they wanted an opportunity to review any new
land development proposals in the Pigeon Creek watershed.
Their review and subsequent recommendations led to environ-
mentally safe designs in several new housing developments.
Watershed monitoring information the group collected also led
the US. Army Corps of Engineers to turn down a Port of Everett
plan to fill the lower part of the creek and encase it in a pipe.
Continuing pressure by the streamkeepers led the Everett
City Council to find funds to construct the stormwater control
facility that was discussed in 1987; it was completed in 1990.
Since then, additional funds have been found to complete a
number of in-stream restoration projects. Salmon are continuing
to be released into, and return to, Pigeon Creek.
The streamkeepers, their children, and their friends and
neighbors will keep up the effort to protect and enhance this
watershed. Over the next twenty years, they will reach their
long-term goal of a self-sustaining salmon run.
The community around the Pigeon Creek watershed has
taken a sterile stream and, in a seven-year period, turned it back
into a viable ecological system. The process used in this water-
shed can be used anywhere.
More details available on the stream adoption process are
available in Adopting a Stream: A Northwest Handbook and Adopt-
ing a Wetland: A Northwest Guide, available at most local book-
stores or via mail order from the Adopt-A-Stream Foundation. In
addition, we recommend the addition of A Kid's Guide to Social
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
141
Action (also available from the foundation) to your reference
library. Don't be misled by the title - this is an adult guide as
well. It covers a wide range of topics, including:
• How to write a press release.
• How to change local, state, and federal laws.
• How to raise funds.
• How to make "power" telephone calls.
• How to interview.
• When all else fails, how to petition and picket.
After all, in order to succeed at "adopting" a stream, there
is much more to do than simply building a fish ladder or doing a
stream cleanup.
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
Adopt a Beach Estuarine Wetland Projects
Ken Pritchard
Adopt a Beach, Seattle, Washington
This paper is a summary of how Adopt a Beach volun-
teers in Washington State have played a variety of roles in wet-
land restoration projects. Two case studies illustrate how a more
intensive use of volunteers can improve the outcome of a project.
Role of Adopt a Beach
Adopt a Beach is a private nonprofit corporation that
helps citizens develop stewardship projects for the benefit of
Washington's marine waters and associated watersheds. The
scope of the projects includes education, monitoring, and wetland
restoration.
Adopt a Beach has worked extensively with volunteers in
estuarine wetland restoration projects. Most of these projects
have been conducted in association with restoration and mitiga-
tion activities carried out by port districts, public utilities, and in
some cases by private developers. Other projects have been
carried out strictly for experimental purposes.
Experimental projects and the monitoring of most projects
were funded by the Washington Department of Ecology over a
four-year period between 1987 and 1991.
List of Source Projects
Below is a list of projects that provide the basis for this
case history:
• Smith Cove experimental project (Seattle). This project com-
pared various transplanting methods and subsequent rates
of establishment.
• Padilla Bay experimental project. This project compares rates
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
143
of recovery of plots that were harvested in different pat-
terns.
• Seacrest Park enhancement project (Seattle). Eelgrass was
planted subtidally in degradable planter boxes.
• Route 509 marsh (Seattle). Comparison of rates of establish-
ment of plants native to the marsh (seacoast bulrush, Scirpus
maritimus) in planted versus control plots.
• Terminal 108 mitigation project (Seattle). Planting of a fringe
marsh of transplanted softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus).
• Haub and Dorotich marina mitigation projects (Gig Harbor).
Planting of fringe pocket marshes of pickleweed (Salicornia
virginka).
• Jetty Island density project (Everett). Comparison of rates of
establishment for salt grass (Distichlis spicata) planted in
various configurations.
• Jetty Island berm project (Everett). Comparison of survival
rates for species transplanted from donor sites versus
species grown from seeds.
• Route 509 marsh (Seattle). Observation of colonization
patterns in areas where intertidal drainage was improved.
• Quilceda Creek experimental project (Marysville). Comparison
of colonization patterns along and away from constructed
sloughs.
Technical Factors Contributing
To Project Success or Failure
Project successes and Mures are difficult to predict
However, certain factors (hydrology, soils, physical characteristics
of the site, plant characteristics) can help predict certain successes
and failures. These factors are:
• Location of plants along the tidal gradient (prolonged or
insufficient hydroperiod).
• Level of groundwater salinity (salinity may be too high for
certain species).
-------
144
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
• Condition of substrate (too soft or too hard).
• Level of wave and wake stress (may uproot plants or erode
and undercut substrates).
• Competition from volunteer species (may invade planted
plots).
• Plot drainage (may not drain properly, creating a saturated
condition).
• Sloping of the planted surface (incline may affect stability
and width of growing zone).
• Sloping of the backshore area (may slump over planted
area)
• Predation of young shoots (species such as sedges are
highly susceptible to grazing by geese).
• Amount of debris overburden (some species are smothered,
others are crushed by windrows of plant matter and trash).
• Maintenance considerations (most above conditions can be
controlled with maintenance).
Effective Use of Volunteers in Carrying Out
A Wetland Restoration Project
Volunteers can play a variety of roles in wetland restora-
tion. The key ingredient is proper management of the volunteers
and a clear definition of tasks and time commitment.
Time Commitment
Volunteers can play a short-term role: e.g., recruiting and
managing volunteers for a day-long project Or they can play a
long-term role and coordinate one or more projects in their
entirety.
Passive Role
The volunteers serve under the full coordination of a
restorer. For example, a park district is managing a restoration
project and solicits volunteers to help plant a wetland.
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
145
Active Role
A volunteer group undertakes the management of the
project in part or in full. An active role may include any one or
more of the following tasks:
Projects expertise. Without taking bread away from the
mouth of consultants, volunteer groups can secure professional
expertise from colleges and agencies (wetland experts, design
experts volunteering their time).
Volunteer management Groups can provide their own
supervised volunteers. The benefits of using a large volunteer
labor pool is a low cost, low impact, but labor-intensive approach
to wetland restoration. However, it is important to be able to
estimate work force requirements well ahead of project execution.
Training. Volunteers can be put in charge of organizing
and conducting training sessions. In time, they can develop
expertise through practice and training. For instance, Volunteers
for Outdoor Washington, a trail building and revegetation group,
routinely offers revegetation workshops attended by government
agency employees.
Public relations and community outreach. Volunteers
impart a sense of community stewardship to the project. This is
an important message to members of the community. For in-
stance, they can be put in charge of press liaison or of making
presentations to community groups or elected officials.
Project maintenance. Projects often fail because once
developed there is little incentive for maintenance. Yet, mainte-
nance is extremely important to the success of most projects in the
first few years. Volunteers who adopt a project can ensure its
long-term maintenance. For instance they can weed, water,
replant, or carry out minor site improvements or protective
measures.
Project evaluation. Volunteer monitoring can provide
frequent and reliable observations that need little more in terms
of instruments than a yard stick, strings, a clipboard, and a
camera. Volunteer monitors are a reliable and cost-effective
means of ensuring the long-term monitoring of a project.
-------
146
Partnerships it Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Lessons in Success and Failure, Two Case Studies:
Terminal 108 and the Route 509 Marsh
These two previously described projects offer a contrast of
how the use of volunteers may have affected their outcome. The
Terminal 108 project received ongoing maintenance while the
Route 509 project benefitted from no intervention except monitor-
ing.
The table below shows a greater volunteer role at Termi-
nal 108. While these roles cannot be directly attributable to
project success, their presence or absence directly affects whether
certain monitoring and remedial activities will be carried out in
time.
Rol* of Volunteers Terminal 106 Rout* 509
Design Some Some
Planting Most All
Maintenance Shared None
Ongoing design adjustments Some None
Monitoring Most All
Benefits of Ongoing Maintenance
Ongoing maintenance is an appropriate volunteer task
that goes hand in hand with frequent volunteer qualitative and
quantitative site monitoring. Many of the factors described below
can be addressed by maintenance. In the case of Terminal 108,
maintenance has played a key role in the success of this project.
The following table lists factors that can have a negative impact
on both projects.
Notes
-------
Paw Histories: Citizen Involvement
147
tehmnaliob route SM
Design Remedied Design Remedied
problem through problem through
malnte-
'Hydroperiod
*Lovel of groundwater
salinity
'Condition of substrates Yes
'Level of wave and
wake stress Yes
'Competition from
volunteer species Yes
'Plot drainage
'Sloping of the
planted surface
'Sloping of the
backshore area Yes
'Predation of young shoots Yes
'Amount of debris
overburden Yes
nance
No
Yes (1)
Yes (2)
Yes Difficult
Yes (3)
Yes (4)
Yes (5)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
mainte-
nance
No
Impractical
No
No
No
Notes
1. Wake stress was reduced after the placement of a boom. Erosion was
controlled by the placement of small groins.
2. A non-native species is periodically removed by hand.
3. Sloughing from the backslope was controlled with sandbags. Beach rye
and gumweed was planted among the sandbags and are replacing them
in helping prevent upslope sloughing.
4. Predation is occurring at the site. Scirpus valkfus is resilient to predation.
A fenced test plot failed to reveal differences in the establishment of this
species.
5. An oil boom has largely controlled the debris problem. This has resulted
in healthier plants.
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
Collins Elementary Wetland Restoration Project
Nancy Smith
Collins Elementary School Parent Teacher Association,
Tacoma, Washington
This paper is a summary of the Collins Elementary Parent
Teacher Association (PTA) wetland restoration and wetland
education project that was completed during the 1990-1991 school
year. Collins Elementary School is located in the Franklin Pierce
School District in Tacoma, Washington. This project had three
major goals:
1. To restore a wetland that is part of a 1 hectare (2.5-acre)
nature area located on the elementary school property.
2. To educate the students in the Franklin Pierce School
District about the value of wetlands.
3. To educate the community about wetlands.
This project was funded by $8,000 raised by the Collins
students and by an $18/000 public involvement in education grant
from the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Volunteer labor
provided by parents, teachers, students, businesses, and indus-
tries in the community supplemented the grant money. Over
1,500 people were reached by this project and 1,200 volunteer
hours were donated by people representing more than 50 differ-
ent youth and adult special interest groups during the 1990-1991
school year alone.
Our first goal - restoration - was the most difficult part of
this project. The area had been used historically as a dump site
for construction debris and vegetative waste. Consequently, it
was difficult to get all agencies with jurisdiction to agree on the
proper way to proceed. Our solution was to bring representatives
from all the agencies together at one meeting and site visit to
work out how the restoration would proceed. Once the planning
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
149
stage had been worked out, the implementation involved the
following steps:
• A wetland biologist volunteered his services to plan and
supervise the removal of the dump materials and the subse-
quent restoration of the area.
• Thirty-eight dump-truck loads of debris were removed.
• The area was sealed with a clay-type soil and wetland
topsoil was placed over the clay.
• The students replanted the area with native wetland plants.
The excavation work and purchase of the soil and clay were paid
for by the grant, but all other services were donated.
The second goal - to educate the students in the Franklin
Pierce School District - was accomplished by finding ways to
involve them in the restoration and/or to bring them to the
wetland for a field trip. An after-school nature club was formed
with two teachers hired to plan and supervise the activities. Over
sixty students participated in the club projects, including planting
and/or identification of wetland plants, development of a trail
guide booklet, building and placing nesting boxes for birds and
benches along the trails. Docents were recruited to assist classes
during visits to the wetland. Training was provided to these
groups through classes from "Project Wild Aquatic Wetlands"
held at Collins. Additionally, bus transportation was provided
for students from other schools in the district to visit the area.
Educational stations were created for teachers to use with their
students during a field trip to the wetland. These stations high-
lighted water quality, wetland values, food chains, bird identifica-
tion, plants, animal camouflage, biodiversity, and wetland resto-
ration.
The third goal - to educate the community about wet-
lands - was accomplished by sponsoring a "Wonders of Wet-
lands Day." This event was advertised to the entire community
as a free, family, hands-on nature day. It was a four-hour Satur-
day event, and attracted over 500 people. Forty-five booths were
set up and included many hands-on activities for children and
-------
150
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
youth/ as well as booths where adults could find answers to their
questions about wetlands and wetland values. Wetland tours
were also available. Three county agencies were represented at
the wetlands day to answer questions from property owners
about wetlands on or adjacent to their own property.
Overall, the project is considered successful as a volunteer
wetland restoration and education program. We were very
careful to be sure all active participants had a shared vision of
where the project was going by surveying teachers, parents, and
school district administrators beforehand for their opinions on
how the area should be developed and how they would use it
when completed. Also, we had two people leading the project for
the duration. One person would have a very difficult time
keeping up the momentum and enthusiasm during setbacks. We
also had some roadblocks, especially our lack of specific knowl-
edge about wetlands and wetland restoration. There is no easy,
centralized location to get information on how to do a restoration.
Additionally, the lack of agreement among the agencies caused
delays.
Some recommendations for those wanting to implement a
volunteer wetland restoration program follow;
• Talk to everyone about what you're doing! Getting publicity
about your project may alert an unexpected source of
donations. We relied heavily on volunteer labor and equip-
ment and found that many businesses were very willing to
donate supplies if they knew specifically what we needed.
• Match volunteers interests and expertise with your needs. Espe-
cially, make sure you give them meaningful work; even
children are capable of mixing cement, building benches,
and planting wetland plants.
• Recognize your volunteers. We gave certificates to volunteers
based on what their duties were (e.g., fence builders got
"chain-gang" certificates). This will help pull in people who
usually don't volunteer for every project. Personally con-
tacting volunteers is more effective in getting commitments
-------
Case Histories: Citizen Involvement
151
than general calls for help in newsletters. Also, plan in
advance when you will need help, so volunteers can sched-
ule that time into their calendars.
~ Create an organization or other mechanism to provide long-term
maintenance and protection for your project site. Many projects
such as this one can die if the principle players move on to
other projects.
We hope our project will encourage other citizen groups
to try their hand at wetland restoration. The rewards and benefits
to the environment and the people involved, especially the
children, have been worth the three years of organization and
dedication to a common goal. All those involved are rightfully
proud of their accomplishments. This project could not have
been completed without the support and patience of representa-
tives from state and local government agencies working in
cooperation with the local citizens.
-------
Case Histories: Research and Preservation Opportunities
An Overview of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Research Program
Mary C. Landin
US. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Background
The US. Army Corps of Engineers has responsibility in its
water resources projects for flood control, hydropower produc-
tion/ navigation, water supply storage, recreation, fish and wild-
life resources, and wetland regulation. Through the Corps'
project planning, construction, operations and maintenance
(primarily navigation and dredging), regulation, and accompany-
ing activities in wetlands, it is directly involved in wetlands
protection and management.
At least nineteen different federal laws and executive
orders govern the role the Corps plays in wetlands resources and
require that it consider environmental impacts and consequences
of its wetland activities. To continue as a leader in managing the
nation's environmental problems, the Corps must affirm and
enhance its traditional leadership role in water resources manage-
ment. As one of the stewards of the nation's wetland resources,
the Corps must be sensitive to the nation's natural resource base
and the ecological and economic benefits provided by wetlands.
To aid in the accomplishment of the above responsibili-
ties, in the 1980s the Corps of Engineeis established a Wetlands
Research Program for regulatory purposes. Program develop-
ment stemmed from field input from the Corps and other agen-
cies, responses to a wetlands questionnaire, and the results from a
meeting conducted in Aurora, Colorado in September 1989
(Landin et al., 1991). This program has been expanded in time
and funds to include all the Corps' wetland activities, including
regulation (Landin, 1991).
-------
Case Histories: Research and Preservation Opportunities
153
Program Objectives
The broad purpose of the Wetlands Research Program is
to use the Corps' scientific and engineering disciplines, in coordi-
nation and cooperation with other agencies and offices, to pro-
vide environmentally sound, cost-effective techniques to manage
the nation's wetlands. This broad purpose will be accomplished
through fourteen major objectives being carried out in the six task
areas of the program.
Funding and Management
The Wetlands Research Program is funded at $22 million
over four years and is being conducted from fiscal years 1990
through 1994. Managers include Dr. Russell Theriot, overall
administrative program manager, with six nontechnical staff
members. Technical task areas are being managed by Dr. Mary
C. Landin, Mr. Ellis J. Clairain Jr., Mr. Jack E. Davis, and Mr. H.
Roger Hamilton, all of the Environmental Laboratory, US. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
The Wetlands Research Program is coordinated with and
reviewed by a working group of fifteen of the Corps' field person-
nel on a regular basis, and has seven technical monitors assigned
from six pertinent elements at Corps of Engineers headquarters.
Overall research coordinator at headquarters is Mr. Jesse A.
Pfeiffer Jr. and overall technical monitor is Dr. William L Klesch,
Chief, Office of Environmental Policy.
More than 200 principal investigators and senior technical
staff of twenty individual work units and more than fifty research
areas include a broad range of disciplines involving wetlands and
come from six Corps of Engineers' research laboratories, twenty-
five Corps districts and divisions, a number of universities and
private consulting firms, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, US. Bureau of
Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority, US. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Federal Highway Administration, ft
also involves research demonstration work at twenty-eight non-
-------
154
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Corps and sixteen Corps-owned wetland sites under task areas V
and VI.
Task Areas
Nontechnical Tasks
I. Interagency coordination and program management
This task area has two work units that will provide general
coordination of wetland research among general agencies and
others involved in ongoing wetland work. The task manager will
keep all agencies informed of one another's activities and work,
and partner/interact where appropriate to expand the program
scope and funding. This task area has responsibility for adminis-
tration of an interagency working group that is addressing
restoration and establishment success criteria and standards for
monitoring. Its four-year funding level is $1.75 million.
II. Technology and information transfer. This task area
also has one work unit that will provide mechanisms for dissemi-
nating information from the four technical task areas to Corps of
Engineers' offices; other federal, state, and regional agencies;
academia; interested private organizations; and the public.
Research results will be made available using a variety of meth-
ods, including informational pamphlets (already in distribution),
a quarterly Wetlands Newsletter, a series of Technical Notes from the
eighteen technical work units, technical reports, guidelines
manuals, handbooks, direct one-on-one information through the
Corps' technical assistance programs, instructional videotapes,
training courses, field- and national- level technical workshops,
user-friendly software, and other technology transfer opportuni-
ties as they arise during the life of the Wetlands Research Pro-
gram. This task area's four-year funding level is $750,000.
Technical Tasks
HL Critical processes of wetlands. Five work units,
including eleven specific research areas, have been developed to
examine the critical processes of wetland origin, function, interac-
tion, and change in:
-------
Case Histories: Research and Preservation Opportunities
155
1. Hydrology
2. Sedimentation and erosion
3. Water quality
4. Hydric soils
5. The Cache River interdisciplinary case study
The task area's four-year funding level is $3,175 million spread
among the five work units.
IV. Delineation and evaluation of wetlands. Two work
units - wetland delineation, and evaluation of wetland functions
and values - are being conducted. Both of these units include
several research areas and working groups that will result in
specific regional products more useful to the Corps' field and
other practitioners. The focus of this task area is to regionalize
and refine both delineation methodologies and evaluation tech-
niques for existing wetlands, including a more robust and sensi-
tive procedure for assessing wetland functions. Funding over
four years for the task area is $3.54 million, with the majority of
the funding in the evaluation work unit.
V. Restoration, protection, and establishment of wet-
lands. The Corps of Engineers has constructed and/or restored
numerous wetlands as part of ongoing navigation and flood
control projects, involving a variety of engineering, bioengineer-
ing, and environmental techniques. In addition, the Corps has
permitted projects that involved wetland mitigation. A major
goal of this task area is to develop, refine, and publish scientific
and engineering guidelines that can be used in all phases of the
Corps' projects and that will also find use by its permit applicants.
The task area also has a goal of demonstrating hands-on wetland
restoration practices and principles. Three work units were
developed to address these broad goals, including sixteen re-
search areas. They are:
1. Improved wetland design criteria.
2. Techniques, structures, and equipment for wetlands restora-
tion and establishment.
3. Wetlands field demonstrations.
-------
156
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
In addition, this task area developed and funded a fourth
work unit, the success criteria and standards for monitoring work
unit, that has now become part of task area I. Level of four-year
funding is currently $7.5 million, $4.55 million of which is in the
demonstration work unit.
Eight technical research areas involving at least two
demonstration wetlands per topic are included in the field dem-
onstration work unit These research topic areas include:
1. Comparison of manmade versus naturally occurring wet-
lands (six wetlands).
