An Integrated Framework for
Evaluating Wetland and Stream
Compensatory Mitigation
SCCWRP Technical Report 1209
EPA-840-B-22008 | March 2022
-------
An Integrated Framework for Evaluating Wetland
and Stream Compensatory Mitigation
Eric D. Stein1, Jeff Brown1, Nathan Bishop2, and Rebecca Kihslinger2
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC
Brian Topping3, Palmer Hough3
3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Project Managers
March 2022
SCCWRP Technical Report 1209
EPA-840-B-22008
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many committed individuals contributed to this project. In particular, we thank the project's
technical reviewers for providing critical input at every step of the process.
We also thank all the state agency professionals who shared their vast experience and
perspectives on implementation of wetland and stream compensation programs. Their practical
knowledge helped ground this work in the day-to-day realities of administering critical
regulatory and resource management programs at the state and local levels. Specific technical
contributions were provided by Will Harman (Stream Mechanics), Brian Bledsoe (University of
Georgia, Athens), and Bill Ainslie and Jerrett Fowler (USEPA, Region 4). The following
individuals provided data that was essential for the baseline case studies used to demonstrate
the concepts presented in this work: Dana Mock, Patricia Johnson, and Amy Yahnke from
Washington Department of Ecology; Tony Bush from Washington State Department of
Transportation, and Lisa Rhodes from Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Technical reviewers who commented on drafts of this document:
Bill Ainslie
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Beth Alafat
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rich Ambrose
University of California, Los Angeles
Brian Bledsoe
University of Georgia
Kevin Bliss
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Melinda Bubier
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
David Dale
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jason Daniels
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Dey
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Barbara Doll
North Carolina State University
Kathleen Drake
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lauren Driscoll
Washington Department of Ecology
Dan Dvorett
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Jennifer Garland
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Robin Goodloe
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cliff Harvey
California Water Resources Control Board
Mac Haupt
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Bob Henszey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jordan Hofmeier
Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism
Andrea Hughes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Patricia Johnson
Washington Department of Ecology
Vena Jones
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Mary Kentula
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Steve Kolinski
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Charles Kovatch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ted LaGrange
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
i
-------
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Steve Mars
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Steve Martin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Michelle Mattson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Christine Mazzarella
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Julia McCarthy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mick Micacchion
Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Dana Mock
Washington Department of Ecology
Joe Morgan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kelly Neff
Maryland Department of the Environment
Nicole Newcomer
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
David Olson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lauren Poulos
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ken Powell
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Timothy Rach
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Mark Rains
University of Florida
Lisa Rhodes
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Ann Rossi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jim Rypkema
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Christine Schwake
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Kenton Sena
University of Kentucky
Tim Smith
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Susan-Marie Stedman
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Linda Storm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mary Anne Thiesing
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Brooks Tramell
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Todd Tugwell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kerryann Weaver
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rusty Wenerick
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Amy Yahnke
Washington Department of Ecology
State interviewees who shared their time and experience to provide information on the
structure and approach of their state programs and insight into the critical needs that are the
focus of this document:
Collis Adams
Jean Bandura
Stacia Bax
Randy Braun
Brian Bridgewater
Tony Bush
Beth Callahan
David L. Davis
Rebekah Downard
Lauren Driscoll
Jason Garber
Jackie Gautsch
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
California Water Resources Control Board
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Washington Department of Transportation
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Division of Water Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
ii
-------
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bob Gilmore
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Tim Hall
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Mac Haupt
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Dana Hicks
Oregon Department of State Lands
Nate Hoogeveen
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Claire Hruby
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Andrea Hughes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Patricia Johnson
Washington Department of Ecology
Donna Kendall
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Jon Paul Kiel
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Laura Lapierre
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Joanna Lemly
Colorado Natural Heritage Program
Greg Link
North Dakota Game and Fish Department
Susan Lockwood
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Amy Lounds
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Bethany Matousek
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Mick Micacchion
Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Dana Mock
Washington Department of Ecology
Karl Morgan
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Ken Murin
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Kelly Neff
Maryland Department of the Environment
Doug Norris
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Bill Orme
California State Water Resources Control Board
Michael Pennington
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Cami Peterson
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Tim Post
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Ken Powell
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Timothy Rach
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Lisa Rhodes
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Jim Rypkema
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Pam Schense
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Christine Schwake
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Keith Shank
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Jimmy R. Smith
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Tim Smith
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Patrick Snyder
South Dakota Department of Environmental & Natural Resources
Kelley Templet
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Todd Tugwell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Nia Wellendorf
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Amy Yahnke
Washington Department of Ecology
Jeremy Zumberge
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
This work was funded by the USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds under
contract number EP-C-17-001. The USEPA project management team included: Brian Topping,
Palmer Hough, Rachel Harrington, and Kathleen Bowers (ORISE).