2. Wetland engineering for protection and restoration of
coastal Louisiana (four wetlands)
3. Use of wetlands in coastal erosion and shoreline stabiliza-
tion (four wetlands).
4. Evaluation of bottomland hardwoods restoration tech-
niques and methodologies (two wetlands).
5. Freshwater riparian restoration and establishment (four
wetlands).
6. Freshwater depressional restoration and establishment
(four wetlands).
7. Evaluation of coastal intertidal restoration and creation at
interagency cooperative sites (twenty-two wetlands).
8. Wetland restoration where special hydrology and soil
conditions occur (two wetlands).
VL Stewardship and management of Corpse-controlled
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers manages more than 1.2 million
hectares (3 million acres) of water and more than 1.6 million
hectares (4 million acres) of land owned by the Corps in fee title.
The major goals of this task area are to:
• Identify techniques and inventory existing Corps wetlands.
• Establish a central technical data base and repository for
wetlands information.
• Determine and demonstrate techniques necessary for
characterizing changes occurring in the Corps' wetlands.
-------
Case Histories: Research and Preservation Opportunities
157
Six work units are being conducted, including:
1. Corps wetland inventory and management information
system.
2. Minimizing impacts and cumulative impact analysis.
3. Techniques for characterizing changes in wetland systems.
4. Automated analysis, display, and information bases for
wetland systems.
5. Technology for managing wetlands.
6. Wetland stewardship and management demonstration
areas.
The level of four-year funding is $4,475 million spread over the
six work units.
Under the stewardship and management demonstration
work unit, eight research topic areas are being studied:
1. Plant materials (four wetlands).
2. Non-point-source pollution management (one wetland).
3. Wildlife habitat management (four wetlands).
5. Fish habitat management (one wetland).
6. Pest management (two wetlands).
7. Vegetation management (two wetlands).
8. Natural community and biological diversity management
(one wetland).
Future Plans
Although less than two years of the Wetlands Research
Program has transpired, technical planning meetings are already
being held at the request of the Corps' field, headquarters, and
research personnel to summarize where the Wetlands Research
Program research will be needed in additional years of work - a
Wetlands Research Program n. The first such field meeting was
held in San Antonio, Texas in June 1992. That meeting reaffirmed
the directional approach of the Wetlands Research Program,
while requesting additional demonstration work, more
regionalization and refinement of technology, more focus on
-------
158
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
engineering and physical characteristics that make a restored
wetland function, and broader technology transfer. At the
present time, funding levels beyond fiscal year 1994 are un-
known, and this will be a driving factor in Wetlands Research
Program field and research work.
References
Landin, M.C. 1991. Development of the L/S Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Research Program, October 1990. Development Report WARP-1. Vicksburg,
Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 44 p.
Landin, M.C., E J. Clairain Jr., R.F. Theriot, W.L. Klesch, and J. A. Pfeiffer Jr.
1991. Proceedings of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Workshop,
Aurora, CO, September 1989. Technical Report WARP-RE-1. Vicksburg,
Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Includes
questionnaire and results in appendices.
-------
Case Histories: Research and Preservation Opportunities
King County Wetland Preservation Program
Kate Stenberg
King County Environmental Division, Bellevue, Washington
King County, Washington, has developed a
nonregulatory wetlands preservation program, which was
adopted by the King County Council in the fall of 1991. This
model program was developed under a grant from the Washing-
ton Department of Ecology and the US. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. The grant covered the following three main tasks:
1. Develop a guidebook for other jurisdictions to use in setting
up their own programs.
2. Develop a model program tailored for King County.
3. Do a demonstration project to illustrate the model program
concept.
The guidebook, Designing Wetlands Preservation Programs
for Load Governments: A Guide to Non-regulatory Protection (Publi-
cation #92-18) and the summary (Publication #92-19) are available
from the Department of Ecology. A copy of the adopting ordi-
nance and the policy package that comprise the King County
program are included in the appendices of the complete guide-
book or are available from the King County Environmental
Division.
A number of concerns arose during the development of
the model program. Issues of selection criteria, funding for
acquisitions as well as long-term stewardship, and potential
conflicts with existing regulatory programs are addressed in the
policy package that makes up the model program. The program
stresses creativity in funding or in-kind contributions, public-
private partnerships/ and flexibility to achieve wetland protection
goals.
The demonstration project is located at Whispering Firs
-------
160
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Bog on Vashon Island, Washington, and illustrates the key
components of the model program. The primary selection criteria
are:
• A class I or II rating under King County's rating system or
other significant ecological values.
• Adequate buffers.
• The ability to sustain functional viability over the long term.
Whispering Firs Bog, with its relatively undisturbed
classic bog structure, Sphagnum mat, and small, easily controlled
basin, meets these criteria.
The local land trust on Vashon Island, the Vashon-Maury
Island Land Trust, has a lot of local community support and has
purchased a portion of the bog as part of a long-term effort to
protect the bog. The county purchased another parcel that
included a portion of the bog and upland buffer areas with grant
funding. The model program stresses the need to find creative
funding sources and the importance of private-public partner-
ships.
The issue of long-term maintenance is also addressed in
the model program. Any level of ownership or stewardship,
even of conservation easements, requires funding or staff time.
Provision of public access, restoration, or enhancement projects
also require funding and staff. Whispering Firs Bog, including
the parcel purchased by the county, will be managed by the land
trust under a cooperative agreement with the county. The details
of this agreement are still being negotiated.
During the development of the model program, there was
a lot of concern that a new nonregulatory program not compro-
mise the strength of the existing regulatory program. As a result,
wetlands may not be purchased unless public benefits will be
provided that cannot be protected under regulatory programs.
Such benefits might include public access, recreation, research, or
education.
At Whispering Firs Bog, the land trust will be providing
educational programs. Using grant funds and volunteer labor, a
-------
Case Histories: Research and Preservation Opportunities
161
small easting structure on the county's parcel will be renovated
to provide space for a permanent educational display and a
teaching room. There will be a limited amount of public access
provided.
Finally, a brochure, Protecting Your Wetkmd, It's Easier
Than You Think..., was produced with grant funds to make people
more aware of their options for protecting wetlands under a
nonregulatory program. Copies of the brochure are available
from the King County Environmental Division.
-------
Work Group
Partnerships In Restoration Mitigation Banking
Tracey P. Mckenzie
Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, Washington
Michael Rylko
Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington
Introduction
Mitigation banking has been described as a means to
comply with policies of no net loss of wetland resources in a
manner that optimizes ecological benefits while improving the
cost effectiveness of compensatory mitigation. Kusler (1992)
provides a relatively comprehensive summary of the pros and
cons of mitigation banking.
The US. Army Corps of Engineers sponsored a workshop
April 16 and 17,1992, to provide participants opportunities to
meet and share information about wetland restoration programs
and specific projects and for developing workable concepts and
partnerships for wetland restoration. This forum provided an
opportunity to form into smaller work groups to discuss specific
issues (e.g., mitigation banking). The work group had about forty
participants representing a broad spectrum of interests. Partici-
pants included individuals from local, state, and federal resource
agencies, legal offices, consulting firms, port districts, and the
private sector.
At the beginning of the discussion, the participants in this
work group were asked if, based on their current perception of its
advantages and disadvantages, mitigation banking should be
actively pursued in Washington State. About 90 percent felt that
mitigation banking should be actively pursued at this time, 10
percent felt unsure, and no one expressed clear opposition to
active pursuit of the concept. This crude poll perhaps emphasizes
what many have considered inevitable—that compensatory
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
163
mitigation for loss of wetlands using banking concepts is likely to
occur in Washington State in the near future.
For the purposes of this work group, a "mitigation bank"
is defined as a wetland or other aquatic habitat creation, restora-
tion, or enhancement project that replaces several impacted
wetlands in advance of the actual impact (Lewis, 1990; Washing-
ton Department of Ecology, 1992; US. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1992). Starting with this broad, inclusive definition, the
work group explored a range of mitigation banking models in
order to determine the relative strengths, weaknesses, common-
alities, and appropriate applications of each modeL
The work group's premise was that there are different
types of mitigation banks, each with its own distinct application.
In this respect, the group explored the conclusion that developing
and testing several types of mitigation banks may be appropriate
if the full scope of wetland management goals is to be achieved.
Ideally and pragmatically, both regulatory and resource planning
processes would be used to determine the specific objectives of a
given type of mitigation bank. The planning process could be
used as the primary mechanism for bank site selection and
design; regulatory program guidance could provide the adminis-
trative and regulatory agreements for mitigation bank use.
Approach
Mitigation Banking Models Evaluated
The group considered and discussed three generic mitiga-
tion bank models to represent the range of compensatory mitiga-
tion banking options that could be incorporated into existing
planning and regulatory processes. For comparative purposes,
the three bank models were also evaluated against compensatory
mitigation as currently required. The criteria for determining
which mitigation banking models would be discussed were
generally characterized as:
• The size of the impact and corresponding mitigation (i.e.,
could the model be used to offset both small and large
impacts?).
-------
164
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
• The types of impacts and corresponding regulatory authori-
ties (e.g., could the model be applied more broadly than to
just the Clean Water Act Section 404 process?).
• The degree of need for comprehensive planning (i.e., is the
model likely to be part of longer term proactive and con-
certed resource management efforts?).
The resulting models are described below.
Model 1 - comprehensive mitigation bank. This form
of mitigation bank is established primarily within a locally based
comprehensive management and land use planning effort such as
a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) or Advanced Identifica-
tion Process (AIP) (e.g., Mill Creek SAMP, Gray's Harbor SAMP,
Eugene AIP, Juneau AIP) typically supported by state and federal
regulatory programs. A comprehensive mitigation bank could be
used to mitigate for large and small wetland impacts regulated by
any level of government This type of bank could be used by both
public and private development entities.
Model 2 - consolidated mitigation for small, unrelated
projects. This form of mitigation bank is established to provide
cost-effective, simple compensatory mitigation for two types of
small project impacts:
1. Those for which compensation would not likely be required
otherwise because of the lack of practicable mitigation
options (e.g., federal Section 404 nationwide permits).
2. Those from which the ecological benefit of mitigation
would be marginal because of small size or isolated loca-
tion.
Furthermore, this type of mitigation bank could potentially be
used to compensate for impacts beyond Section 404 requirements
(e.g., impacts regulated under local shoreline permits). Because
this approach would likely result in out-of-ldnd mitigation,
regional restoration goals - based on state and federal planning -
would need to be developed. Both private and public develop-
ment entities could use this model.
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
165
Model 3 - advanced consolidated restoration. This type
of mitigation bank would most likely be developed to consolidate
mitigation requirements for a number of related projects. For
example, a single development entity such as a port district may
have long-term plans that would impact a number of wetlands
over many years and involve several Section 404 permits. As-
suming that all other criteria for using a mitigation bank are met
(i.e., impact avoidance, minimization, and then emphasis on
replacement of unavoidably impacted functions), the developer
may choose to consolidate the anticipated compensatory mitiga-
tion requirements. Alternatively, two or more distinct develop-
ment entities each may expect to have compensatory mitigation
requirements for work in a geographically similar area (e.g., a
given watershed or estuary).
This model differs from model 2 in that the development
projects could be of any size and would likely be required to
provide compensatory mitigation whether or not a mitigation
bank were available. This form of mitigation banking could be
used by either public or private developers. Although this model
would not necessarily require integration with a wetland/aquatic
resource planning process, such integration would clearly be
advantageous.
Model 4-mitigation as it currently exists. The work
group included present mitigation as a basis for comparing the
status quo and the three bank models. The current regulatory
process does not regularly use comprehensive planning ap-
proaches for identifying, selecting, and proactively implementing
mitigation priorities. The existing process also does not easily
allow consolidation of compensatory mitigation debts. In addi-
tion, the current regulatory and mitigation process is not likely to
require mitigation for smaller projects because of the high cost per
unit, limited ecological benefit, and limited regulatory application
(i.e., narrow emphasis on federal Clean Water Act Section 404
permit impacts).
-------
166
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Mitigation Banking Elements
And Subelements Considered
Based on a limited literature review, the work group
developed a list of procedural and technical elements and
subelements associated with mitigation banking (Table 1). These
elements were then evaluated and discussed in the context of the
different mitigation models. Because the work group discussed
only a limited number of these elements, the amount of detail
provided in the following sections varies considerably. Summary
documents on mitigation banking by the Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology (1992), Short (1988), Boule (1991), Ford (1991),
and the US. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) elaborate
on the various mitigation banking elements identified.
Table 1. Eiementa of a Mitigation Bank
Planning alMMttte
Technical dminto
Policy elements
She administration/
Financial elements
Establish regional geographic boundaries for
consolidating offsite mitigation requirements.
Establish regional restoration priorities.
Establish participant consensus.
Define participation obligations and responsibilities.
Select sito(s).
Develop/agree on functionary based monitoring scheme.
Design and construct site.
Develop technical criteria for establishing and debiting
mitigation units (How many units? How are units
measured?).
Develop policies and procedural guidelines for site
administration.
Establish administrative agent.
Develop legal agreement (MOAs).
Define relationship to regulatory framework.
Administer credit brokering.
Track credit
Perform contingency work.
Conduct long-term management.
Conduct monitoring/reporting.
Obtain up-front financing.
Determine how reimbursement costs are calculated.
Identify funding and other resources for establishment end
administration.
Conduct financial management
One owner, one user — public or private sector.
Public owner, multiple users.
Private owner, multiple users.
-------
Work Croup: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
167
Assessing the Relationship Between
The Four Models and Various Banking Elements
Using the identified elements of a mitigation bank and the
four models (three types of mitigation banks and mitigation
status quo), a matrix was created and presented. The goals were
to identify those elements considered the most important in
developing the various mitigation banking models and to discuss
the necessary information and procedural aspects necessary for
satisfying these elements. Through this process, the group
attempted to fill in the matrix with the following information:
1. Whether the relationship between the bank model and a
given bank element was generally advantageous or disad-
vantageous with respect to establishing a responsive and
effective management tool.
2. Whether a particular subelement was necessary or unneces-
sary in order to pursue and implement a given bank model.
3. Whether a given bank model could be used by different
combinations of user groups (i.e., development entities).
Table 2 summarizes a pre-work-group run-through of the matrix
based on literature findings and professional judgment.
Discussion
Planning Elements
Establishing consensus mechanisms/integrating with
regulatory processes. The first step is to determine which entities
are going to participate in the development and establishment of
a given mitigation bank. Will satisfying resource protection goals
and balancing the interests of the economic development commu-
nity be possible? How are the individual objectives of the re-
source agencies different with respect to regulatory policies and
mitigation priorities? Resource agencies should actively reach
general agreement on the concept and procedures of mitigation
banking before numerous individual proposals are considered.
In order to avoid obstacles once bank design and bnptemenlattidn
actually begins, certain ground rules must be set in advance (Paid
-------
Table 2. Matrix Baaed on LHaratura and Profaaalonal Judgmant
S
Mitigation Banking Elements
I1 Model 2 MocM 3
ConeoNdaled mWga- Advanced conaoff-
mMpatton bank tlonfor emaM projects dated mitigation
MMgatton aa exists
Establish consensus mechanism
Establish restoration priorities
Establish units for consolidating offsite mitigation
Develop and commit to criteria for bank use4
Accept risk burden
Consolidate site so taction effort
Consolidate site design
Develop technical criteria for crediting and
debiting mitigation units
Develop/agree on functionally based
monitoring scheme
Undertake up-front construction
Poticy
Define participation obligations and responsibilities
Define relationship to regulatory framework
Dowlop pofcaes and procedural
guidoinos tor site administtation4
Develop formal agreements
Establish administrative agents
Administer credH brokering
Develop cost-recovery mechanism4
Track credt
+N(A) +N(A)
+N(A) +N(A)
Sub-watershed (A) Large area (A)'
Perform contingency work
Monitor/report
Conduct long-term management
+N
+N(D)
+N(A)
+N(A)
+N(A)
+N(A)
+N(A)
+N(A)
+N(A)
+N
+N(A)
+N(A)
+N
+N
+N
+N(A)
+N
-------
Obtain up-front financing
Costs decrease per unit effort
Identify funding and other resources
for establishment and administration4
One private owner, one user
One public owner, one user
Public owner, multiple users
Private owner, multiple users
+N(D)
Yes (A)
+N
-P
-P
+P
+P
+N(D)
Yes (A)
+N
+P
+P
+P
+P
+N(D)
Yes (A)
+N
+P
+P
+P
+P
-N
No(D)
?N
+P
+P
-P
-P
Kay +N - Necessary -N - Unnecessary N - May be necessary +P - Possible -P - Not possible
(A) - Advantageous (D) - Disadvantageous
Unite
1. These models are defined on pages 3,4, and 5.
2. Model 2 could be located and designed to provide a practical mechanism for securing mitigation for small impacts scattered throughout
a relatively large region and for which compensatory mitigation would not otherwise be required. Given the large number of project impacts
that currently fall into this category, this type of bank, if effectively designed, would likely be both financially viable and clearly ecologically
advantageous.
3. Locating mitigation projects on sile or as close to the site as possible (i.e., within proximity) is desirable in the absence of clearly defined
restoration priorities. Ecologically, however, there may be more optimal locations for restoration than at the project impact site. For this
reason. Models 1 and 2 are labeled advantageous here.
4. These lour elements would be required of Models 1 and 2, may be necessary for Model 3 to a lesser extent, and would not be
required for Model 4. The development of these elements would present additional temporal and monetary costs but would not
appear to have much intrinsic value in and of themselves. Simply, these elements would be purely additional costs associated with a
banking approach.
-------
170
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
1991). The current interagency meetings exploring a mitigation
bank agreement with the Washington Department of Transporta-
tion could provide valuable guidance in this respect.
The different approaches to mitigation banking will all
require coalition and consensus building and a willingness to
break from traditional positions and roles if mitigation banks are
going to be fairly and objectively evaluated (i.e., tested). Through
this process thoughts and attitudes typically associated with
mitigation banking can be refined and the real challenges more
clearly defined.
Establishing regional geographic boundaries. This
element is deciding on an appropriate regional geographic
boundary for a given mitigation bank. Some examples of re-
gional geographic boundaries include:
• Watersheds or basins within watersheds.
• Upper/lower portions of major watersheds or sub-basins.
• More regionalized units such as Northern Puget Sound,
Southern Puget Sound/ and Hood Canal.
• Areas at high development risk.
• Areas awaiting long-term comprehensive planning.
• Areas where the costs per unit of mitigation effort unit will
ensure a high probability of bank success.
While the geographic unit for models 3 and 4 would
typically be confined to the vicinity of project impacts, model 1
would be better suited to a watershed or sub-basin unit, and
model 3 could possibly be applied to a more regional geographic
area.
Establishing regional restoration priorities. The Na-
tional Research Council (1992) states that successful restoration
will be achieved only if individual projects and actions acknowl-
edge the (ecological/environmental) system within which the
action is taking place - hence the need to establish geographic
units containing system functions of interest and to establish
goals and objectives for enhancement Establishing regional
restoration priorities involves local, state, and federal entities,
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
171
other public entities, private development interest groups, and
environmental and conservation organizations.
Models 1 and 2 necessitate that this step occurs; models 3
and 4 do not One could thus argue that models 1 and 2 would
more likely result in a successful restoration approach. Even
though this step can be costly, this element would be desirable for
models 3 and 4, as well.
Issues to consider in establishing regional restoration
priorities include:
• Deciding whether mitigation banking can be done in the
absence of comprehensive wetland/aquatic resource plan-
ning.
• Identifying the key components (e.g., resource inventory,
threat assessment, development of long-range vision) of
comprehensive wetland/aquatic resource planning.
• Identifying the key mechanisms for implementing necessary
planning elements (e.g., the state Growth Management Act,
watershed management plans, etc.).
• Selecting priority restoration objectives. For example,
restoration goals could be historic habitat types that have
been lost, specific wetland/aquatic resource functions, or
benefits to specific fish and wildlife species or assemblages.
• Deciding whether regional restoration goals are pursued in
a manner consistent with accepted mitigation sequencing
(i.e., avoidance, minimization, compensation). Is there
general agreement that regional restoration goals would
supersede the sequencing onsite/in-kind, onsite/out-of-
kind, offsite/in-kind, offsite/out-of-kind? In addition,
ultimate requirements for onsite vs. offsite and in-kind vs.
out-of-kind mitigation will need to be established, to some
extent, on a case-by-case basis in consideration of the spe-
cific types of resource function impacted.
• Examining historical and current inventories of wetlands/
aquatic resource and planning for future changes in land
use and growth.
-------
172
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Developing criteria for and commitment to bank use.
This element involves deciding if participation is mandatory or
voluntary. Currently participation generally is voluntary for both
public and private entities. Some forms of mitigation banking
such as a SAMP (special area management planning) may require
mandatory commitment to a mitigation bank (Ford, 1991). This
subelement also involves defining the roles and responsibilities of
each participant in the mitigation bank in a detailed agreement.
Accepting risk burden. Each participant must accept a
certain level of risk (irrespective of the form of mitigation bank
implemented). One option for minimizing the risk of poor policy
precedents would be to pursue a pilot-scale mitigation banking
project (or projects) in the geographic area of interest (e.g., Puget
Sound, state of Washington) before opening the door to a myriad
of proposals. The pilot project would provide low risk testing for
both the workability and process of establishing and tailoring
mitigation banks. Participants must recognize that not all forms
of mitigation banking or all established mitigation banks may be
successful (based on restoration goals and objectives) or desirable
- e.g., benefit per unit effort may be limited; the use of a given
type of mitigation bank may hinder the effectiveness of the
mitigation sequencing process (avoidance, minimization, com-
pensation).
Participants also accept other risks. Project proponents
may not be able to use a mitigation bank they have "bought'' into
for each and every permitted project. For example, in some
instances, resource agencies may insist on onsite or in-kind
mitigation. Project proponents must also recognize that they may
be required to go through the sequencing process before a mitiga-
tion bank can be used to compensate for impacts - a requirement
determined largely by the risk of any associated wetland plan-
ning processes and the status of a possible general permit Fur-
thermore, mitigation credits will depend on the degree of ecologi-
cal success of the mitigation project as determined by agreed-
upon criteria.
For the development entity, significantly more risk may
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking 173
be associated with any form of advance mitigation (models 1,2,
and 3). As monitoring, performance criteria, performance bond-
ing, and contingency actions become more commonly required
for individual mitigation projects, however, the risk burden might
be expected to lessen in comparison. For the resource itself, more
acreage will likely be restored through mitigation banking mod-
els 1 and 2 than through mitigation as it currently exists, even
while mitigation sequencing procedures are maintained.
Technical Elements
Consolidating site selection effort. For models 1 and 2
and to a lesser extent model 3, sites would be selected for a
mitigation bank in response to regional aquatic resource protec-
tion and restoration priorities identified during the planning
process. Site selection criteria that reflect the goals of restoration
priorities should be considered and defined. Some criteria may
include proximity to project impacts, size, local restoration
objectives, development goals, cost, biophysical characteristics,
position within the landscape, feasibility of site acquisition, and
risk of development, among others. Consideration must be given
to conducting an inventory of land and existing and potential
ecological functions to determine which areas meet the criteria.
In contrast to mitigation status quo (model 4), all of the
mitigation banking models (ie., models 1,2, and 3) would better
allow consolidation of mitigation efforts. Consolidation would
allow potentially significant improvement in both the cost per
unit of mitigation effort and the ecological benefit per unit of
mitigation effort.
Consolidating site design efforts. Investing more time in
the design and implementation of a consolidated mitigation
project would improve the chance for success, promote realiza-
tion of restoration/mitigation priorities, and be more likely to
acknowledge the site's biophysical characteristics, natural con-
straints, and a larger array of opportunities. Considering more
than one site design (preferred design and prioritized alterna-
tives) is probably wise.
-------
174 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Developing technical criteria for establishing credit and
debit mitigation units. This subelement involves defining bank
credit and debit units and establishing a credit and debit process.
Establishing a credit and debit system could be based on a range
of functional units or "currencies'' that should acknowledge the
value of the prerestoration site and extent of restoration activity
(i.e., restoration versus enhancement). In the context of models 1
and 2, this element could force the further development and
refinement of functionally based evaluation procedures. Such
procedures would directly benefit understanding of wetland
system functions and assessment of progress toward no-net-loss
goals.
Agreement on standard methods for evaluating and
quantifying habitat quality and "value" is essential. An alterna-
tive to a functional/habitat basis for a credit and debit process is
use of a mitigation acreage ratio for establishing exchanges (Ford/
1991). It is also possible to combine acreage and functional/
habitat replacement into a credit and debit process.
In establishing the technical criteria for debits and credits,
consideration of how the timing of credit use (with respect to
ecological development) will affect the amount of credit accepted
is also important (i.e., is one unit of a five-year-old wetland worth
less than one unit of twenty-year-old wetland?).
Undertaking up-front construction. This element is
completely advantageous to both the resource itself and the
resource agencies in that temporal losses are minimized, and the
increased incentive to the development entity to successfully
complete and document the mitigation action as quickly as
possible would likely improve compliance with both require-
ments and mitigation intent
Even with assurances based on agreed-to criteria, up-front
construction and associated costs could be viewed as a substantial
risk if a problem with accessing mitigation credit arose. In the
case of mitigation banking, however, the advantages of up-front
construction are that economies of scale should reduce overall
costs even though the initial investment may be large.
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
175
Developing/agreeing on a functionally based monitor-
ing scheme. This element requires that the mitigation bank
participants define and agree to a monitoring scheme that can
support identified performance criteria. It is generally agreed that
a functionally based monitoring scheme is the most appropriate.
Is there an ideal methodology, or would specific monitoring
schemes need to be devised using existing methods as guidance?
Is any one existing assessment method available for broad use, or
would existing methods need to be modified for the particular
site and situation? Examples of methods available to evaluate the
functions and values of wetlands include HEP (Habitat Evalua-
tion Procedure), WET II (Wetland Evaluation Technique), Wet-
land Values (Reppert et al., 1979), and Habitat Assessment
Protocol (Simenstad et al., 1991) for estuarine areas (habitat
function only). All participants in the bank must agree on the
method and parameters to be used. Similarly, participants would
have to agree on appropriate ecological models and/or reference
sites to use in the design and evaluation of monitoring data.
Policy Elements
Defining the relationship to regulatory processes. The
legal framework of the memorandum of agreement or other legal
agreement should acknowledge and incorporate the regulatory
frameworks defined by the resource agencies, preferably across
all levels of government. Use of a mitigation bank could be
directly related to the existing standard sequencing process (i.e.,
mitigation banking is to be used only after prescribed mitigation
sequencing), or if the mitigation bank is the result of an approved
planning process and subsequent issuance of a general permit
such sequencing may not be necessary. Whereas all four models
could be applied to just the federal Section 404 permitting pro-
cess/ the strength of models 1 and 2 is their ability to accommo-
date/ consolidate similar types of permitting at each level of
government. The role of the regulatory process in establishing
and implementing a mitigation bank must be defined in detail.
Does the regulatory process primarily drive the way a bank is
-------
176
Partnerships k. Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
implemented? Or, can available planning processes provide a
primary mechanism by which to design and establish a bank?
The most effective and integrated approach would likely merge
both regulatory and planning entities.
Defining participant obligations and responsibilities.
All participants in a mitigation banking project should clearly
identify in writing their assumed responsibilities and obligations
in carrying the project forward in order to identify role overlap
and gaps and broadly clarify joint expectations.
Developing formal agreements. A formal agreement
must reflect the elements specific to each form of mitigation bank
established. The agreement should be simple but formal and
clearly written and should:
• Define the allowable, required, and prohibited uses of a
bank site.
• Describe the formation process, structure, implementation
process, and operation.
Some items requiring formal agreement might include specific
debit and credit procedures, design of bank development and
management plans, bank life, geographic area of applicability,
and evaluation methodology for assessing the degree of restora-
tion success (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992).
Maddux (1986) and Short (1988) identify necessary components
of a formalized agreement Other examples of such agreements
are included in Boule (1991). The Washington Department of
Transportation is currently working on such agreements with
regulatory entities.
Developing policies and procedural guidelines for site
administration. Up-front agreements for mitigation bank admin-
istration need to be established and will depend on the type and
specific purpose of the mitigation bank and the participants.
Different mitigation banking models may be used under different
circumstances. Will policies for site administration differ
throughout the range of mitigation bank models (i.e., would
Washington Department of Transportation agreements work well
as a model for other types of mitigation bank)?
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
177
Establishing the administrative agent The administra-
tive agent should be responsible for at least managing the mitiga-
tion bank site and administering credits and debits to the bank.
Would the signatories to the legal agreement be the administra-
tive agents for the bank? Which entities would be appropriate to
select as representative administrative agents? Will the choice
differ depending on bank type? What are the specific criteria for
being the administrative agent? Could the administrative agent
be the bank developer, or should the administrative agent be an
independent third party not associated with the development
interest (e.g., land trusts and other nonprofit entities)? These
questions would be worth considering during mitigation bank
development.
Site Administration dements
Administering credit brokering and credit tracking. Are
credits given only for those portions of the bank that are "func-
tioning"? Or are credits awarded for the most part based on
acreage? If credits are based on acreage replacement, must the
mitigation be in-kind only? Can additional credits be given for
the same parcel twice (i.e., does the value of the habitat increase
over time)? What accounting method is used for crediting and
debiting activities? Can credits be sold or transferred to partici-
pants of the bank or to parties not included in the original formal
legal document? Many of these types of decisions may need to be
reviewed and approved by some form of interagency oversight
committee.
Bank credits and debits should be based on a method of
evaluating habitat function. The specific assessment methods and
monitored parameters will depend on the bank's specific function
objectives. Determining a method for evaluating habitat function
is perhaps one of the most difficult elements, but it is also one of
the most important because the credit used to offset a project's
impacts will depend on the ecological evaluation methodology.
The methodology would be used to assess both pie- and peefc
mitigation functions. Some examples of evaluation methodakh
-------
178
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
gies include Adamus et al. (1987), Zedler and Langus (1990), US.
Fish and Wildlife Service (1980), Karr et al. (1986), Baird (1989),
Reppert et al. (1979), and Simenstad et al (1991).
Cost recovery mechanisms. Costs include investment of
resources in terms of people and money (for restoration, acquisi-
tion, monitoring, management, maintenance, and administra-
tion). If multiple entities are allowed to use a given bank as
needed, up-front funding must be secured to develop the bank.
This up-front funding could come from resource agencies, private
nonprofit entities, or a core of development interests.
As one specific example, the funding for a mitigation
bank similar to model 2 (for small, unrelated projects) would
probably have to come from either resource agencies or non-
profit funding since development interests would have little
direct incentive to provide mitigation that would largely be used
by other developers - unless, that is, there were market incentives
to provide such a service. Such incentives would have to be
grounded on the belief that the regulatory agencies would rou-
tinely require mitigation for individual, small projects. These
requirements would in turn be practical only if the per-unit cost
of the mitigation were within reason.
Site Management Elements
Centralizing long-term management responsibility from a
myriad of development interests to a single site-management
entity makes implementation and oversight of monitoring,
performance criteria evaluation, contingency implementation,
and site maintenance easier and potentially less expensive per
unit effort. With respect to this dement, models 1 and 2 would be
advantageous.
Managing and maintaining mitigation site. Over what
time period should the site be actively managed and maintained
(e.g., until all credits have been expended or until the banks' goals
and objectives are met and documented)? What stewardship
entity should oversee long-term management and maintenance
needs?
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
179
Contingency work - monitoring and reporting. The
same ecological evaluation methodology used to quantify credits
should be used to monitor the degree of ecological success of the
mitigation project in meeting intended goals. A time schedule for
monitoring and report preparation and submittal should be
clearly articulated in the formal agreement. Similarly, the finan-
cial responsibilities for correcting identified problems or initiating
contingency actions must be clearly defined and linked to quanti-
fiable performance standards.
Financial Elements
Up-front financing. Establishing a mitigation bank will
involve significant up-firont expenses. Should up-front costs be
the sole responsibility of bank participants? How can financing
be guaranteed? Some form of financial assurance will likely be
necessary. Such financial assurance could be in the form of a
letter of credit with a standby trust, a fully funded trust, or a
surety performance bond with a standby trust (US. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1992).
Decreasing costs per unit effort The costs for a bank
should be less than for piecemeal mitigation, especially in the
long term.
Identification of funding and other resources for estab-
lishment and administration. The financial responsibility of the
bank should be tied to the parties that develop and receive the
credits from the bank.
Ownership Elements
Boule (1991) describes a number of examples of different
ownership/user scenarios. Aigonne (1992) identified forty
mitigation banks at some phase of development Of these, only
seven were used by private interests for mitigation; twenty-eight
of these banks were related to state development activities. A
number of port-development-related mitigation banks were also
identified.
One owner, one user, private. An example of this type of
-------
180
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
participant would be a large housing development or other
planned development that results in small encroachments into
wetlands.
One owner, one user, public This type of participant
could include state departments of transportation, public port
districts, cities, and counties.
Public sector owner, multiple users. This type of partici-
pant could include port districts, utilities, roads, public works,
cities, counties, and so on.
Private sector owner, multiple usen. No banks of this
type exist, but prototypes are proposed in New Jersey and Cali-
fornia. A typical participant might be a coalition of developers
within a given geographic area.
Summary and Recommendations
1. There is more than one type of mitigation bank. Many
of the broad conceptual criticisms of mitigation banking appear to
be based on a single and overgeneralized conceptual model of
what a mitigation bank is. Each type of mitigation bank has a
specific potential application and its own strengths and draw-
backs. A number of these mitigation bank types merit close
consideration and test application before myriad banks are
proposed and accepted - that is, mitigation bank options should
be actively but methodically pursued.
2. Many critical and yet common elements are associated
with the range of mitigation banking models. Policies and
guidance on these common elements should take place in a
regional context rather than on a case-by-case basis to ensure
predictability, consistency, and efficiency in the design, testing,
and acceptance of mitigation banking approaches.
3. Mitigation bank development can be approached
through regulatoiy and/or planning processes. Nationally, most
existing mitigation banks have been developed and implemented
almost completely with a relatively narrow regulatory focus.
From this perspective, most mitigation banks developed to date
have resulted from reactive rather than proactive resource agency
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
181
efforts - that is, resource agencies have been responding to
development-oriented proposals rather than formulating various
best-case mitigation bank models. Currently/ however/ a number
of mitigation banking projects under development are being
proposed as part of comprehensive planning activities (e.g./
Eugene, Mill Creek).
4. Discussion and design of mitigation banks need to be
incorporated into nonregulatory resource agency planning
processes. Examples of such planning processes might include
the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan wetlands
program and local government watershed and wetland manage-
ment plans. Although SAMPs (Special Area Management Plans)
and AIPs (Advanced Identification Processes) are examples of
such locally based planning processes/ both require extensive
time commitments on the part of the regulatory programs that
may hinder the efficient transfer of useful mitigation banking
models.
5. Regional planning forums and processes should be
utilized in the design and implementation of mitigation banks.
The permit-by-permit regulatory approach will not likely be able
to effectively or efficiently handle the workload associated with
developing, testing, and transferring mitigation banking applica-
tions. Where localized restoration goals are not yet developed,
regional restoration goals and objectives could be used to objec-
tively guide the design of mitigation hank sites. The 1991 Puget
Sound Water Qualify Management Plan (Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, 1990) wetland restoration element is one
potential example of such a regional planning forum/process.
References
Adamus, P.R., ARA Inc., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith and R.E, Young. 1967.
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). Volume. II. Methodology. Vicksbuig,
Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 178 p.
Argonne National Laboratory. 1992. Wetland Mitigation Banking Project
Summary. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory.
-------
182
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Baird, K. 1989. High quality restoration of riparian ecosystems. Restoration
and Management Notes 7:60-64.
Boule, M.E. 1992. Mitigation Banking: Opportunities and Constraints.
Presentation to the Snohomish County Planning Department, Everett,
Washington.
Ford/K.E. 1991. Wetland Mitigation Banking: A Potential Tool for Re-
source Management Planning, Masters Thesis. University of Washington,
Seattle.
Karr, J.R., Fansch K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant P.R., and L.J. Schlosser. 1986.
Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and Its Rationale,
Special Publication 5. Urbana, Illinois: Illinois Natural History Survey,
Kusler, J. 1992. The Mitigation Banking Debate. National Wetlands Neioslet-
ter 14(1).
Lewis, R.R. 1990. Wetland restoration, creation, enhancement terminology:
suggestions for standardization. In: Wetland Creation and Restoration, J.A.
Kusler, and M.E. Kentula, eds. The Status of the Science. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press. Pp. 417-422.
Maddux, R.D. 1986. Estuarine Mitigation Banking: A Chance for Predict-
ability. Master of Marine Affairs thesis. University of Washington, Seattle.
202 p.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Authority. 1990.1991 Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan. Adopted November 21,1990. Seattle,
Washington: Puget Sound Water Quality Management Authority.
Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers, 1979.
Wetland Values Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. Research
Report 79-R1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources.
Short, C. 1988. Mitigation banking. Biological Report 88 (41). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Simenstad, C.A., C.D. Tanner, R.M. Thom, and L.L. Conquest. 1991.
Estuarine Habitat Assessment Protocol, U.S. Seattle, Washington: Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region 10,
-------
Work Group: Partnerships in Restoration Mitigation Banking
183
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Mitigation Banking Guidance,
Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1960. Habitat Evaluation Procedures. ESM102.
Washington, D.C.: Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Wetlands Mitigation Banking.
Publication No. 92-12. Olympia, Washington: Department of Ecology.
Zedler, J.B. and R. Langes. 1990. A Manual for Assessing Restored end Natural
Coastal Wetlands. San Diego, California: Pacific Estuarine Research Labora-
tory, San Diego State University, California.
-------
Work Group
Development of Restoration Goals on a
Regional Basis
Ginny Broadhurst
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, Washington
Curtis D. Tanner
U-S. Hsh and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington
Problem
The lack of watershed-specific restoration goals limits the
ecological effectiveness of wetland restoration projects. The
outcome of the current case-by-case approach in determining
habitat type and project location is that efforts do not maximize
resource benefits to the ecosystem. Combined with a strict
adherence to an "in-kind/onsite" policy for compensatory
projects, this contributes to several undesirable results:
• A continued loss of wetland area, and perhaps more impor-
tantly, wetland function.
• An arbitrary shift in the type and location of wetland re-
sources.
• Restoration and compensatory mitigation projects of ques-
tionable ecological merit.
• An unpredictable mitigation proposal review process.
We anticipate that the development of regional restora-
tion goals would increase the long-range, system wide benefits of
mitigation and noncompensatory wetland restoration projects.
Workshop Goal
Assuming the need for regional restoration goals, develop
an approach or process that would lead to their development.
Discussion Topics
1. What elements would need to be incorporated into the
-------
Work Group: Development of Restoration Goals on a Regional Bans
185
development of restoration goals? What sources of infor-
mation could be utilized in determining these elements?
2. Who are the important players to be included in this pro-
cess? What role could project proponents perform?
3. How do we get beyond agency-specific mandates to allow
for consideration of the larger ecological perspective?
4. What type of process (e.g., watershed planning/ workshop,
working group, conference, facilitated negotiation) would
be most effective in developing these goals? How could
these goals be revised?
Workshop Results
General Concepts
A comprehensive wetland restoration strategy would not
only be beneficial to the resources and the overall health of the
system, but would facilitate planning and development. Devel-
opers could more readily understand the process, resource
benefits of compensatory actions, rules, and standards of account-
ability.
The West Eugene Wetlands Management Plan was
viewed by many as a useful model for a regional approach to
wetland resource management. The apparent success of this plan
was due largely to the impetus provided by the local government
and public. Many work group participants stated that extensive
public input can ultimately lead to the "buy-in" necessary for
such a regional plan to work. In addition to the extensive public
input incorporated in the plan, it was also noted that the provi-
sion for growth that allows developers to meet their needs en-
hances success of the West Eugene plan.
An important role that should be assumed by state and
federal resource agencies is the provision of technical assistance to
local governments in their development of wetland protection
and restoration programs. One novel idea is the development of
an '"extension" type service that would place resource experts in
the offices of local governments on a short-term basis. Presum-
-------
186 Partnerships k Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
ably, this would allow a more efficient transfer of information to
local planners and others who would benefit from the technical
expertise that lies within many resource agencies.
To facilitate the development of large-scale restoration
plans, state and federal resource agencies may need to provide
funds to local governments. This initial investment will require
assumption of an oversight role to guarantee follow through and
long-term satisfactory results. Limited resources should obvi-
ously be focused on regions where resource problems are most
severe, but more importantly, where local interest already exists.