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
iii
-------
z
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS IX
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER 1 »
BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND APPROACH 5
Motivation and Objectives 5
Approach to Developing the Framework 9
Monitoring and Performance Assessment Needs 10
Data Management Needs 11
CHAPTER 2 »
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS 12
Modular Approach 12
General Recommendations 15
Core Elements for Monitoring and Assessment 16
Recommended Indicators 17
Adaptive Management 20
Performance Standards 20
Best Practices for Developing Performance Standards 20
Assessing Wetland Performance 24
Assessing Stream Performance 25
Accounting for Non-Stationarity (Change Over Time) 27
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 iv
-------
TABLE OF CONENTS
CHAPTER 3 »
MODULE 1: COMPENSATORY MITIGATION SITE PERFORMANCE 29
At a Glance 29
Goals 29
Design Approach 30
Approach to Reference 32
Indicators 33
CHAPTER 4 »
MODULE 2: PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 37
At a Glance 37
Goals 37
Design Approach 38
Approach to Reference 40
Indicators 41
CHAPTER 5 »
MODULE 3: RESILIENCY OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PRACTICES 45
At a Glance 45
Goals 45
Design Approach 46
Approach to Reference 47
Indicators 47
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 v
-------
TABLE OF CONENTS
CHAPTER 6 »
DATA MANAGEMENT 50
General Philosophy of Data Management 50
Electronic Data Flow 51
Desired Properties of Data Management Systems 59
Geospatial Format 59
Open Data Format 61
System Attributes 61
Database Software Options 64
Rules of Practice 66
Data and Metadata Requirements 68
Collecting Historical Data 69
Don't Seek Out All Historical Data 69
Find Community Partners to Aid in the Migration 69
Identify Alternative Sources of Historical Data 69
CHAPTER 7 »
CASE STUDIES AND BASELINE APPLICATIONS 70
Module 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance 70
At a Glance 70
Module 2: Program Effectiveness 82
At a Glance 82
Module 3: Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices 86
At a Glance 86
Overall Lessons from Case Studies 91
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 vi
-------
TABLE OF CONENTS
CHAPTER 8 »
PATHWAYS TO IMPLEMENTATION 92
Planning 92
Infrastructure Development 93
Operationalization 94
REFERENCES 96
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF STATE INTERVIEWS 99
Introduction 99
Methods 99
Mitigation Evaluation Interview Questions 100
Results 101
Summary of Practices 101
Summary of State Needs 102
Notes from Each State Interview (in alphabetical order) 106
California 106
Florida 110
Illinois 113
Iowa 115
Louisiana 118
Maryland 120
Massachusetts 123
Michigan 126
Minnesota 129
Missouri 131
New Jersey 133
North Carolina 136
Ohio 139
Washington (state) 142
Wisconsin 145
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 vii
-------
TABLE OF CONENTS
APPENDIX B - SURVEY OF STATE DATA MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 147
I. Compensatory Mitigation Tracking 147
II. Data Management Logistics 150
III. Evaluating for Success 152
IV. Enhancing Compensatory Mitigation Work 154
APPENDIX C - DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE 156
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 viii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
API - Application Program Interface
BMP - Best Management Practice
CEM/SEM - Channel Evolution Model/Stream Evolution Model
CRM - California Rapid Assessment Method
DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon
EC - Electroconductivity (aka specific conductance)
FQAI/FQI - Floristic Quality (Assessment) Index
GIS - Geographic Information System
GRTS - Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (sampling)
HCP - Habitat Conservation Plan
HGM - Hydrogeomorphic Method
IBI - Index of Biotic Integrity
ILF - In-lieu Fee
MB - Mitigation Bank
MMI - Multimeric Index
NARS - National Aquatic Resources Survey
NGO - Non-governmental Organization
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
NMRAM - New Mexico Rapid Assessment Method
NOAA - National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System
NWCA - National Wetland Condition Assessment
O/E - Observed to Expected
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
ix
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
OGC - Open Geospatial Consortium
ORAM - Ohio Rapid Assessment Method
PRM - Permittee Responsible Mitigation
QA/QC - Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RESTful - Representational State Transfer
RIBITS - Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System
STORET - data STOrage and RETrieval
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VIBI - Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity
WAM - Wetland Assessment Methodology
WQX - Water Quality eXchange