Pursuing a more proactive approach may require that resources
be diverted from traditional regulatory programs to fund restora-
tion and management plans.
Some work group participants expressed concern that in
Washington State the Growth Management Act process has
preempted the opportunity for development of local impetus. In
comparison to the West Eugene example that was viewed as
bottom-up, the Growth Management Act has perhaps resulted in
a top-down approach that some feel can not succeed. While the
act may present an opportunity for development of a watershed
approach, current deadline pressures make it difficult for local
governments to take on more than minimum requirements.
Habitat restoration remains an uncertain business. To
overcome technical limitations, there is a need to incorporate
research objectives into restoration projects. The development of
effective monitoring plans to evaluate project success will help to
lead to increased understanding of restoration projects. Some
participants felt that agencies discourage innovative mitigation
projects because of increased risk. Balancing the need to protect
habitat resources and develop new habitat restoration and en-
hancement methods presents a difficult challenge.
Data collection and analysis has not been coordinated
among agencies, universities, consultants, and others. Available
data from mitigation and restoration projects should be centrally
compiled into a regional data base. Where data are not collected
because of limited staffing, the feasibility of using volunteers for
-------
WorkGroup: Development of Restoration Goals on a Regional Basis
187
project monitoring and other data gathering tasks should be
examined.
In the push to protect and restore wetlands, the impor-
tance of other habitat types should not be forgotten. Regional
restoration planning requires a landscape approach that examines
the context of the site within the surrounding system. Marginal
wetlands should not necessarily be preserved at the expense of
other important upland habitats. Sufficient connections between
different habitat type are required to fulfill the broad needs of fish
and wildlife and maintain a healthy hydrologic system.
Gap analysis was identified as a potential tool in develop-
ing restoration goals. This approach compares critical habitat
areas to protected areas in an attempt to identify deficiencies;
important areas not adequately protected. Similarly, restoration
areas with high potential could be identified and given special
status. Furthermore, regionally scarce, important, or severely
impacted habitat types should be identified, and given the great-
est emphasis in restoration plan development and implementa-
tion.
Specific Discussion Topics
1. Developing regional restoration goals.
• Planning area: Ideally, a wetland restoration and manage-
ment plan should be developed on a watershed scale. It
was noted, however, that large watersheds may be too large
to be feasible. A subset of a large watershed system may
allow for a workable size and scale.
• Identification of available information: Data might include
geographic information, old photographs, planning docu-
ments, fish and wildlife utilization, water quality monitor-
ing, or other environmental information.
• Baseline information: An accurate understanding of historical
conditions, cumulative impacts, current status, limiting
factors, and future threats.
• Constraints: Both physical (where can habitat be restored)
-------
188
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
and technological (what restoration and enhancement
activities are possible).
• Public involvement A two-way process beginning with
education on the conceptual ideas and the goals of the
project. Those involved would then assist in the develop-
ment of plan elements and ultimately accept the end prod-
uct.
• Final plan: would include identification of: (1) specific
functions (e.g., fish and wildlife support, flood storage/
attenuation, aesthetics) to be prioritized; (2) habitat types to
be provided; (3) restoration/enhancement techniques to be
utilized; (4) areas to be preserved, restored, developed; (5)
monitoring responsibilities; (6) revision process
2. Players. A committee would include federal and state
agencies, local govemment(s), tribes, community groups, land-
owners/neighborhood groups, developers, and watershed action
group (where possible). The unresolved question is who will lead
the process? Specific project proponents could have a role in the
process, but specific projects should not be points for negotiation.
3. Agency mandates. Agency mandates won't go away
and shouldn't be ignored. The key is to ensure that the program
addresses individual mandates up front. In this way, agency
representatives can then be assured that they are part of the
process and focus on the bigger picture.
4. Process. No dear process for creating a regional
restoration plan came out of the discussions, but several scenarios
were described:
• Watershed planning processes are already in place and may
be a process that could be expanded to encompass the
issues described above.
• Workshops could be held to disseminate information from
agencies to local planners.
• A memorandum of agreement could be signed between a
local government and agencies to describe roles, players,
process, etc.
-------
WorkGroup: Development of Restoration Goals on a Regional Basis 189
• A pilot program could be initiated with federal money to
provide a local model project.
Conclusions
The benefits of developing regional restoration goals and
a management plan for implementation were clearly recognized
by the work group. While the impetus to do so lies within
existing agency mandates, no process currently exists to coordi-
nate varied objectives in the development of a larger management
framework.
An ecologically sound approach to wetland restoration
must incorporate a landscape approach. In doing so, the relative
importance of an individual wetland or potential restoration site
must be considered within the overall context of the landscape.
Not all wetlands support the functions attributed to wetlands as a
whole, and allowing for growth may require development in
some areas and restoration in others. The relative importance of a
wetland as compared to important upland habitat that might be
lost should also be considered. Interactions, both positive and
negative, between a potential restoration site and the surrounding
landscape must be accounted for in assessing the value of under-
taking restoration or enhancement activities.
Successful wetland restoration and management plans
will require resource agency support and extensive local involve
ment. Agencies must be relied upon for necessary funding and
technical support. The process of developing plans must be
driven by a strong local interest, and reflect regional needs, both
ecological and social.
Resource agencies must go beyond making themselves
available for technical support. While an "open door" policy is a
good start, more innovative approaches may be required. One
important idea considered in the work group is the development
of an "extension" type service. Resource agency personnel with
technical expertise could be "loaned" to local governments
involved in the planning process. Information on important
habitats, limiting factors, and potential restoration sites provided
-------
190
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
by agency personnel could be better balanced against an under-
standing of regional concerns and constraints.
-------
Work Group
Discovering Choices:
Goal-setting for Ecological Restoration
James G. Wyant
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Corvailis, Oregon
To produce things and not rear them,
To produce, but not to take possession of them,
To act, but not to rely on one's own ability,
To lead them, but not to master them ...
Lao tzu
Abstract
Selecting goals for an ecological restoration effort requires
consideration of both the present and the future, the ecological
and economic constraints, as well as the full array of legitimate
preferences of a pluralistic society. Yet, it is also unrealistic to
expect that any restoration planning effort will include detailed
understanding of all these aspects simultaneously. How should
restoration planners employ information filters in order to reach
fair, effective decisions in a reasonable time frame? A decision
framework approach can be used to understand the fundamental
information used (either explicitly or implicitly) when alternative
ecological restoration goals are evaluated. It might also serve to
identify differences among stakeholders (i.e., interested parties) or
where the decision system may be information-limited. In
general, questions arise as to:
• The goals of ecological restoration.
• The best methods and technologies to employ in ecological
restoration activities.
• How the success or failure of ecological restoration attempts
will be judged.
This working group session focused on the first question
- identifying goals for restoration planning. Current ecological
theory recognizes that an equilibria! state does not occur in nature
-------
I
192 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
and suggests that a return to historical condition is neither an
achievable nor a desirable goal for ecological restoration. Given
the fact that there is no clearly preferable endpoint for any resto-
ration effort, we concluded that restoration planning should
include a wider spectrum of participants and decisions than have
traditionally been employed. Our working group recognized a
clear need to assemble a broad and objective perspective of the
ecological, social, and economic knowledge that is required to
address the problems of ecological restoration.
Introduction
The practice of ecological restoration has been developing
over many decades and a variety of definitions for the term have
been proposed. Our working group session focused on challeng-
ing the generally accepted definition of ecological restoration as
quoted at the beginning of this workshop by workshop coordina-
tor Kathleen Kunz - "Return from a totally altered condition to a
previously existing natural or altered condition by some human
action" (Lewis, 1990). We decided that this definition is inad-
equate for decision making in the real world.
Because change is constant in ecosystems, the selection of
a historic condition may be neither achievable nor desirable as a
goal for ecological restoration. Current ecological theory allows
for discontinuous and irreversible transitions, nonequilibrial
communities and stochastic effects in succession (Mcintosh, 1985;
Taylor, 1986; Westoby et al., 1989; Botkin, 1990; Wyant and
Knapp, 1992; Cattelino et al., 1979; and Cooper, 1926). Clearly,
selecting historical conditions as a goal for ecological restoration
has no foundation in the current scientific understanding of
ecosystem dynamics. If restoration practitioners cannot target
historic conditions, then selecting the future condition or goal of
restoration attempts becomes the responsibility of the restoration
planner - a frightening proposition for most planners, who prefer
simple, solvable problems over complex, impenetrable ones.
Perhaps the real purpose of ecosystem restoration is to
provide society with the many sustainable benefits produced by a
-------
Work Group: Goal-setting for Ecological Restoration
193
restored ecosystem more quickly than would be possible under a
natural recovery process. This means that restoration planning
will require a series of goal-driven decisions that focus on both
ecological and socioeconomic criteria. Consequently/ a dear need
exists to assemble a broad and objective perspective of the eco-
logical and socioeconomic knowledge required to underlay a
pragmatic approach to decision making for ecological restoration.
How can restoration planners and practitioners address
this challenge? One approach is to examine the decisions that
might be needed when choosing a specific restoration goal or
identifying performance standards for restoration engineering. In
general, questions arise as to:
• The ecosystem functions and values targeted for restoration.
• The best methods and technologies to employ in restoration
activities.
• How the success or failure of restoration attempts will be
judged.
Our working group concentrated on the first item -
setting goals for ecological restoration. We used the concept of a
goal-driven decision framework to understand the fundamental
information used (either explicitly or implicitly) when restoration
options are evaluated. A goal-driven decision process includes:
• Defining natural resources in their broadest sense/ regard-
less of whether market values have been established for
them.
• Then constraining the possible resources targeted for resto-
ration by focusing on those that are ecologically and envi-
ronmentally possible.
• Then choosing those that are socially desirable.
It is a process of first defining what is environmentally
possible/ and then selecting from the realm of environmentally
possible outcomes those that are socially preferable.
We suggest that the decision framework approach can
help restoration practitioners identify where the decision system
may be information-limited. Using an explicitly defined decision
-------
194
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
framework may also encourage restoration planners to consider a
broader array of perspectives when alternative restoration goals
are evaluated. Finally, a decision framework approach can serve
to identify legitimate differences among stakeholders (i.e., inter-
ested parties) should conflicts arise.
Defining Natural Resources:
Ecosystem Functions and Their Value
The realm of possible natural resources that might be
targeted for restoration are constrained by two fundamental
factors. First, ecological functions are constrained by environ-
mental factors - such as climate, geology, and natural and human
disturbance regimes - which determine limits to species composi-
tion, architectural structure, and functions of ecosystems. On the
other hand, the socioeconomic context will help determine which
particular mix of the possible natural goods and services is
desirable or valuable. There are seemingly innumerable trade-
offs that must be considered when societies choose to exploit a
particular mix of natural resources.
The diversity of questions and hypotheses regarding the
environmental, economic, and social values of ecological restora-
tion is a reflection of the uncertainty surrounding how to define
and measure ecosystem functions and ascertain their values. The
focus of restoration decision making, especially wetland restora-
tion, on the concepts of ecosystem function and value is so con-
fusing semantically that I am convinced we must give up this
catch-all approach. More precise and more operational defini-
tions for each of the many submeanings that have been attached
to the terms "function" and "value" are essential
Discovering What is Possible:
Ecosystem Functions
Finding the realm of possible ecosystem functions re-
quires consideration of not only the site at which restoration
intervention might take place, but also the ecological context, the
-------
WorkGroup: Goal-setting for Ecological Restoration
195
landscape or region in which the site occurs. Recent studies have
demonstrated that ecological systems are open; that is, their
properties are not only determined by what happens within
them, but also by processes that operate in the larger system
within which they are imbedded (Allen et ai, 1984 and Brown
and Roughgaiden, 1990).
The synergistic effects of different driving forces operat-
ing within these imbedded ecosystems/ landscapes, and regional
scales attenuate the effect of any single force in a complex,
nonlinear fashion. Consequently, the cause-effect way of think-
ing, though it works well for understanding nonliving systems,
should not be depended on exclusively for restoration planning -
that is, of one cause producing one specific effect, instead of
keeping us sensitive to systematic and organismic changes.
Systems and landscape ecology are two approaches to ecological
thinking that may provide some value in understanding the
complexity of an ecosystem's response to restoration efforts.
Landscape ecology emphasizes the ecological effects of
spatial patterns in large areas. Like restoration, landscape ecology
is a young science, therefore, the role that it may play in the
context of restoration initially will require research. However,
because basic properties of the land vary in both space and time,
any sensible system of resource assessment and planning must
have information about:
• Landscape characteristics and the spatial distribution of
those characteristics.
• Information about how temporal change in land quality
values may occur.
Temporal changes in landscape characteristics will also
usually be accompanied by changes in spatial patterns of those
values. The complex attributes of landscape, like the complexities
of ecosystems, should be viewed as an asset that allows a degree
of flexibility, subject to ecological limits, for restoration goal-
setting.
The systems approach focuses attention on the functional
roles of the ecosystem components and not their taxonomic titles.
-------
196
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
For example, plants may be represented at various times by
different taxa, but some of the general functions of any plants are
to persist and to produce reduced carbon compounds that serve
as energy sources for all organisms, except chemoautotrophs. A
guiding premise that has been recognized for decades is that all
ecosystems are characterized by homeostasis among their compo-
nents. Major alterations in any of the system's functional compo-
nents may cause significant changes in other components, thereby
altering the internal structure of the system (e.g., vegetation,
community composition, organic matter dominance, animal
community dynamics, etc.), but ecosystem persistence is main-
tained even though a new homeostatic state may be developed. If
any of the functional components are eliminated or reduced to
such a degree that they become ineffective, the ecosystem will
become vulnerable to complete collapse driven by abiotic factors.
Employing ecosystem and landscape approaches to
restoration planning and goal-setting activities will require
integration of knowledge of the site and the landscape within
which the restoration attempt will occur. This is not beyond the
scope of restoration projects; rather, it must be an integral part of
each. It is essential that restoration practitioners be prepared to
include thorough ecosystem context studies in their restoration
planning (Morrison and Scott, 1991). These factors constrain our
expectations for the restored ecosystem.
Discovering What is Preferable: Ecosystem Values
Although ecological restoration is considered by many to
be the definitive test for the science of ecology (Bradshaw, 1987;
Ewel, 1987; Cairns, 1989; and Lubchenco et aL, 1991), even the
best science is nothing by itself. Ecological science alone cannot
provide the insight to make wise choices (Schumacher, 1973 and
Cowling, 1992) for restoration planning.
In the real world, restoration goals are determined by
their value to society. But "ecosystem values" are defined in
many ways, mean different things to different people, and en-
compass all sorts of miscellaneous and vague concepts and ideas.
-------
WorkGroup: Goal-setting for Ecological Restoration
197
What are these ecosystem values that we focus our restoration
efforts on sustaining or recovering? Only a pluralistic description
can serve; that is, a catalogue of the various ways in which the
idea "ecosystem value" is actually used by different people.
Restoration practitioners and planners must provide
mechanisms through which stakeholders are identified before
they can indicate their choices about which ecological characterisr-
tics have value. In some circumstances/ conflicts over what is
socially preferable must be resolved. Then the goal of the deci-
sion process is to identify the acceptable alternatives. Those who
have different perspectives tend to have different assessments of
merit or value of restoration activities. However, for restoration
planning, success can be measured in finding broad consensus
that the course of action is reasonable, even though contending
parties may still prefer somewhat different outcomes.
It seems essential that major stakeholders should be
confident that their positions have been heard and seriously
considered, that the decision was made after a thorough and
honest evaluation of alternatives, that it serves the national (local
and state) interest, and that it is fair (Russell, 1992). For example,
Wyant and Knapp (1992) developed a wetland restoration re-
search strategy for arctic oilfields in Alaska that focused, in part,
on identifying critically limiting wildlife habitat for a broader
range of species than previously had been considered. This goal-
set was identified after a series of workshops and interactions
with federal and state agencies and private corporations where
problem identification and consensus building, rather than
research techniques, were the primary concern.
After ecological and social goals have been determined, it
is necessary to establish priorities among potentially competing
possibilities. Traditionally, economic evaluation has dominated
this phase of planning. Yet, Western economic systems have
argued that it may be in the economic interest of society to de-
stroy or degrade some ecosystems at the expense of reduced
productivity in the future (Tisdel, 1989,1991). As a rule, they do
not recognize the virtue of sustainabitity.
-------
198
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
One alternative mechanism is to estimate the potential for
loss of desired goods and services from anthropogenic distur-
bances such as landform conversion, the introduction of pollut-
ants, etc. Pearce (1989) suggests that the value of natural objects
(e.g., ecosystems or ecosystem functions) is proportional to the
probabilities of disappearance and should not use current human
needs. Under this criterion, higher priority might be given to
ecological restoration efforts that recover the sustainable produc-
tion of desired goods and services at greatest risk from human-
caused disturbance. Characterizing risk includes a joint analysis
of the frequency and intensity of anthropogenic stresses, and the
likelihood that those stresses may threaten the ecosystem func-
tions identified as socially valuable (Wyant and Knapp, 1992).
Restoration planners must recognize that there is a
growing agreement that bask wealth calculations that look only
at fixed capital depreciation and ignore natural asset depletion are
foolish (Tolba, 1990). In order to avoid environmental and
economical conflict and achieve lasting success, restoration
ecologists must be globalistic in persuasion and holistically
minded futurists (Carnegie Commission, 1990 and Tolba, 1990).
Being Fair to the Future
Since the workshop, I have been thinking about the future
consequences of restoration planning. The following section is
my personal comment on our responsibility to the future and was
not covered in the working group session.
In some part, the practice of restoration ecology is about
being fair to the future. It is a moral matter as recognized by
many members of our society; a part of our obligation to leave a
sustainable biosphere. For example, the critical need for ecologi-
cal restoration, in support of sustainable utilization of the bio-
sphere, is one of the key elements in the Ecological Society of
America's Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (Lubchenco et aL,
1991). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources further suggests:
-------
Work Croup: Goal-setting for Ecological Restoration
199
The issue of moral principle... may be stated as follows.
Human beings have become a major evolutionary force. While
lacking the knowledge to control the biosphere, we have the
power to change it radically. We are morally obliged - to our
descendants and other creatures - to act prudently. (IUCN, 1980)
In order to be fair to the future, we are obliged to antici-
pate the changed environmental social economic, and political
contexts in which our restoration activities will have an impact
and the changed meaning that the results of our intentions will
have in that future context (Riner, 1990). For example, during the
two days of this workshop, many speakers referred to examples
of land management recommendations made during the period
when the federal government advocated filling of wetlands.
During that time, many land managers failed to recognize the
importance of willows and other riparian vegetation, and sug-
gested straightening of stream channels. These were cited as
myopic recommendations of land-use planners in the 1950s and
1960s. Yet, I am certain that these were conscientious profession-
als doing the best job they could. Why should we believe that our
efforts are going to be any less short-sighted?
In essence, restoration planning constitutes fuzzy gam-
bling because the rules are constantly changing. So it is important
to remember that the future will not fully appreciate our efforts,
but this does not relieve us from our obligation to behave respon-
sibly to that future. How can a restoration planner bring the
future into the planning arena? Future studies cannot solve this
dilemma. It is simply not possible to predict the future with
certainty.
Even outside of the sciences, the dominant paradigm for
truth has been that it should be lawlike, preferably reduced to the
form of a solvable equation. However, since complexity has
emerged as a driving force in the way the world works, the
dominant belief in a deterministic and reliably quantifiable truth
has, by necessity, begun to yield. Our need for realism and proof
is as strong as ever, but we can find ways to express this in a
different way (Schwartz, 1991). Scenario building is one tool that
-------
200
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
can be applied to improve decisions about an uncertain future.
Scenarios are a tool for helping us to take a long view in a
world of great uncertainty. They form a method for articulating
the different pathways that might exist tomorrow. Unlike tradi-
tional forecasting, scenarios can be employed to present and
explore alternative images. They do not merely extrapolate the
trends of the present. Rather, scenarios are a tool for identifying
the possible and probable economic, social, political and environ-
mental circumstances within which environmental policy deci-
sions will be judged. We cannot know which of the alternative
futures envisioned in a scenario will be accurate. However, in
envisioning alternatives/ decision makers will have made signifi-
cant strides in planning for surprise and will have anticipated the
flexibility and adjustments that environmental protection pro-
grams must have in order to meet the changing values and needs
of our society. The end result is not an accurate picture of tomor-
row, but better decisions about the future.
What will be the environmental concerns in the 21st
century? Speculation about the future context in which an
ecological restoration program might be judged is beyond the
scope of this paper. However, it seems apparent that complex,
long-term restoration efforts require elements of future studies,
planned flexibility, and planning for surprise. This is not a matter
of prediction, but rather, the weighing of choices among probable
and preferable alternatives CTolba, 1990; Riner, 1990; and
Schwartz, 1991).
The Feedback Mechanism
A program's merits are often too difficult to determine
objectively. Ideally, a program will be judged on its technical
merits (Le., the feasibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of pro-
posed remedies). Feasibility means the proposed remedy can be
put into place. Effectiveness means the plan will achieve the
desired results. Efficiency means operating at minimum cost and
conserving scarce public and private resources (Landey et al.,
1990).
-------
Work Group: Goal-setting for Ecological Restoration
201
Monitoring is the feedback loop providing a mechanism
through which the combined effectiveness of the restoration
process can be assessed. Until the field of restoration ecology
develops more robust predictive capabilities, the outcome of any
restoration effort will be uncertain (Cairns, 1990). However, in
spite of an imperfect knowledge of nature and the limits of
technology, we must make restoration judgments on the basis of
current understanding to plan adequately for the future (after
Masters etaL, 1991). Consequently, monitoring will be required
to determine whether the goals of restoration are being met in
restored ecosystems.
Our degree of belief in any single approach to restoration
should not be fixed. Given the uncertainty associated with a
limited knowledge base, the crucial importance of iterative
analysis in weighing ecological restoration alternatives in relation
to other management options should be foremost in our thoughts.
In the mindful application of a decision framework approach to
restoration planning, monitoring, or evaluation, our belief in
goals, values, and approaches to the problem cannot be fixed.
Rather, we should allow our belief to change as more is learned
about the system in question.
Conclusion
Ideally, the range of ecological restoration goals can be
determined by a hierarchical process in which management goals
for the region and its component landscapes are established prior
to the establishment of site-specific goals (e.g., What do we want
the landscapes to be like after restoration has been completed?).
These higher order management goals might include, for ex-
ample, statements of what mix and spatial arrangement of habi-
tats is deemed desirable, which ecological characteristics are
considered most valuable, etc. Examining the larger scale land-
scape and regional contexts is a mechanism that limits the realm
of choices for site-level interventions to those that are both eco-
logically possible, given local constraints, and socially desirable,
given local values.
-------
202
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
As a final philosophical note, I am deeply concerned with
the growing human dependence on technological fixes to the
environment. I think that restoration planning and execution
should be undertaken in the spirit of Lao tzu's poem, quoted at
the beginning of this paper. We must realize our dependence on
the natural processes of ecosystem recovery and understand that
while we may assemble many of the components of an ecosys-
tem, the complex, adaptive, and self-organizing features that
define a restored ecosystem arise from natural processes rather
than human intervention. This mindfulness is necessary lest we
be tempted to believe in our own programs and "follow the echo
of our own slogans into the realm of illusion and unreality"
(Merton, 1974). Restoration, like recycling, is only a secondary
good. Better to reduce use and consume finite resources wisely.
References
Allen, T.H.F., R.V. O'Neill, and T.W. Hoekstra. 1984. Interleuel Relations in
Ecological Research and Management: Some Working Principles from Hierarchy
Theory. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-110. Fort Collins,
Colorado: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-first
Century. New York: Oxford University Press. 256 p.
Bradshaw, A.D. 1987. The reclamation of derelict land and the ecology of
ecosystems. In Restoration Ecology, W.R. Jordan III, M.E Gilpin, and J.D.
Aber, eds. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 53-74.
Brown, J.H. and J. Roughgarden. 1990. Ecology for a changing earth.
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 71:173-188.
Cairns, John, Jr. 1989. Restoring damaged ecosystems: Is predisturbance
condition a viable option? Environmental Professional 11:152-159.
Cairns, J. Jr. 1990. The prediction, validation, monitoring and mitigation of
anthropogenic effects on natural systems. Enmronmental Auditor 2:19-25.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Task Force
on Environment and Energy. 1990. E': Organizing for Environment, Energy
and the Economy in the Executive Branch of the US. Government. Washington,
-------
Work Group: Goal-setting for Ecological Restoration 203
D.C.: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government.
Cattelino, P.J., I.R. Nobel, R.O. Slayter, and S.R. Kessel. 1979. Predicting
multiple pathways of plant succession. Environmental Management 3:41-50.
Cooper. W.S. 1926. The fundamentals of vegetational change. Ecology
7:391-413.
Cowling, E.B. 1992. The performance and legacy of NAPAP. Ecological
Applications 2:111-116.
Ewel, J.J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. In
Restoration Ecology, W.R. Jordan III, M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber, eds. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 31-33.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN). 1980. The World Conservation Strategy: living Resource Conservation
for Sustainable Development. Glands, Switzerland: IUCN
Landy, M.K., M.J. Roberts, and S.R. Thomas. 1990. The Environmental
Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions. New York: Oxford University
Press. 309 p.
Lubchenco, J., A.M. Olson, L.B. Brubacker, S.R. Carpenter, M.M. Holland,
S.P. Hubbell, S.A. Levin, J.A. MacMahon, P.A. Matson, J.M. Melillo, H.A.
Mooney, C.H. Peterson, H.R. Pullinam, L.A. Real, P.J. Regal, and P.G. Risser.
1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda.
Ecology 72:371-412.
Masters, C.D., D.H. Root, and E.D. Attanasi. 1991. Resource constraints in
petroleum production potential. Science 253:146-152.
Mcintosh, R.P. 1985. The Background of Ecology. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 383 p.
Merton, T. 1974. First and last thoughts. In A nomas Merton Reader,
McDonnel, ed.
Morrison, M.L. and T.A. Scott. 1991. Developing a methodology for wildlife
habitat restoration plans (California). Restoration and Management Notes
9:125-127.
Pearce, D. 1989. An economic perspective on sustainable development.
Development 2(3): 17-20.
Riner, R.D. 1990. Anthropology about the future. Renewable Resources
Journal 8:14-15.
-------
204
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Russell, M. 1992. Lessons from NAPAP. Ecological Applications 2:107-110.
Schumacher, E.F. 1973. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.
New York: Harper & Row. 305 p.
Schwartz, P. 1991. The Art of the Long View. New York: Doubleday. 241 p.
Taylor. P.W. 1986. Respect for Nature. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press. 329 p.
Tisdell, C.A. 1989. Environmental conservation: Economics, ecology and
ethics. Environmental Conservation 16:107-112,162.
Tisdell, C.A. 1991. Economics of Environmental Conservation. Amsterdam:
Elsevier. 233 p.
Tolba, M.K. 1990. Building an environmental institutional framework for
the future. Environmental Conservation 17:105-110.
Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Range management on the
basis of a model which does not seek to establish equilibrium. Journal of Arid
Environments 17:235-239.
Wyant, J.G. and C.M. Knapp. 1992. Alaska north slope oil-field restoration
research strategy (ANSORRS). U.S. EPA/600/R-92/022, Corvallis, Oregon.
-------
Work Group
The Special Area Management Planning
Process: Can Local and National
Interests be Merged?
Marc J. Hershman and Kent A. Lind
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Introduction
Special area management planning (SAMP) first emerged
in the early 1970s as a vehicle for resolving development and
preservation conflicts in selected coastal areas. In recent years, the
SAMP process has been proposed as a way to integrate wetlands
restoration with comprehensive planning efforts. One objective
of this Wetlands Restoration Workshop was to evaluate the
potential for using SAMP to promote wetlands restoration. To
better understand the SAMP process we first look at the roots of
SAMP and its acceptance by regulatory agencies. Second, we
examine the lessons of one Washington example, the Grays Harbor
Estuarine Management Plan (Grays Harbor Regional Planning
Commission, 1986), which was seventeen years in the making.
Finally, we conclude with several lessons about the possibilities
and pitfalls for SAMP in wetlands restoration.
The Four Roots of the SAMP Concept
1. Top-down Planning Traditions
The SAMP concept is heavily rooted in the "top down"
tradition of city planning that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s.
After development and adoption of a city master plan, detailed
Note: This paper is closely related to the symposium work group topic, but is
based on the authors' research and does not necessarily follow the work group
discussion.
-------
206
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
study and planning would occur for particular neighborhoods,
districts, or city functions. This top-down physical planning
model envisioned a second generation of detailed area plans. In
many ways, a SAMP resembles the second generation that
followed initial establishment of state coastal management
programs.
2. Task Force Problem Solving
By the early 1970s the task force method of problem
solving became a trend in environmental decision making. The
task force method of problem solving uses techniques of facili-
tated negotiation to achieve consensus from disparate players.
The SAMP process employs the task force approach to decision
making, and consensus is a basic principle of SAMP. The need
for consensus decision making was heightened by a growing
multiplicity of regulatory agencies and the environmental impact
statement process mandated by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
3. Coastal Zone Management
Many early SAMP efforts have their roots in the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). Unlike other environ-
mental acts, the CZMA did not create a federal regulatory
scheme. Rather, the CZMA provided incentives for the establish-
ment of state and local coastal zone management programs.
However, most state plans are general and policy-oriented,
rather than geographically specific, and have little project level
capacity (Walters, 1987). Local shoreline master programs, on the
other hand, are often too limited in jurisdiction or scope to en-
compass special areas of conflict that cross local government
boundaries. Brower and Carol (1987) have identified the follow-
ing as defining characteristics of such special areas:
• The failure of existing management authorities to achieve
their management goals for the area or enhance the area's
values.
• The lack of an appropriate management framework.
-------
Work Group: The Special Area Management Planning Process
207
• User conflicts between preservation and development
because of the area's high resource value.
• Management conflicts (between local/ state/ or federal
agencies in the same area).
• A spatial resource system historically identified by agencies
and users.
By the late 1970s the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management noted a trend. Regional SAMP efforts
(e.g./ San Francisco Bay, Coos Bay, Grays Harbor) were respond-
ing to "impasse" problems which were typically caused by
jurisdictional conflicts. In most cases, federal agencies such as the
US. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of
Engineers had balked at development proposals or local shoreline
master programs until conservation on a regional scale could be
assured. Special area management planning was seen as a
remedy to this impasse (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/1982).
The 1980 amendments to the CZMA encouraged:
... the preparation of special area management plans which
provide for increased specificity in protecting significant natural
resources, reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth,
improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas, and
unproved predictability in governmental decision-making.
(CZMA, §303 (3))
A1982 Federal Coastal Program Review conducted by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1992)
further elaborated on the SAMP concept. Throughout the 1980s,
considerable experimentation with SAMPs occurred in a wide
variety of areas, including barrier islands, urban areas, and
watersheds.
4. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers'
Adoption of the SAMP Process
In 1986 the Corps of Engineers issued regulatory guid-
ance letter 86-10, which recognized the need for collaborative
planning in sensitive areas and noted that SAMRs are just as
-------
208
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
applicable in noncoastal areas. The Corps also recognized that
good SAMPs reduce many of the problems associated with
traditional case-by-case project review. The Corps felt it espe-
cially important that the SAMP process produce a "definitive
regulatory product/' According to the regulatory guidance letter
An ideal SAMP would conclude with two products: (1) appro-
priate local/state approvals and a Corps general permit (GP) or
abbreviated processing procedure (APP) for activities in
specifically defined situations; and (2) a local/state restriction
and/or and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 404(c)
restriction (preferably both) for undesirable activities.
The implied predictability of a Corps general permit was
a particular incentive for many local jurisdictions and interests to
participate in the SAMP process. With a good SAMP, develop-
ment interests are assured predictability in the regulatory process,
and environmental interests are assured that individual and
cumulative impacts are accounted for in the context of broad
ecosystem needs.
The Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Plan
The Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Plan (Grays
Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1986), the first of its kind
in the nation, was seen as a prototype for the SAMP process in
the coastal zone (Figure 1). The plan was an attempt to improve
the predictability of the regulatory process by getting all the
agencies with jurisdiction in the estuary to agree to which areas
should be developed and which should be protected. In Grays
Harbor, the SAMP process took an extraordinary seventeen years
and now faces some uncertainties in implementation (Lind and
Hershman, 1993). The Grays Harbor Estuarine Management
Planning Task Force was formed in 1975 to resolve the frequent
conflicts between development interests, government agencies,
and environmental groups that plagued the region in the early
-------
leup/N
"¦"'•Mnmiuti
HJO/CM
Management Category
. Natural IN I
——* Conservancy Natural ! CN I
Conservancy Managed I CM I
Rural Agricultural I RA I
- -- - Rural Low Density I RLI
77;.„****„ U»ban Residential I UR I
MWg Urban Mired I UM I
:=t=~5t Urban Development I UD I
—Unit 44 C Conservancy Managed I
N J Management Unit Number Category
ryrt Management Unit Boundary
1 Study Area Boundary
Aquatic Management Unit Boundary
~ SP Special Area
Figure 1. Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program map.
-------
1973-1975
1975-1976
1977-1979
1980-1982
1983
1986-1987
1987-1988
All local jurisdictions
held hearings and adopted
Plan as an amendment to
their Shoreline Master
Programs. Ocean
Shores made changes to
Plan while adopting
1988
1992
WDOE held
hearings and
approved ail local
amendments
except Ocean
Shores pending
Task Force
approval of the
City's changes
1990
1990
Grays Harbor County
Aberdeen
Hoquiam
Westport
Cosmopotis
Ocean Shores
WDOE approved
Ocean Shores
amendment to
Plan.
Task Force
worked out
compromise
language on Ocean
Shores
amendment to
Plan.
Task Force goals
defined and
resource data
base created.
First draft plans
circulated by
1978.
GHEMPTask
Force established
with funding from
Washington
Coastal Zone
Management
Program.
Revised Ran
approved by Task
Force and sent to
local jurisdictions
for adoption.
Final Program EIS
released by WDOE
andNQAA.
Draft Plan and
Environmental
Impact Statement
released by WDOE
and NOAA. Public
comment period
and hearings.
Bowerman Basin
fill compromise
reached after
bird studtes and
USFWS peregrine
falcon "Jeopardy"
opinion.
Persistent
conflicts over
development
proposals
provided catalyst
for comp-
rehensive
estuary planning.
Department of
Commerce
(NOAA/OCRM)
approved Grays
Harbor Estuary
Management Plan as
an amendment to
Washington's Coastal
Zone Management
Program
o
Figure 2. Grays Harbor estuary management planning process. Source: Und and Herskman, 1993.
-------
Work Group: The Special Area Management Planning Process
211
1970s. It was not until 1992 that the product of the task force's
efforts gained federal approval from the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management and the task force could finally
disband (Figure 2).
Motivating Issues and Program Initiation
A variety of factors provided the impetus for develop-
ment of an area wide management plan in Grays Harbor. First,
considerable geographic/ socioeconomic, and governmental
homogeneity make it a prime candidate for regional planning.
Although there are numerous cities and towns in the region, the
entire estuary lies within one county and port district, and the
regional economy is heavily dependent on a single resource-
timber. There is no competition among multiple county govern-
ments and different port authorities as is the case in many estuar-
ies. Second, Grays Harbor had a long tradition of regional plan-
ning. Interagency regional planning had been conducted under
the auspices of the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission
and the Corps of Engineers since the 1950s. Third, continual
dredging and channel maintenance provided an abundance of
spoils that could be used as free fill material to create develop-
ment land in wetland and intertidal areas. The Port of Grays
Harbor, which had extensive tideland holdings, was particularly
eager for a plan that would specify fill sites and designate tide-
land areas for future development Finally, the existing manage-
ment framework was inadequate. Frequent conflicts between
government agencies, development interests, and environmental
groups produced costly delays and great uncertainty about the
use of the estuary. A key dispute over a proposal by the port to
dike and fill over 0.8 kilometer (0.5 miles) of shoreline as a site for
manufacturing offshore drilling equipment provided the impetus
for the SAMP process (Ortman, 1991).
By the fall of 1975, development interests and regulatory
agencies were at an impasse. All sides now viewed collaborative
planning as a means of reducing persistent conflicts over use of
theestuaiy. Local representatives in particular felt comprehen-
-------
212
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
sive planning would provide a greater degree of predictability in
the permitting of development projects.
In February 1976, the Grays Harbor Estuarine Manage-
ment Planning Task Force was formally organized with represen-
tatives from all local, state, and federal agencies with authority to
decide on land and water uses, including Grays Harbor County;
Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission; the cities of
Aberdeen, Hoquiam, Ocean Shores, Westport, and Cosmopolis;
the Port of Grays Haibor; Washington State Departments of
Ecology, Game, Fisheries, and Natural Resources; the US. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and Army Corps of Engineers. A
consulting team was retained to provide technical assistance and
mediate discussion. By September 1976, the Grays Haibor
Regional Planning Commission received a grant from the Wash-
ington Department of Ecology for the development of the Grays
Haibor Estuarine Management Plan (Evans et al., 1980).
At the outset, the Grays Harbor Estuarine Management
Planning Task Force made a controversial decision to exclude
nongovernmental entities from membership or ongoing partici-
pation in the process in the belief that this exclusion would result
in a more efficient planning process. Public input would be
sought during the investigation phase and after the plan was
drafted. Further, the task force believed the public would have
other opportunities to affect decisions through the National
Environmental Protection Act and State Environmental Protec-
tion Act processes. Environmental groups were strongly critical
of this exclusion and felt it violated public participation require-
ments of the Coastal Zone Management Act and Washington's
Shoreline Management Act.
Program Design and Preparation
The Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Planning Task
Force agreed on a traditional planning methodology of inventory,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation-decision making. All deci-
sions would be made by consensus and negotiation to assure the
-------
Work Group: The Special Area Management Planning Process
213
continued commitment of every participant. Optimistic members
of the task force felt that the process could produce a workable
plan within a year (Lattin, 1993). Everyone involved spoke of
"predictability" and expressed the hope that the process would
achieve it. However, the participants had fundamentally differ-
ent concepts of predictability. Local development interests
viewed predictability as assurance that projects would proceed
smoothly from private proposal and public administrative review
to approval and completion. Federal resource agencies on the
other hand, viewed predictability as protection for the long-term
biological viability of the estuary.
Early Drafts and Compromises
By 1978 the first draft plan was circulated among partici-
pating agencies for review. The Grays Harbor Estuarine Manage-
ment Planning Task Force had organized the plan around de-
scending levels of policies. The first level was a single, broad
policy statement - the estuary management goal - which set forth
the concept of balance in the development and preservation of the
estuary. The goal specifically stated that "the Grays Harbor
estuary will be managed for multiple uses." The second policy
level is the planning area. The estuary was divided into eight
planning areas (see Figure 1), each representing a common set of
natural and human-related features. The third policy level was
the management unit. This was the most specific policy level and
defined the appropriate and allowable uses of each part of the
estuary.
Perhaps the most significant and difficult issue involved
the proposed filling of Bowerman Basin, a wetlands area on the
northern shore of the estuary west of Hoquiam. The Port of
Grays Harbor was the sole owner of 880 hectares (2^00 acres) of
intertidal lands and adjacent wetlands in the basin and wanted
the plan to predesignate the entire 880 hectares (2^00 acres) for
eventual filling and industrial development. Resource agencies
adamantly opposed any filling on such an extensive scale An
initial compromise was worked out in 1978 allowing 200 hectares
-------
214
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
(500 acres) of fill in exchange for relinquishing the remaining 680
hectares (1,700 acres) to a state resource agency.
Shortly after this compromise, the unique character of the
basin as critical shorebird habitat began to be recognized. A
report by the US. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1978 identified the
area as a unique wildlife and shorebird ecosystem and concluded
that filling the basin could jeopardize the existence of endangered
peregrine falcons in the estuary (Blum, 1981). Studies conducted
by a variety of bird experts also underscored the importance of
Bowerman Basin to migratory shorebirds. Nearly half of the
migratory shorebirds passing through Grays Harbor estuary
gather in Bowerman Basin, and it is possible to see over a quarter
of a million shorebirds collected at one time along the southern
edge of the basin in late April. By 1980 the task force was per-
suaded to make further reductions in the fill allowed in the basin
(from 200 to 29 hectares; 500 to 73 acres) in an effort to avoid a
Fish and Wildlife Service "jeopardy" opinion for the peregrine
falcon.
Hearings and Public Participation
In early 1983 the Grays Harbor Estuarine Management
Planning Task Force distributed a January 1983 version of the
plan along with a program draft environmental impact statement.