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
x
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Compensatory mitigation is a commonly utilized strategy for offsetting unavoidable,
adverse impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources as a result of permitted
activities that affect aquatic resources. Program managers who are tasked with implementing
and overseeing compensatory mitigation for wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources
often struggle to identify rigorous, standardized approaches for conducting monitoring and
performance assessments, and to access and manage data relevant to their compensatory
mitigation projects. To provide clearer recommendations and improve consistency of
compensatory mitigation performance assessments across the country, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, in
partnership with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) and the
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) have developed a set of best practices for conducting
compensatory mitigation assessments.
This technical resource document is intended to help states and other interested parties
develop a long-term, scientifically rigorous approach to evaluating the overall performance of
their wetland and stream compensatory mitigation programs. The document provides a
proposed framework for combining site-specific and regional evaluations to improve the ability
of states to report on the administrative and ecological success of their compensatory mitigation
programs at achieving stated goals and desired objectives. The proposed framework was
developed based on peer-reviewed literature and agency reports on past mitigation practices
and monitoring approaches, interviews with program managers from 15 state programs, and
input from a team of nationwide technical experts.
State program managers are a primary target audience for this publication for the following
reasons: 1) most of the past studies of compensation performance have been conducted by
states or defined by state boundaries (Morgan and Hough 2015); 2) states have an interest in the
long-term performance of compensatory mitigation project sites (e.g., all states have Clean
Water Act Section 401 certification authority and 29 states have relevant independent state
permitting programs (ASWM 2015)); and 3) state agencies have mechanisms for conducting
evaluations and access to resources to fund such evaluations (e.g., USEPA Wetland Program
Development Grants). By targeting states, we are not suggesting that federal agencies such as
USEPA, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) do not have an interest in compensation
performance. These federal agencies have in the past and continue to have a keen interest in
compensation performance; representatives from all these agencies participated in the
development of this document. But robust compensation performance evaluation efforts are
resource intensive and federal agencies have not had sustained access to adequate resources to
perform these kinds of evaluations. In contrast, states have led many efforts in compensation
performance evaluation, in part, because they have access to resources to conduct such
evaluations that are not available to federal agencies (e.g., USEPA Wetland Program
Development Grants). By targeting states with this document, we are attempting to build on
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
1
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
their demonstrated success and experience in this area and expect federal agencies to continue
to support and partner with states on compensation performance evaluation efforts.
The proposed framework includes a series of recommendations and best practices that
states can use to augment their existing programs and ultimately improve their effectiveness.
Also included in the proposed framework are recommendations for data management that are
aimed at helping to improve data accessibility across agency programs and to the public.
The proposed framework recommends that comprehensive compensatory mitigation
evaluation include assessments of both project and program performance. To achieve this, the
framework recommends a flexible, modular approach (Table ES-1) that allows states to
prioritize different modules depending on their needs and the status of their existing
assessment programs. Where feasible, the framework recommends implementation of all three
modules to provide a comprehensive evaluation of program performance. The three proposed
modules are:
1) Compensatory mitieation site performance ("Performance"): This module evaluates the
success of mitigation projects relative to defined ecological endpoints (e.g., morphology,
habitats, species, communities), functional goals and permit requirements. This module can
also help assess factors that influence mitigation success and the length of time necessary to
achieve desired targets.
2) Proeram effectiveness ("Effectiveness"): This module evaluates the overall effectiveness of
the regulatory program at achieving programmatic goals, such as no-net loss, specific area
goals, and/or desired ecological targets at reach, watershed and regional scales.
3) Resiliency of compensatory mitigation practices ("Resiliency"): This module evaluates likely
long-term trajectories of compensatory mitigation sites at achieving functional replacement
of aquatic resource impacts. This includes the role of adaptive management, ability to adapt
for climate change effects, and vulnerability to future degradation due to changing land use,
climate, and management practices.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
2
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE ES-1: Summary of Major Elements for Each of Three Compensatory Mitigation
Evaluation Modules
PERFORMANCE
EFFECTIVENESS
RESILIENCY
Goal
Ecological success of
compensation sites and
regulatory compliance
Effectiveness of
program at offsetting
aquatic resource losses
and contributing to no-
net loss goals
Long-term resiliency
and sustainability
Design
Approach
Comprehensive
Probabilistic
Targeted sentinel sites
Reference
Approach
Performance standards,
pre-vs. post mitigation
site, comparison to
impact site or reference
sites
Comparison to
regional/ ambient
condition, comparison
to impact sites and
reference sites
Comparison to
regional/ ambient
condition, comparison
to reference standard
sites
The three modules should be applicable to all aquatic resource types and include the
following general practices:
All compensatory mitigation sites should be catalogued in a database with appropriate
metadata and geospatial information.
Data entry should be standardized and streamlined with appropriate QA/QC procedures,
building data dictionaries is valuable.
Compensatory mitigation sites (and impact sites if possible) should be available on maps,
which will be essential for site selection in all three modules.
Data should be stored in an open-data format and linked to the internet to facilitate access
by the public, sharing among agency partners, and incorporation by USEPA into national
assessments.
Assessments should be integrated into ongoing, sustainable agency programs to facilitate
long-term implementation. These could be existing or newly created programs that measure
ambient conditions in specific areas or aquatic resource types.
Assessments should include regular reporting targeted to both agency/professional staff
and the public - this may require multiple reporting formats and approaches.
Successful monitoring and assessment programs should include the following core
elements:
Standard bioassessment indices or other quantitative measures with standard operating
procedures and consistent approaches that can be applied in a repeatable mariner, with
associated quality control procedures.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
3
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Established (and protected) reference standard sites that reflect the range of stream or
wetland types occurring within the jurisdiction of the state program.
Clear targets based on reference condition and related to wetland/ stream function and
programmatic goals.
Strong guidance documents on monitoring and assessment requirements to provide a clear
structure for program implementation.
Easy to use project/permit tracking system with automated reminders for both agency staff
and permittees.
Simple and transparent data management systems that are integrated into the permitting
workflow and provide ready access to data over time.
In developing capacity for these core elements, state programs may draw from the tools and
resources developed through USEPA's National Aquatic Resource Surveys (N ARS), which
include standard protocols, guidance for defining and selecting reference sites, methods for
establishing thresholds of response, and suggested analytical approaches. Tools and resources
are also available through a broad set of existing state, regional and national guidance
documents.
In addition to the general recommendations above, this technical resource document
provides detailed recommendations for the design of each of the three modules. These
recommendations include:
Recommended indicators of condition (or function) for streams and wetlands (although
detailed protocols are not included).
Best practices for developing performance standards.
Recommendations for opportunities to leverage efforts between compensatory mitigation
monitoring and other monitoring programs (e.g., regional monitoring, reference site
monitoring, status and trends assessments).
Suggested data management structures and open data approaches.
Finally, a series of examples and case studies are provided to illustrate the concepts
presented.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
4
-------
CHAPTER 1 »
Background, Objectives, and Approach
1. BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND APPROACH
Motivation and Objectives
Substantial effort has been expended in evaluating wetland, stream, and other aquatic
resource compensatory mitigation in the US over the last few decades (Figure 1). Deficiencies in
compensatory mitigation performance identified by these reviews have resulted in changes to
regulatory and technical tools aimed at improving compensatory mitigation performance and
better achieving programmatic aquatic resource protection goals. However, evaluation of
compensatory mitigation performance remains challenging. Sustained improvement in wetland
and stream compensatory mitigation requires establishment of ongoing evaluation efforts that
provide continued feedback to aquatic resource programs that allow them to adapt, evolve, and
improve over time. Ideally, such evaluation efforts would be implemented at the state, regional
or tribal level and provide data that could be consolidated by USEPA arid other federal agencies
for national assessments and to guide development of state and national policy and regulation.