During this official opportunity for public participation, over 450
written comments were submitted concerning the plan, including
letters of protest from an international audience of bird experts
concerned with protecting Bowerman Basin. At the same time a
coalition of eight environmental groups published their own
alternative plan called the Citizen's Estuary Management Plan,
which contained further restrictions on fills. Hearings were held
in September 1983 and the task force eventually adopted a num-
ber of significant changes, which included:
• Modification of the mitigation policy to conform to new
Council on Environmental Policy regulations.
• New historic and archaeological policies.
-------
Work Croup: The Special Area Management Planning Process
215
• New public access policies.
• The creation of a citizen's advisory board.
• Granting of protected status to the Bowerman Basin area.
A January 1986 version of the plan was officially ap-
proved by the task force, which included letters of intent from all
state and federal agencies agreeing to use the plan during permit
review. This version was submitted to local jurisdictions for
adoption in 1987 (Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission,
1986,1987).
Adoption of the Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Plan
During 1987 and 1988 additional public hearings were
held by local governments in accordance with established rules of
the state's Shoreline Management Act. By early 1988 all local
governments had adopted the January 1986 version as an amend-
ment to their shoreline master programs except for the city of
Ocean Shores. When adopting the plan, Ocean Shores made
changes in policies regarding bankline straightening and erosion
control measures at the request of property owners along the bay
side of the city. All amended shoreline master programs were
forwarded to the Washington Department of Ecology for ap-
proval. However, the department withheld approval of the
Ocean Shores amendments until the Grays Harbor task force
could review the changes. In 1988, the Department of Ecology
held public hearings, approved all the other amended shoreline
management programs, and forwarded the adopted amendments
to the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management;
OCRM withheld approval of all the amendments until the Ocean
Shores conflict could be resolved. The task force did not work out
compromise language acceptable to everyone until 1990, and the
Ocean Shores amendments were forwarded to OCRM. On
January 31,1992, the Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Plan was
finally approved by the agency as an amendment to
Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program.
-------
216 Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
The Problem of Consistency with Federal Policy
Evolving federal estuary and wetlands policies added a
great deal of time and confusion to the planning process. Some
Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Planning Task Force
members, especially at the local level, felt that federal policy was
somehow locked into the plan at the time federal agencies issued
letters of intent agreeing to use the 1986 version in permit review.
But in 1990 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service circulated a lengthy
letter detailing a number of areas where the agency felt the plan
fell short of current federal environmental laws, mitigation
policies, and wetland protection mandates.
Of particular concern to the agency was Bowerman Basin.
In 1988 Congress had authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service to
obtain the basin within three years for the creation of the Grays
Harbor National Wildlife Refuge through direct purchase or land
swaps with the Port of Grays Harbor. No changes had been
made in the Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Plan to reflect this
new status (as of February 1993 the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the port had not yet reached agreeable sale terms). Since the plan
had yet to be adopted at the federal level, the agency threatened
to withhold recommendation if its concerns were not addressed
by the task force (Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission,
1990).
By 1990 some local task force members were questioning
the benefits of the plan to local interests and discussed abandon-
ing it completely. Since the focus of estuary and wetlands policy
had shifted to the federal level by the late 1980s some local au-
thorities felt the regional planning process was becoming a
useless reiteration of federal policies. At this point James P.
Burgess, Chief of the Coastal Programs Division of the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, intervened with a
letter to the task force threatening to withdraw all funding for the
plan and the local governments involved in the planning process
if the entire plan was not adopted by June 30,1990 (Burgess,
1990). Burgess argued that although it was necessary to redefine
-------
Work Group: The Special Area Management Planning Process
217
more clearly the plan amendment process/ small inconsistencies
with federal policies were not a reason for delaying adoption of
the plan itself.
A particularly troublesome issue for the task force was the
rather cumbersome amendment procedures outlined in the plan.
Amendments were to be approved in a procedure similar to plan
adoption itself. Both unforeseen developments at the local level
and evolving policies at the federal level necessitated continual
updating of the plan between 1986 and the time of federal adop-
tion in 1992.
Plan Implementation
Much of the conflict over plan consistency with state and
federal policies centered on how the plan was to be implemented.
As it was adopted by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management in 1992, the plan represented both a policy and a
regulatory instrument In June 1992, the task force agreed to add
language to the plan describing how it should be used as a policy
document in conjunction with existing local shoreline manage-
ment programs rather than a regulatory document on its own
(Trohimovich, personal communication). This was an attempt to
resolve reservations by federal agencies over the plan's consis-
tency with evolving federal policy and local frustration with its
vague language. County planners in particular have found the
plan difficult to implement as a regulatory document because it is
worded in more general terms than a typical zoning regulation
(Kimura, personal communication).
Since the start of the planning process in 1976 there has
been very little development activity to test the plan due to
chronic economic problems in Grays Harbor. The lack of signifi-
cant development pressure makes it difficult to point to specific
areas of the estuary in which the plan has had a positive or
negative effect. In fact, several of the industrial sites filled in the
1970s still remain vacant for lack of demand and mill closures
have freed up even more industrial area.
Local authorities feel the goal of predictability will never
-------
218
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
be realized due to hesitancy within state and federal agencies to
fully commit to the plan. For example, the Corps of Engineers
has never issued a general permit or even an abbreviated process-
ing procedure for the plan as it had recommended in its 1986
regulatory guidance letter. Local authorities argue that the
cumulative impact assessment goal of comprehensive planning
has been overtaken by federal and state policy, which mandates
case-by-case decision making (Lattin, personal communication)
Federal agencies, on the other hand, are more positive about the
plan. Agency personnel point to the lack of any contentious
Clean Water Act Section 404 permit battles in Grays Harbor since
1976 as an example of the success of the planning process. From
this point of view, the plan should act as a sieve, sorting out and
eliminating inappropriate development proposals at the local
level before they ever reach the Corps of Engineers or the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (Weinmann, personal communica-
tion)
Conclusions and Lessons
The Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Plan is an example
of the difficulty of long-term collaborative planning in the context
of continually evolving state and federal policies. Because of the
lack of development pressure, there have been no examples of
regulatory driven wetlands restoration activity in Grays Harbor.
Nor does the plan even designate preferred wetlands restoration
sites primarily because of the relatively pristine character of the
area as compared to more urbanized estuaries.
However, the plan has enhanced the long-term prospects
for resource protection in Grays Harbor. First, it provides signifi-
cantly more protection than existing shorelines master programs
against shallow-water reclamation, bankline erosion control, and
bankline straightening (Trohimovich, 1988). Projects that are not
specifically allowed in the plan cannot proceed without an
amendment - a lengthy and complicated process. Second, in
pursuing the plan, the values of Bowerman basin were "discov-
ered" and documented leading to the designation of 720 hectares
-------
Work Group: The Special Area Management Planning Process 219
(1,800 acres) as a National Wildlife Refuge. Finally, most partici-
pants agree that because of the plan a useful dialogue occurred
between development arid conservation interests that lives on
today. Several lessons can be drawn from the experiences in
Grays Harbor
• The SAMP process can help uncover issues not just resolve them.
In Grays Harbor the unique and irreplaceable nature of
Bowerman Basin was not widely known until the environ-
mental impact statement process "uncovered" the resource
in the late 1970s.
• The SAMP process can become excessive in terms of time and
money. Seventeen years is clearly an excessive time period
for a collaborative planning effort. Any planning effort that
extends through two decades will be complicated by con-
tinually evolving policies at the state and federal level.
Such an effort will also be complicated by the turnover of
agency staff and task force members. Walters (1988) sug-
gests that eighteen months is the maximum time that
should be allowed to avoid loss of interest and agency
turnover.
• Someone must be in charge of the process. A lead agency must
make the SAMP a priority and follow the process through
to completion. In Grays Harbor for example, no single
agency or level of government led the process from start to
finish.
• SAMP design should address the key problems of the special area.
In an economically depressed area, such as Grays Harbor,
perhaps the estuary management plan should have ad-
dressed the needs of economic development more directly.
The Grays Harbor Estuarine Management Plan attempts to
make the regulatory process more predictable, but this does
not seem to have helped the chronic economic problems of
the region. With regional unemployment pushing 20
percent, authorities cannot claim that a more "predictable"
regulatory environment has brought measurable improve-
ments to the region.
-------
220
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
SAMP design should encompass a sufficiently wide geographic
scope to address current management issues. The typical com-
prehensive plan built around the narrow zone of wetlands
and aquatic area may not be sufficiently broad to capture
the major development issues facing an estuary. In the
1970s, conflicts over fill proposals and shoreline develop-
ment catalyzed the Grays Harbor planning process. Today,
issues such as watershed protection, nonpoint source
pollution, fisheries enhancement and protection, and
dredge material disposal are more prevalent. None of these
were comprehensively addressed in the Grays Harbor Estua-
rine Management Plan.
References
Blum, J. R. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter of opinion. In Grays
Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Program Final Environmental Impact
Statement, 1987.
Brower, D. J. and D. S. Carol, eds. 1987. Managing Land-Use Conflicts: Case
Studies in Special Area Management. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Burgess, ]. P., Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. May 30,1990. Letter to G.
Bloomquist, Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission.
Evans, N., M. J. Hershman, G. V. Blomberg, and W. B. Lawrence. 1980. The
Search for Predictability: Planning and Conflict Resolution in Grays Harbor,
Washington. WSG 80-05. Seattle, Washington: Washington Sea Grant. 80-
05.
Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (GHRPC). 1986. Grays Harbor
Estuarine Management Plan.
Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (GHRPC). 1987. Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (GHRPC). 1990. Grays
Harbor Estuarine Management Planning Task Force, April 11,1990 Meeting
Packet.
-------
Work Group: The Special Area Management Planning Process 221
Kimura, Kv Grays Harbor County Planner. 9 February 1993. Personal
communication.
Lattinf S., Director of Planning and Economic Development, Port of Grays
Harbor. February 2,1993. Personal communication
Lind, K. A. and M. J. Hershman. 1993. Grays Harbor, Washington estuarine
management plan. In The Management of Coastal Lagoons and Enclosed Bays, J.
Sorensen, ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1992. The
Federal Coastal Programs Review: A Report to the President. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Ortman, D. E. 1991. Requiem for a watermeadow, the Kaiser site, Grays
Harbor, Washington. In Coastal Wetlands, S.H. Bolton and O. T. Magoon,
eds. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Trohimovich, T. 1988. A comparison of certain provisions of the Grays
Harbor Estuarine Management with the existing shorelines master pro-
grams. Unpublished report on file with the Grays Harbor Regional Planning
Commission and Washington State Department of Ecology. WDOE Project
Number G0088012.
Walters, C. K. 1987. Special area management planning in coastal areas:
The process. In Managing Land-Use Conflicts: Case Studies in Special Area
Management, D. J. Brower and D. S. Carol, eds. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press.
Weinmann, F., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 8,1993.
Personal communication.
-------
Work Group
The Role of Research and Monitoring
In Wetland Restoration
Charles Simenstad
Wetlands Ecosystem Team, University of Washington, Seattle
Richard Horner
Environmental Engineering and Science Program, University
of Washington, Seattle
Introduction
As the working group leaders, we conceived of this
working group as an opportunity to explore three interrelated
questions:
1. What are the principal research needs necessary to advance
our ability to complete wetland restoration projects success-
fully?
2. What monitoring should be performed to document the
progress and ultimate success of wetland restoration at-
tempts?
3. How are the first and second questions related, and how
can the relationships be exploited to advance both areas?
The working group was organized to approach these
broad questions by considering two sets of progressively more
specific inquiries. It was recognized at the outset of planning that
some issues are common to any habitat or ecosystem subject to
restoration. Accordingly, a set of questions was formulated to
reflect these common elements. Other issues, however, depend
on the system's functions and other attributes that are often very
disparate in freshwater and estuarine wetlands. Therefore, we
decided to cover these more specific issues with sets of discussion
questions framed separately for freshwater and estuarine wetland
systems. The following account first summarizes the goals
-------
223
established for the working group. It then continues by stating
questions posed to the working group and the responses that
came from the attendees.
Goals
1. To establish the major research needs and monitoring needs
and to determine which can be pursued in tandem and
which must be separate.
2. To explore the degree of consensus that exists on monitor-
ing coverage needed at restoration sites, including the types
of projects that should and need not be monitored/ what
components of the ecosystem should be monitored, and
how long the monitoring should extend.
3. To explore the degree of consensus that exists on the best
direct measures of wetland function and of indirect struc-
tural attributes or indicators that signify function for re-
search and monitoring purposes.
4. To come to conclusions regarding the role that general
assessment techniques (e.g., Wetland Evaluation Technique
[WET], Habitat Evaluation Procedure [HEP]) should play in
restoration monitoring and research.
5. To establish how monitoring and research programs de-
signed for restoration sites and their findings relate to
compensatory mitigation cases.
Issues Common to Freshwater
And Estuarine Wetlands
Question 1. Is it possible to monitor wetland function per
se? If so, what functions can be legitimately monitored directly,
and what must be assessed indirectly by indicators?
Response and discussion. We generally cannot measure
function directly, and it is not a matter of measuring structure
either. It is really a matter of measuring structural limits (thresh-
-------
224
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
olds) that represent tolerable or intolerable stress.
Question 2. How can we be more adaptive; i.e., how can
we derive more successful restoration design parameters from
monitoring? from research?
Response and discussion. We should posit models with
the best basis that we can, establish where the basis is inadequate,
and use that assessment to direct research.
Question 3. Do we have a sufficient understanding of the
primary controlling factors limiting the development of restora-
tion projects (e.g., hydrodynamics, sedimentology)?
Response and discussion. There was no specific discus-
sion of this point
Question 4. How can research better address the need in
wetland management to promote a broader, more ecosystem
landscape approach to restoration?
Response and discussion. There was no specific discus-
sion of this point.
Question 5. Can we effectively "accelerate" by design or
augmentation (e.g., planting) the natural processes of succession
and accommodation to physical conditions at a site, or should we
let restored sites progress naturally?
Response and discussion. There was no specific discus-
sion of this point
Question 6. How predictive is the present science and
associated technology of wetland restoration; i.e., how specific
should we be in setting our goals and expectations?
Responses and discussion. There was no specific discus-
sion of this point.
Question 7. How does long-term wetland (i.ev reference
site) monitoring and research fit in? How can it be promoted and
-------
Work Group: The Role of Research and Monitoring
225
initiated within the present short-term bureaucracy?
Responses and discussion.
• Monitor inadvertently created wetlands and see how and
what has made them function.
• Even if we have information from natural reference sys-
tems, it may not be applicable in disturbed systems.
• This effort should start with identifying potential locations.
• Reference sites should be used to define typical characteris-
tics of various types and their natural variability. Measure-
ments should include the time scale.
Question 8. What should be the priority for dedicated
research on wetland restoration? What would advance the
science and technology the most for the investment? What would
advance them the most in the shortest term?
Responses and discussion.
• We should compile what we know (including information
from the development of such systems as habitat evaluation
procedures) in a coordinated way. We should use this
information and test it through monitoring according to an
experimental design for acceptance, rejection, or modifica-
tion.
• Big projects should be monitored in detail to draw connec-
tions between attributes and wetland functions. This task
should be turned over to a research agency for continuity,
and standard protocols should be employed in all such
monitoring projects for comparability.
• We need a coordinating body to assess all projects in order
to decide on what type of monitoring is needed.
Freshwater Wetland Issues
Question 1. What hydro period variables should be
monitored in restored wetlands, how can they be monitored most
cost effectively, and what is the relationship of these measure-
-------
226
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
ments to function?
Responses and discussion.
• The general needs are to determine how hydrologic regimes
operate, how to classify them, and to learn how to model
them. The goal is to be able to relate hydrologic attributes
to plant responses in order to determine more specifically
the hydrologic requirements of plants.
• Included in the needed definition are: (1) information on
hydroperiod variables in relatively static systems; (2) infor-
mation on hydrodynamics of riparian systems (e.g., flood-
ing, stream migration); (3) definition of interactions between
hydrologic and water quality events (e.g., between draw-
down and nutrient cycling); (4) experiments with regulated
hydrologic regimes and measured responses; and (5) exten-
sion to basinwide hydrology, linking land use changes with
alterations in conditions.
Question 2. What water quality variables should be
monitored in restored wetlands, how should the monitoring be
scheduled over an annual cycle, and what is the relationship of
these measurements to function?
Responses and discussion. There was no specific discus-
sion of this point
Question 3. What aspects of substrata should be moni-
tored in restored wetlands, what are the best techniques, and
what is the relationship of these measurements to function?
Responses and discussion.
• One aspect needing study is the relative effect of meteorol-
ogy and surface hydrology on certain hydric soils.
• It would be valuable to learn how to stimulate hydric soil
development artificially and how to stockpile hydric soils
for use in restoration projects.
Question 4. What plant community monitoring should
be done in restored wetlands, what are the best techniques, and
-------
Work Group: The Role of Research and Monitoring
227
what is the relationship of these measurements to function?
Responses and discussion.
• A general information need that could be filled by the
proper monitoring is plant selection principles for selected
habitat creation objectives.
• There is little known about genotypic variations in freshwa-
ter wetland plants, which variants most successfully propa-
gate, and which are inappropriate to propagate. It should
be recognized that, while this is a potential research area,
applying any knowledge that results in restoration is some
time off/ because of the unavailability of specific genotypes
and lack of ability to verify genotypes.
Question 5. What animal community monitoring should
be done in restored wetlands, what are the best techniques/ and
what is the relationship of these measurements to function?
Response and discussion. Invertebrate studies are a big
need.
Question 6. What performance standards exist in each of
the areas referenced in questions 1 through 5 for establishing the
degree and rate of development of restored wetlands?
Responses and discussion. Attendees did not address
specific standards but advanced the concept that standards
should promote design features that produce sustainability - the
ultimate criterion - within restoration project objectives and the
management imposed.
Estuarine Wetland Issues
Question 1. What prerestoration studies should be
conducted to maximize the potential success of the project?
Responses and discussion. Although attendees did not
directly address this question/ many raised the need for more
complete characterization of the hydrologic regimes, which
would include but not be restricted to: (1) tidal range; (2) duration
and frequency of tidal flooding; (3) local freshwater hydroperiod;
-------
228
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
and (4) surface and groundwater influence.
Question 2. Is monitoring of presence/absence or stand-
ing stock of motile organisms a sufficient measure of habitat
function? If not/ how do we assess directly or indirectly the true
functional response of the organisms to the habitat status or
quality?
Responses and discussion. Although not a specific
discussion topic, general commentary indicated that although
presence/absence or standing stock information was not an
accurate measure of estuarine habitat function, the relationships
between surrogate measures and the actual function (e.g., repro-
duction, feeding, refuge from predators) are generally lacking.
Furthermore, the significance of even supposedly direct measures
of wetland utilization is unknown for highly motile species. For
instance, foraging by juveniles may be observed and measured,
but the significance of this ecological process in terms of overall
fitness (e.g., contribution of foraging to reproductive success)
compared to foraging in other habitats or ecosystems, has not
been evaluated.
Question 3. Do we have sufficient information to identify
monitoring parameters for assessing the "nutrient recycling
function?" Does it require measurement of processes perse or
can simple nutrient concentrations suffice?
Response and discussion. There was no specific discus-
sion of this point
Question 4. Is monitoring of organism density or other
attributes of estuarine wetlands that are inherently variable over
space and time a waste of time? Can we get valid, statistically
powerful data without mortgaging the farm? If so, what is the
best approach?
Response and discussion. There was no specific discus-
sion of this point (however, see need for long-term studies [be-
low]).
-------
Work Group: The Role of Research and Monitoring
229
Question 5. Do we know enough about the dynamics of
estuarine wetlands to evaluate monitoring research results
relative to expected confidence intervals or "functional equiva-
lency thresholds?"
Responses and discussion.
• It was broadly agreed that processes both within wetlands
and over the 'landscape" in which they are imbedded are
poorly understood, especially relative to the interaction
among physical, chemical/geochemical, and biological
processes and of their natural variation ova- the long term.
• In particular, the ability to evaluate estuarine wetland
function is inhibited by the lack of reliable measures (i.e.,
"indices") for: (1) chemical/geochemical and other pro-
cesses in soils/substrates that affect vegetation; (2) struc-
tural (e.g., topographic as well as biotic) aspects that pro-
mote fish and wildlife functions; (3) vegetation species and
types that are important to specific functions; and (4) hydro-
logic characteristics that influence the presence/absence,
abundance or production of estuarine flora and fauna.
• The biggest gap is the lack of any long-term record of
processes (e.g., the natural variability in the measures of
these processes) that would enable us to establish the
"threshold" levels that could be considered "equivalent" to
relatively natural estuarine wetlands and within the context
of "normal" variability.
Question 6. What physicochemical parameters should
always be monitored in relationship to ecological assessments?
What measurements are worthless or impractical?
Responses and discussion. Given the lack of information
on the influence of physicochemical conditions on ecological
functions, it is impossible at this stage in estuarine wetland
science to resolve the most important monitoring parameters.
-------
230
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Summary and Research Needs
Summary discussion revolved around:
• The need to recognize that wetland monitoring must be
based on the physicochemical and ecological processes that
actually determine the outcome of what we
anthropogenically view as the wetlands' "functions."
• The most pressing research needs and gaps that are inhibit-
ing our ability to formulate monitoring strategies and
interpret the significance of our results.
Need for a Process Understanding of Wetland Functions
Whether it involves the need to select a limited number of
sensitive monitoring parameters to assess wetland differences
and change or to develop wetland restoration design criteria, the
broadest gap in our understanding of the way wetlands provide
"functions" to society is the relationship of these functions to
ecosystem and wetland processes (Figure 1). External forcing,
affected by the scale over which forces are exerted and structural
characteristics (often lumped under the nebulous term of "land-
scape") of the ecosystem, determine the scope and magnitude of
endogenous processes that can influence a wetland. Examples of
exogenous processes include the periodicity and magnitude of
fresh surface and ground waters, tidal inundation, suspended
and bedload sediment structure and load, detritus, and nutrient
fluxes, hi turn, the effect that these exogenous processes have on
endogenous processes differs over the scale of the wetland and is
highly dependent on the wetland's physical and biotic structure.
It is only after endogenous processes are manifested that we perceive
the wetland's functions perse. But, in order to be predictive,
models for wetland monitoring, as well as restoration design and
policy, must be based on the continuum of ecosystem to wetland
microhabitat processes.
-------
WorkGroup: The Role of Research and Monitoring 231
/ \
\ /
/ \
Figure 1. Reiationskip between exogenous
and endogenous processes that determine
wetland functions and the ultimate need to
incorporate monitoring of wetland process,
scale, and structure into predictive models.
Research Needs and Gaps
The comprehensive list of research needs and gaps that
evolved from this work group discussion was summarized as the
following (not necessarily in order of priority):
1. The importance of disturbance, especially hydrodynamic
effects, influencing wetland processes, and the effect of
depression/loss of natural disturbance regimes.
2. Hydrologic processes regulating wetland plant assemblages
and soil/nutrient/ contaminant cycling, e.g., duration and
frequency of flooding, seasonal/temperature influences.
3. Effects of changes in large-scale, exogenous, e.g., watershed
and subbasin, structure and forcing on endogenous pro-
cesses and functions (see above).
4. Role of plant genotype influence on wetland restoration/
creation/enhancement success, and impact of the introduc-
tion of "exotic" genotypes.
5. Propagation requirements and procedures for wetland
plants (e.g., transplanting), and hydrologic regime and
other (e.g., soil) requirements.
6. Identification and development of reference sites where
both basic, long-term monitoring of wetland processes,
-------
232
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
structure, and function and dedicated experiments can be
conducted in absence of large-scale disturbance (anthropo-
genic).
7. Research on the ecology of invading species (e.g., Spartim
altemiflora, Zostera japotiica, Phalaris arundinaceae) and inter-
actions with native plants and consumer organisms, and
objective evaluation of their role in wetland processes and
function and/or impact, and of effectiveness/impact of
control measures.
8. Development of strategies and system impacts of contami-
nant "removal" procedures;
9. Cataloging/evaluation of multiple plant functions for each
habitat (coupled with #2, above).
10. Assessment of natural/unintentional restoration sites to
address questions such as:
• Where do they fit in long-term functional equivalency
trajectories?
• Do they meet our short-term predictive models?
• Can they be used as research opportunity sites, i.e., to
reconstruct history since return to wetland conditions?
-------
Work Group
Environmental Partnering Opportunities
For Restoration
C. Mark Dunning
US. Army Corps of Engineers/ Institute for Water Resources,
Fort Bel voir, Virginia
Introduction
Wetlands restoration projects require the interaction of
many parties - federal, state, and local agencies; local develop-
mental and environmental interests; and concerned citizens.
Cooperation among parties, however, can be complicated by
mistrust and poor communication. As a result restoration
projects may not come to fruition, may involve a long and costly
development process, or may not achieve their intended results.
The objective of this workshop was to acquaint partici-
pants with a technique called "partnering," which is designed to
build trust and cooperation among groups that need to work
together to achieve mutually beneficial results. The workshop
presented a brief overview of partnering, a short demonstration
of the partnering process, and a discussion with participants
about how partnering might be applied to wetland restoration
issues.
Partnering 101
Partnering is the creation and nurturing of a long-term
commitment between two or more organizations for the purpose
of achieving specific business objectives. The partnering relation-
ship is based on trust, dedication to common goals, and an
understanding of each others' individual expertise and values.
Partnering was originally conceived to promote greater coopera-
tion on large construction projects. Chi such projects, two distinct
management teams - the owner and the constructor- have each
-------
234
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
traditionally pursued their own objectives and made independent
decisions. Often in such situations the ability of owner and
contractor to communicate and work together effectively has
been diminished, and the quality and completion schedule of the
project has suffered.
Partnering attacks these divisive tendencies by working to
create one management team with commonality of purpose out
of the separate management teams. Three basic steps are in-
volved in developing a partnering relationship. First is the
cultivation of personal relationships among those working
together on the project. People must come to see each other as
individuals and not in a stereotyped "them" versus "us" fashion.
The second step is the development of a statement of common
purpose and goals. This statement, called the "partnering char-
ter/' serves to focus and orient team efforts. The third step in
establishing a partnering relationship is the identification of
specific procedures for addressing disputes and disagreements
that may emerge over the course of the project. By anticipating
such potential problems and achieving a commitment to their
early resolution through procedures such as collaborative prob-
lem solving, mediation, or dispute review panels, small disputes
can be resolved before they become major problems. The team's
energies can then remain focused on achieving common goals.
Central to partnering^ success is the commitment and
dedication of top management of all parties involved in the
relationship. Top management sets the tone and creates the
climate for either cooperative or adversarial relationships.
Partnering therefore begins with top management and actively
involves them in the process over the life of the project.
Partnering is often accomplished using facilitated work-
shops in a retreat setting. During such sessions, owner and
contractor teams become acquainted and work on joint activities
to develop team spirit. Participants identify common goals and
expectations, draft and sign their team charter, and commit to the
use of dispute resolution processes should problems emerge in
the project. The partnering relationship is nurtured over the
-------
Work Group: Environmental Partnering Opportunities
235
course of the project by periodic team meetings to revisit the
charter and assess how the team is doing in accomplishing its
common goals.
The US. Army Corps of Engineers has adopted
partnering as a way of doing business. It has published a policy
letter signed by the Chief of Engineers, which charges Corps
commanders to apply partnering whenever possible. A pam-
phlet explaining partnering has been produced and has been
widely distributed (IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4). The techniques
of partnering are being taught at Corps of Engineers training
courses. Similarly, the Association of General Contractors (AGC)
has endorsed the concept and has published a pamphlet explain-
ing partnering directed at the construction community (AGC,
1991) and has also cosponsored, with the Corps of Engineers, joint
partnering training for Corps employees and AGC members.
Partnering has yielded substantial benefits to the Corps of
Engineers and its partners. Where partnering principles have
been utilized, projects have been completed on time or ahead of
schedule, cost growth has been kept low, substantial value
engineering savings have been achieved, and contractor claims
and litigation have been drastically reduced. Contractors find
that they are able to realize savings in project costs that would
have been used in case documentation and preparation for
litigation.
Applying Partnering Principles to
Wetland Restoration Issues
Most partnering experience has been obtained in the
construction arena. The basic principles involved, however,
appear to be applicable to a wide array of situations where
cooperative teamwork is needed. Workshop participants were
asked to participate in an abbreviated partnering process to
introduce them to the approach so that a discussion of
partnering's potential applicability to wetland restoration issues
could take place. Obviously, in the short amount of time avail-
-------
236
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
able participants could only be exposed to the basics of
partnering. Therefore, a simulation of the process of developing
joint goals for a wetland restoration project was selected to
provide participants with the flavor of the partnering process.
For the simulation, participants identified and described a
typical wetland restoration project. Workshop participants were
asked to indicate their organizational affiliation and were then
divided into the four groups based on their affiliation: federal
agencies, state and local agencies, community and local interest
groups, and developers. Each group was asked to independently
generate a list of goals their group might have for such a project.
For example:
• The federal group identified as a goal for the project "pro-
tecting endangered species."
• State and local agencies identified "enhancing biodiversity/'
• Community interest groups identified the goal of "preserv-
ing open space."
• One goal for the developer group was "make a profit."
In all, the four groups identified over twenty-five goals.
After groups had independently generated their own lists
of goals, all goals were posted on chart paper and displayed.
Participants were then provided with adhesive dots of varying
colors - the federal agency group received green dots, state and
local agency participants had yellow, the community interest
groups had blue, and developers had red. Participants were then
asked to individually indicate their level of support for each of the
goals by placing a dot into one of three categories displayed on
the chart
1. Can support this goal.
2. Can't support this goal.
3. Unsure.
Upon completion of the vote, an examination of the distribution
of the color of dots in the categories would indicate any discern-
ible group preferences regarding any particular goal
-------
Work Group: Environmental Partnering Opportunities
237
The initial expectation among most participants was that
there would be substantial disagreement among the four groups
about goals for a wetland restoration project. After the exercise,
participants were surprised to see that instead of the expected
disagreement over goals, there was substantial agreement Of the
twenty-five goals identified, there was consensus among the
groups on eighteen, and almost complete agreement on an
additional three.
Several insights emerged from this exercise First, in
situations where parties have different interests there is often
more presumed disagreement than actually exists. A structured
process such as is used in partnering workshops can show where
common areas of agreement and common goals exist. These
areas of commonality serve as one of the bases for building a solid
partnership. Common goals are used to develop a partnership
charter that parties commit to working toward. This agreement is
used to help parties focus their attention and energies toward the
accomplishment of wetland restoration projects that serve all of
the common goals that parties can agree upon. In addition, the
workshop process can be used to begin the process of developing
personal relationships among representatives of federal, state,
and local agencies and other groups. Such relationships can be
instrumental in creating one team pursuing joint wetland restora-
tion goals.
Given the time available in the workshop, only a limited
exposure to partnering principles could be provided. Participants
were unanimous, however, in endorsing the view that partnering
appeared to have potential applicability to wetland restoration
issues. Participants could see that by focusing on common goals,
by promoting personal relationships, by developing a partnering
charter, and by agreeing on procedures for resolving disagree-
ments before they occurred, greater cooperation among diverse
interests involved in wetland restoration issues might be possible.
While endorsing the concept, some participants raised a
number of concerns. Some doubted whether upper levels of
management in their agencies would actually agree to commit to
-------
238
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
a cooperative arrangement. Loss of autonomy and the need to
uphold nonnegotiable standards (e.g., provisions of the Endan-
gered Species Act) were cited as being inhibitors to agency
participation in a partnering venture. While most participants
did not feel that these concerns were insurmountable/ there was
still a belief that overcoming old ways of thinking and interacting
among agencies would be difficult
Summary and Conclusions
Partnering has proven to be of great value in promoting
positive cooperative teamwork. Workshop participants felt that
partnering had definite value in wetland restoration issues and
were willing to apply it However, some reservation and skepti-
cism about receiving the necessary empowerment to engage in
partnering from agencies was expressed by participants. In this
respect it appears that the "wetland restoration business" is
where the construction industry was several years ago - in need
of a strong "champion" to aggressively promote the use of
partnering to overcome the inertia and ingrained habits of inter-
action that impede cooperation among agencies and interests
involved in wetland restoration efforts.
References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. 1991.
Partnering. IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4. Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. December.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Commander's Policy Memorandum
#16; Subject: Partnering. Washington, D.C. February.
Association of General Contractors. 1991. Partnering. New York: AGC.
-------
Appendix A Workshop Agenda
Partnerships and Opportunities in Wetland
Restoration • April 16-17,1993
Thursday/ April 16
8:30 A.M. to 9:15 A.M.
Welcome, Kathleen Kunz, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Opening Speaker, Dr. Robert Beschta,
College of Forestry, Oregon State
University
9:15 a.m. to 2:10 p.m.
Restoration Panel - Interests in
Wetland Restoration
Panelists
Ed Alverson, Nature Conservancy
Ginny Broadhurst, Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority
David Chalk, Soil Conservation
Service
Curtis Tanner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Eric Johnson, Washington Public
Ports Association
Karen Northup, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Emily Roth, Oregon Division of State
Lands
Jane Rubey Frost, Washington State
Department of Ecology
Michael Rylko, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Sally Schauman, University of
Washington
Dyanne Sheldon, Sheldon & Associ-
ates
Bob Taylor, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Belinda Townsend, Boeing
235 p.m. to 5:15 r.M.
Case Histories - Concurrent
Sessions
Advanced Compensation Session
Moderator, Marc Boule
Time keeper, Rob Tiedemann
Panelists
Marc Boule, Shapiro & Associates,
Concepts of Advanced Mitigation
Marv Hoyt, Idaho Department of
Transportation, Wetland Banking:
What Worked and What Didn't
Rob Tiedemann, Ecological Design,
Inc., The Development of Mitiga-
tion Banks
David Stevens, Washington Depart-
ment of Transportation, The
Washington Department of
Transportation Wetland Banking
Strategy
C.J. Ebert, Biringer & Ebert, Biringer
Strawberry Farm Wetland
Restoration
Gary Williams, G.L. Williams &
Associates, LTD., Wetland
Banking in the North Fraser River
Harbor
-------
Partnerships k Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
240
Mason Bowles, King County
Building and Land Develop-
ment, Designing Guidelines for
Mitigation and Restoration
Placement and Monitoring in
King County, Washington
Estuarine Studies
Moderator Bert Burn
Time Keeper Bob Ziegler
Panelists
Phillip Jordi and Joseph Pavel,
Skokomish Indian Tribe,
Skokomish River Delta Restora-
tion
Janet Morlan, Oregon Division of
State Lands, Salmon River
Estuary Restoration
Ron Thorn, Battelle, Marine
Sciences Laboratory
Bob Zeigler, Washington Depart-
ment of Wildlife, Elk River
Estuary Restoration
Sandy Wyllie Echeverria, Univer-
sity of Alaska and Mary
Ruckelshaus, University of
Washington, Restoration of
Seagrass Beds
Bert Bran, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Crab Mitigation in
Grays Harbor Estuary
Keith McDonald, CH2M Hill,
Restoration in Bolsa Chica
Lowland
Eric Metz, W&H Pacific, The
Politics of Wetland Restoration
Landscape-scale Restoration
Moderator, Mike Scuderi
Time Keeper Curtis Tanner
Panelists
Ear] Ford and Dallas Hughes, Giffbrd
Pinchot National Forest, Basinwide
Approach to Watershed Resource
Improvement
Steve Gordon, Lane Council of Govern-
ments, West Eugene Resource
Management Plan
Michael Scuderi, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mill Creek Special Area
Management Plan
Mary Kentula, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Improving
Decision Making in Wetland
Restoration and Creation
Curtis Tanner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Restoration of the
Duwamish River
Rob Tracey, U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, Soil Conservation Service
Restoration Pro jets in Willamette
Valley
Gerry Ervine City of Everett, Effective
Wetlands Preservation? Everett's
Experience
Friday, April 17
fc30 A.M. to fc30 AJM.
Case Histories - Concurrent Sessions
Citizen Involvement
Moderator, Gary Voerman
Time Keeper, Pat Cagney
Panelists
Tom Murdoch, Adopt-a-Stream
Foundation, Stream Restoration and
the Adopt-a-Stream Foundation
-------
Ken Pritchard, Adopt a Beach,
Citizen Volunteers and Restora-
tion Projects
Nancy Smith, Franklin Pierce School
District, Wetland Restoration at
Collins Elementary School
Let's Get Technical
Moderator, Ken Brunner
Time Keeper, Cara Berman
Panelists
David Cooper, Colorado School of
Mines, Restoration of Mining Sites
Ken Brunner, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Evaluation Techniques
for Restoration
Eric Nelson, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Engineering Considerations in
Wetland Restoration
Research and Preservation Opportunities
Moderator, Lauren Cole
Time Keeper, Linda Cox
Panelists
Mary Land in, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, WES, The Corps'
Wetland Research Program
Lou Jurs and Todd Thompson, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management,
Enhancement and Restoration of
Riparian Habitats in the Channel
Scablands
Kate Stenberg, King County Wetland
Preservation Program, Develop-
ment of the King County Preser-
vation Program
Appendix
9:50 a.m. to Noon
Work Group Concurrent Sessions
Environmental Partnering Oppor-
tunities for Restoration, Mark
Dunning, Institute for Water
Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
A Decision Framework for Ecologi-
cal Restoration: Discovering
Choices for Environmental
Protection, Jamie Wyant,
MANTEC Environmental
Technologies, Inc.
Systems Based Restoration as an
Alternative Strategy for Com-
pensatory Mitigation, Michael
Rylko, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Tracey
McKenzie, PENTEC Environ-
mental
The Special Area Management
Process: Can National and Local
Interests be Merged? Marc
Hershman, University of
Washington and Lois Stark, City
of Auburn
The Role of Research and Monitor-
ing in Wetland Restoration,
Charles Simenstad and Richard
Horner, University of Washing-
ton
Development of Regional Restora-
tion Goals, Curtis Tanner,
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,
and Ginny Broadhurst, Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority
241
-------
242 Partnerships &. Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Appendix B Workshop Participants
Federal Government
Chris McAuliffe
US. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755, OP-RG
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Eric Nelson
Design Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Patrick Cagney, Lauren Cede, and Linda
Cox
Environmental Resources Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Bert Brun, Ken Brunner, Kathleen Kunz,
Karen Northup, and Mike Scuderi
EN-PL-ER
US. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Jack Kennedy, Debbie Knaub, Jonathan
Smith, Krishna Tone, and Muffy
Walker
OP-RG
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
T.J. Stetz
OP-REG
US. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Mark Dunning and Lynn Lamar
US. Army Corps of Engineers
IWR, Casey Building
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
Mary Landin
US. Army Corps of Engineers
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, Ml 39180-6199
Joree Brownlow
US. Army Corps of Engineers
602 City-County Airport
Walla Walla, WA 99362-9265
Lloyd Fanter
US. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska Dlshct
PO Box 8948
Anchorage, AK 99506-0698
Chris Thomas and Kirk Robinson
Bonneville Power Administration
BPA-EFB6
PO Box 3621
Portland, OR 97208-3621
Lou Jura and Tod Thompson
US. Bureau of Land Management
4217 East Main
Spokane, WA 99202
Cara Berman, Fletcher Shivaa, Justine
Smith, Linda Storm, Garret B.
Voerman, Pred Weinmann
WD-128
US. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Ave
Seattle, WA 98101
-------
Gerald Montgomery and Michael Rylko
WD-139
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Ave
Seattle, WA 96101
Allison Hiltner, Karen Keeley, and
Michael Stoner
Superfund Branch, HW-113
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
12006th Ave
Seattle, WA 96101
Thomas Robertson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
811 SW 6th
Portland, OR 97204
Mary Ken tula
US. Environmental Protection Agency
200 SW 35th St
Corvallis, OR 97333
Richard Bradford and Jack Doe
Federal Highway Administration, Idaho
Division
3050 Lakeharbor Lane, Suite 126
Boise, ID 83703
William Glover
Federal Highway Administration
711 S Capitol Way, Suite 501
Olympic WA 98501
Jodi Masuoka and Natalie Richards
Federal Highway Administration
610 E 5th St
Appendix
Peggy Guillory, Marilyn Hemker, and
Helen Ulmschneider
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
4696 Overland Road, Room 576
Boise, ID 83705
Laurel Wolff
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 1157
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Tim Bodurtha, Dennis Carbon, Steve
Fran sen, Nancy Gloman, Jennifer
King, Judy Lantor, J. F. Rodriguez,
Joanne Stdlini, Curtis Tanner, Jeff
Krausmann, Mary Mahaffy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3704 Griffin Lane SE, Suite 102
Olympia, WA 98501-2192
Joseph Hiss
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2625 Parkmont Lane #A
Olympia, WA 98502
Jurgen Hess
US. Forest Service
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
Area
902 Wasco Ave
Hood River, OR 97031
Earl Ford and Dallas Hughes
US. Forest Service
Gifford Pinchot National Forest
PO Box 8944
Vancouver, WA 98668-8994
243
Vancouver, WA 98661-3893 Jeanne Hanson
National Marine Fisheries Service
Andrew Grossman 222 W 7th Ave #43
US. Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, AK 99503
PO Box 020431
Juneau, AK 99802
-------
244
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Valerie Elliott
National Marine Fisheries Service
911 NE nth Ave, Suite 620
Portland, OR 97232
David Chalk
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
511 NW Broadway, Room 248
Portland, OR 97209
Gail Siani and Bob Taylor
Bin Space C-15700
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Nancy Beckvar and Mary Matta
HMRAD
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Chris Mebane
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
c/o EPA
1200 6th Ave, HW-113
Seattle, WA 98101
National Park Service
Pacific NW Region
83 S King St, Suite 212
Seattle, WA 98104
Cindi Kunz
Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division
Code 075
Keyport, WA 98345-5000
Rob Tracey
2200 W Second St
McMinville, OR 97128
Steven Fedje
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
PO Box 211
Moro, OR 97039
State Governments
Glenn Seaman
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599
Jeff Ottesen
Alaska Department of Transportation
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Marv Hoyt
Idaho Department of Transportation
PO Box 97
Rigby, ID
Matt Nelson
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
1920 E 17th
Idaho Falls, ID 83442
Richard Oisen
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
811 SW 6th Ave
Pprtland, OR 97204
Phil Quarterman
Oregon Department of Transportation
324 Capitol NE
Salem, OR 97310
Janet Morlan and Emily Roth
Oregon Division of State Lands
775 Summer St NE
Salem, Or 98310-1337
-------
Mary Burg, Patricia Crumley, Sandra
Manning, Russ McMillan, Maria
Peeler, Jane Rubey-Frost, Sue
Mauermann
Washington State Department of
Ecology
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Fred Gardner and Bruce Smith
Washington State Department of
Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Cyd Brower, Wendy Elliott and John
Marshall
Washington State Department of
Ecology
PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504
David Jamison
Washington State Department of
Natural Resources
QW-21
Olympia, WA 98504-7027
Allison Bailey and Thomas Mumford
Washington State Department of
Natural Resources
PO Box 47028
Olympia, WA 98504-7028
Robert Bran dow
Washington State Department of
Natural Resources
Aquatic Lands
PO Box 47027
Olympia, WA 98504-7027
David Stevens
Washington State Department of
Transportation
Transportation Building KF-01
Olympia, WA 98504-7329
Appendix
Barbara Aberle, Mary Ossinger, Meridith
Savage, and Jim Schafer
Washington State Department of Trans-
portation
Transportation Building
KF-01
Design Office 2C-11
Olympia, WA 98504-7329
Ken Olson, Steven Yach, and Jay Yerxa
Washington State Department of Trans-
portation
N 2714 Mayfair
Spokane, WA 99207-2090
Gary Beeman, Eilert Bjorge, and Ken
Lode wood
Washington State Department of Trans-
portation
PO Box 12560
Yakima, WA 98909
Bob Zeigler
Washington State Department of Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Local Governments
Ruth Schaefer
King County Surface Water Management
400 Yesler Way #400
Seattle, WA 98104
Liz Greenhagen
King County Building and Land Develop-
ment
PO Box 9578
Seattle, WA 98109
John Hansen, Mason Bowles, Una Miller,
Cynthia Young, and James Tracy
King County Building and Land Develop-
ment
3600136th Place SE
BeUevue, WA 98006-1400
215
-------
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
246
Erik Stockdale
King County Resource Planning
3600136th Place SE, 4th Floor
Bellevue, WA 948006-1400
Mary Roberts
WSU /King County Cooperative Exten-
sion
Land /Water Steward
502 8th St NE #24
Auburn, WA 948002-4361
Nancy Faegenburg
King County Surface Water Management
400 Yesler Way, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Pat Bahor
King County Department of Public Works
500 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 948104
Vicld Gempko
King County Building and Land Develop-
ment
695 E Sunset Way
Issaquah, WA
Sue Comis
Pierce County Planning & Land Services
2401 S 35th St
Tacoma, WA 98409
Darla Boyer-Locke and Paul Meehan-
Martin
Snohomish County Planning Department
1st Floor Courthouse
Everett, WA 98201
Gregory Baldwin
Snohomish County
2005 Pinehurst #B
Everett, WA 98203
John Andrews and Mary Wilkoez
Snohomish County Public Works
Department
2930 Wetmore Ave
Everett, WA 98201
Bill Florea and Roland Middleton
Whatcom County
Buildings & Code
284 W Kellogg, Suite D
Bellingham, WA 98225
Steve Gordon
Lane Council of Governments
125 East 8th Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
Rosemary Furfey
METRO - Water Resources
2000 SW First Ave
Portland, OR 97201
Ginny Broadhurst
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
PO Box 40900, M/SPV-15
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
Jennifer Grathwol, Lenore Mar ken, and
Cindy Wilson
Thurston Regional Planning Council
Building 1, Administration
2000 Lakeridge Drive SW
CHympia, WA 98502
Thurston Conservation District
2407 Pacific Ave SE
Olympia, WA 98501
Eric Johnson
Washington Public Ports Association
PO Box 1518
Olympia, WA 98507
-------
Appendix
247
Lois Stark
City of Auburn
25 W Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Leigh Kennel
City of Bain bridge Island
625 Winslow Way
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Kimberly Hyatt and Chris Spens
City of Beliingham
Planning Department
210 Lottie St
Beliingham, WA 98225
Gerry Ervine
City of Everett
3002 Wetmore Ave
Everett, WA 98206
Mary Lou Block and Kirk Vinish
City of Everett
Planning Department
3002 Wetmore Ave
Everett, WA 98206
Cathy Beam
City of Redmond
Planning Department
15670 NE 85th
Redmond, WA 98052
Thomas Michael
City of Federal Way
335301st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Arthur Ward
City of Seattle
710 2nd Ave
Seattle, WA 98104-1703
Melinda Jones
City of Seattle
Engineering Department
6004th Ave
Seattle, WA 948104
Brad Carlquist
City of Seattle
Parks Department
10529 Linden Ave N
Seattle, WA 94133
Martin Fricko and Mark Johnson
City of Seattle
Department of Construction and Land
Use
7102nd Ave
Seattle, WA 98104
Virginia Hassinger
City of Seattle Engineering Department
Drainage and Wastewater
Dexter Horton Building, Room 660
710 2nd Ave
Seattle, WA 98104
Deborah Stuart
City of Seattle
710 2nd Ave, Suite TOO
Seattle, WA 98104
Jon Barrett
Town of Steilacoom
1715 Lafayette St
Steilacoom, WA 98388
Julia Koster and John Terrill
City of Tacoma
Building and Land Services
474 Market St, Suite 345
Tacoma, WA 98402-3769
-------
248
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Phillip Jordi and Joseph Pavel
Skokomish Indian Tribe
North 80 Tribal Center Road
Shelton, WA 98584
Ron Thorn
Batelle Marine Science Laboratory
439 West Sequim Bay Road
Sequim, WA 98382
Tracy Haines
Yakima Indian Nation
PO Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948-0151
David Cooper
Colorado School of Mines
3803 Silver Plume
Boulder, CO
Squaxin Island Tribe
West 81, Highway 108
Shelton, WA 98584
Mark Wilson
Port of Kalama
PO Box 70
Kalama, Washington 98625
Emile Combe
Port of Longview
PO Box 1258
Longview, WA 98532
George Blomberg
Port of Seattle
PO Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
Michael Morstad
Klamath Vector Control District
6036 Summers Lane
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Jim Morgan
Metropolitan Service District
Metro, 2000 SW 1st Ave
Portland, OR 97201
Academic Institutions
Sandy Wyllie Echeverria
University of Alaska
Institute of Marine Science
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Theresa Hen9on
Evergreen State College
133 Del Monte
Fir crest, WA 98466
Kim Kenigel
Fort Lewis College
274 Towne Road
Sequim, WA 98382
Nancy Smith
Franklin Pierce School District
315 South 129th St
Tacoma, WA 98444
MariCarmin
University of Oregon
Landscape Architecture
2250 Floyd Hill Drive
Eugene, OR 97403
Craig Cornu
University of Oregon
1445 1/2 East 21st
Eugene, OR 97403
Robert Beschta
Oregon State University
College of Forestry
Corvallis, OR 97331
Richard Horner
University of Washington
Center for Urban Resource Mgmt FX-10
Seattle, WA 98195
-------
Mary Ruckelshaus
University of Washington
Department of Botany KB-15
Seattle, WA 98195
Appendix
Keith Fabing
University of Washington
239 39th Ave E
Seattle, WA 98112
249
Cedar Wells
University of Washington
Department of Geography
2323 42nd Ave SE
Olympia, WA 98501
Sally Schauman
University of Washington
Department of Landscape Architecture
348 Gould Hall
Seattle, WA 98195
Michael Kennedy and Charles
Simenstad
University of Washington
Fisheries Research Institute WH-10
Seattle, WA 98195
Linda Burkett Baker, Randy Bruins,
Beth Bryant, Susan Gaerther, Raquel
Goni, Laura Hamilton, Marc
Hershman, Stanley Kanarowski,
Patty Lynch, Merri Martz, Rick
Mazzott, Annette Olson, James
Pacheco, Cindy Roberts, and Sheila
Semans
University of Washington
School of Marine Affairs HF-05
Seattle, Washington 98195
Lauren Rich
Urban Horticulture Department
University of Washington
5935 Fauntleroy Way SW
Seatde, WA 98136
Qaudette Lane
University of Washington
1612 North 39th St
Seattle, WA 98103
Janice Martin
University of Washington
3902 Sunnyside Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103
Cindy Goulder
University of Washington
8214 SE 28th St
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Colleen Connell
University of Washington
207 Ave A
Snohomish, WA 98240
Nonprofit and Environmental
Groups
Ken Pritchard
Adopt a Beach
PO Box 21486
Seattle, WA 98111-3486
Tom Murdoch
Adopt-a-Stream Foundation
PO Box 5558
Everett, WA 98206
Amy Squires
Commencement Bay Cleanup Action
Committee
1218 Third Ave., Suite 1207
Seattle, WA 98101
Teresa Taylor
Economic Development Council of Seattle
and King County
701 5th Ave, Suite 2510
Seattle, WA 98104
-------
Partnership & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
250
David Ortman
Friends of the Earth
4512 University Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Patrick Willis
Jackson Bottom Wetlands
23602 NW St. Helens Road
Portland, OR 97231
Marion Carry
Pierce County PALS
2401 South 35th St
Tacoma, WA 98409
Ed Alverson
The Nature Conservancy
c/o Dept. of Public Works and Engineer-
ing
858 Pearl St
Eugene, OR 97401
Linda Ellis
Ravenna Creek Alliance
4855 42nd Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Ester Lev
Urban Stream Council/The Wetlands
Conservancy
729 SE 33rd
Portland, OR 97214
Anthony Laska
The Wetlands Conservancy
PO Box 1195
Tualatin, OR 97062
Private Sector
Andrew Castelle and Cathy Conolly
Adotfson Associates, Inc.
600 Main St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Robert Andersen
R:S. Andersen
203 W Holly, Suite 19
Bellingham, WA 98225
Ann Christensen
Ann Christensen Environmental Design
1215 West 17th Ave
Eugene, OR 97402
Vikki Jackson and Jim Wiggins
Aqua-Terr Systems
1117 N Garden St.
Bellingham, WA 98225-5123
Gregory Minaker
Architecture Photography
PO Box 5154
Oso,WA 98223
C.J. Ebert
Biringer and Ebert
29111/2 Hewitt Ave, Suite 1
Everett, WA 98201
Belinda Townsend
The Boeing Company
PO Box 3707, MS 73-HF
Seattle, WA 948124
John Katzinski, David Sizemore, Greg
Sutton, Peter Weickmann, and Art
Writson
MS6Y-61
The Boeing Company
PO Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Alison Moss
Bogle & Gates
Two Union Square
602 Union St
Seattle, WA 98101
-------
Binka Colebrook
Anlsoptera Habitats
3560 Aim Road
Everson, Washington 98247
Rene Bucker
ASLA
17355 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97229
Bill Cantrell
Can trell & Associates
1050 Larrabee Ave
Bellingham, WA 98225
Steve Fox
Cascade Environmental Services
3515 18th St
Bellingham, WA 98226
Kent Doughty
Cascades Environmental Services, Inc.
1111 N Forest St
Bellingham, WA 98225
Mary Pakenham-Walsh
Cascade Pacific Engineering
12300 SE Mallard Way, Suite 205
Milwaukie, OR 97222
Keith MacDonald
CH2M Hill
PO Box 91500
Bellevue, WA 98109-2050
Susan Buis
The Coot Company
416 S Washington
Olympia, WA 98501
Kerry Bauman, Sheri Confer, Dave Every,
Donna Frostholm, and Kirstin
Krueger
Dames & Moore
2025 First Ave, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Appendix
Sam Casne and Tom Dubendorfer
David Evans & Associates
415 118th Ave SE
Seattle, WA 98005
Rob Tiedemann
Ecological Design, Inc.
217 N Walnut St
Boise, ID 83712
David Baker
Environmental Concerns
26228 SE 464
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Lynn Gould
ERDA Environmental Services
201514th Ave E
Seattle, WA 98112
Christie Galen
Fishman Environmental Services
434 NW 6th Ave, Suite 304
Portland OR 97209
Lisa Stephens
FishPro, Inc.
3780 SE State Hwy 160
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Michael Johns
Glacier Park Company
1010 Western Ave, Suite 700
Seattle, WA 98104
Alice Larsen and Mark Vlahakis
Hart Crowser
5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 240
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Rex Van Wormer
IES Associates
1514Muirhead
CMympia, WA 98502
251
-------
252
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Ken CXHara Donald Bassman
IFA Nurseries, Inc. Loving Lawn Care
10700 SW Beaverton-Hill9dale Hwy 1107 E dive
Beaverton, OR 97005-3008 Seattle, WA 98102
Mark Griswold Wilson Jamie Wyant
Independent Horticulture Consultant MANTEC Environmental
9800 SW Broadway Drive 200 SW 35th St
Portland, OR 97201-3108 Corvallis, OR 9733
Diane Robbins Unda Newberry
Ivert*Aid Newberry Environmental Services
8414 280 St E 1723 Redwood
Graham, WA 98338 Port Town send, WA 98368-3714
Christina Simon
The JD White Company
101 E 8th St, Suite 140
Vancouver Commerce Ctr
Vancouver, WA 98660
Margaret Edwins, Lynn Schroder, Carla
Staedter, Sara Tollefsen, and Joanne
Wright
Jones &c Stokes Associates
2820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
Harris Lyman and Paul Seporuk
Land Development Consultants
233 SE Washington St
Hillsboro, OR 97123
L.C. Lee & Associates
2211st Ave W, Suite 415
Seattle, WA 98119
Edward Gardiner
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
12011 NE 1st St, Suite 201
Bellevue, WA 98005
Matt Bennett and Jeffery Jones
Logan & Jones Associates, Inc.
6510 Southcenter Blvd #4
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dennis Halloran
Northwest Soil Consulting
PO Box 206
Idleyld Park, OR 97447
Mary Jaron Kelley
Office of Robert Perron
800 NW 6th Ave
Union Station #326
Portland, OR
David Olsen
OTAK Incorporated
620 Kirkland Way, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
John Lee, Irv Lloyd, and Ian Sinka
OTAK
17355 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Phil Davis
Pacific Erosion Control, Inc.
1018 Industry Drive
Seattle, WA 98188
Christopher Ryan
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1 California St, Room F-2200
San Francisco, CA 94106
-------
Appendix 253
Lisa Palazzi
Pacific Rim Soil & Water
606 Columbia St NW, Suite 208
Olympia, WA 98501
Ron Vanbianchi
Pacific Wetland Nursery
7035 Crawford Dr
Kingston, WA 98346
Katie Painter
Pac Tech Engineering
2601 S 35th St, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
Ken Sargent
Parametrix
13020 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA 98007
Kit tie Ford and Mark Stifelman
Parametrix, Inc.
142 NW 75th St
Seattle, WA 98117
Michelle Reinia
Parsons De Leuw, Inc.
701 Fifth Ave #4640
Seattle, WA 98104
Elaine Gold
Pegasus Eco-Terrestrial Services
3212 Northwest Ave
Bellingham, WA 98225
Tracey McKenzie, Rick Pratt, and Greg
Tutmark
Pen tec Environmental
120 W Dayton St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jim Carsner
W.D. Pernell & Associates Inc
PO Box 5346
Bellingham, WA 98227-5346
Bruce Carroll
Portland General Electric Company
121 SW Salmon St, 3WTC-P1
Portland, OR 97204
Randy Hamblin
The Quadrant Corporation
PO Box 130
Bellevue, WA 98009
Stuart Paulus
Raedeke Associates, Inc.
5711NE 63rd St
Seattle, WA 98115
John Bradley
San Juan Surveying
PO Box 611
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
Randall Jones
Scientific Resources, Inc.
11830 SE Kerr Parkway, #375
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Marc Boule and Catherine Houck
Shapiro and Associates
The Smith Tower, Suite 1400
506 2nd Ave
Seattle, WA 98104
Sarah Cassett, Jamie Hartley, Pesha Klein,
and Dyanne Sheldon
Sheldon & Associates
PO Box 22052
Seattle, WA 98122
Sono Hashisaki and William Todd Tressler
Spring wood Associates
1726 NE 58 th St
Seattle, WA 98105
-------
254
Partnerships & Opportunities in Wetland Restoration
Larry Lodwick
Sturdy Engineering
903-A Metcalf St
Sedro Woolley, WA 98284
Mike Witter
W&H Pacific
PO Box C-97304
Bellevue, WA 98009
William Shielf
Talasaea Consultants
118162nd Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Marianne Zarkin
John Warner Associates
519 SW Third Ave, Suite 805
Portland, OR 97204
Larry Burns tad, Mike Carroll, Tom
Deming, Marcelle Lynde, Jeff Ross,
and Dave Risvold
Watershed Dynamics, Reid Middleton
1421 17th St SE
Auburn, WA 98002
Dee Arntz
Washington Wetlands Network
(WETNED
6207 Evanston Ave N
Seattle, WA 98603
Chris Newert
Wetland Resources
9212 1st Drive SE
Everett, WA 98208
Charles Newling
Wetland Science Applications
3921 Blossom Drive NE
Tacoma, WA 98422
Jennifer B. Selliken
Wetland Specialties
4515 Old Dillard Road
Eugene, OR 97405
Judy Dudley, Eric Metz, and Susan
Meyer
W&H Pacific
3025 112th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98009-9304
Gary Williams
G.L. Williams and Associates, LTD
2300 King Albert Ave
Coquitlam, BC, Canada V3J1Z8
Juliet Thompson
James E. Wilson & Associates
805 Dupont St, Suite 7
Bellingham, WA 98225
Daniela Ahmed
7074 25th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Ann Bikle
1028 E Shelby St
Seattle, WA 98102
Suki Cupp
4541 Latona Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98105
John Edge
840 Empire St NW
Salem, OR 97304
Kirk Lakey
12702 Holmes Point Drive
Kirkland, WA 98034
Jennifer DeChant
1145 Franklin St
Bellingham, WA 98225
-------
Appendix
Eileen Hiltner
2407 E Valley St
Seattle, WA 98112
Kiistine Nelson
7556 19th AveNE
Seattle, WA 98115
Kara Palmer
806 N 59th St
Seattle, WA 98103
Michael Perrin
1556 NW Ballard Way 3
Seattle, WA 98107
Lawrence Richmond
124377th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98178
Bryan Robles
22247 35th Place S, #D103
Kent, WA 98032
Peter Rosen
5902 3rd Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98107
Ronald Stein
1662011th Ave
Seattle, WA 98166
No Address Given:
Bryan Bowden
Kevin Featherston
Camille Goeble
Nancy Strayer
Chris Walline
it U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994—500-777
------- |