The status of institutionalized compensatory mitigation evaluation varies widely across the
country, and past studies suggest that guidance on how to develop and implement sustained
compensatory mitigation evaluation efforts would lower barriers to implementation within
state and tribal programs (Morgan and Hough 2015).
FIGURE 1: Studies evaluating compensatory mitigation performance since 2000 (top)
and location of mitigation banks and in lieu fee program sites (bottom).
Figure on the bottom does not include permittee-responsible mitigation
sites. From Morgan and Hough 2015.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
5
-------
CHAPTER 1 )> Background, Objectives, and Approach
Mitigation sites
• Mitigation Bank
° In Lieu Fee
Study areas
~~ Mitigation Bank
Y//A in-Lieu Fee
The goal of this technical resource document is to help states and other interested parties
develop a long-term, scientifically rigorous approach to compensatory mitigation evaluation.
The intent is to provide a basic approach for evaluating and improving the ecological and
administrative performance of compensatory mitigation programs that can be implemented at
the state, regional, tribal and national scale. The document is not intended to provide uniform
guidance for evaluating individual compensation sites, but rather a framework for using data
from individual sites to assess overall program performance. Improved program performance
should ultimately translate to improved compensatory mitigation by providing better
information on practices that contribute to ecological success of compensatory mitigation sites.
The approach should be customizable to individual state needs, sustainable over very long-time
horizons, and facilitate compilation of information that can be used to evaluate national trends.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
6
-------
CHAPTER 1 » Background, Objectives, and Approach
BOX A: Compensatory Mitigation Definitions
What is Compensatory Mitigation?
• Compensatory mitigation means the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or in certain
circumstances preservation of wetlands, streams, or other aquatic resources for the purposes of offsetting
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and
minimization has been achieved.
What are the Methods of Compensatory Mitigation?
• Restoration means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the
goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. For the purpose of
tracking net gains in aquatic resource area, restoration is divided into two categories: re-establishment and
rehabilitation.
o Re-establishment means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment
results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and
functions.
o Rehabilitation means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation
results in a gain in aquatic resource function but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
• Establishment (Creation) means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
present to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results
in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions.
• Enhancement means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic
resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in
the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s) but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource
function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
• Preservation means the removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in
or near those aquatic resources. This term includes activities commonly associated with the protection and
maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms. Preservation does not result in a gain of aquatic resource area or functions.
What are the Mechanisms for Compensatory Mitigation?
• Mitigation Bank (MB)means a site, or suite of sites, where resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, riparian areas)
are restored, established, enhanced, and/or preserved for the purpose of providing compensatory
mitigation for impacts authorized by Department of the Army (and other agency) permits. In general, a
mitigation bank sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide
compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the mitigation bank sponsor. The operation and use of a
mitigation bank are governed by a mitigation banking instrument.
• In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Program means a program involving the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation of aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit natural resources
management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for Department of the Army (and
other agency) permits. Similar to a mitigation bank, an in-lieu fee program sells compensatory mitigation
credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in-lieu
program sponsor. However, the rules governing the operation and use of in-lieu fee programs are
somewhat different from the rules governing operation and use of mitigation banks. The operation and use
of an in-lieu fee program are governed by an in-lieu fee program instrument.
• Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (PRM) means an aquatic resource restoration, establishment,
enhancement, and/or preservation activity undertaken by the permittee (or an authorized agent or
contractor) to provide compensatory mitigation for which the permittee retains full responsibility.
Source: 40 CFR 230.92/33 CFR 332.2
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
7
-------
CHAPTER 1 » Background, Objectives, and Approach
The proposed compensatory mitigation evaluation framework is recommended to be
applicable to all stream and wetland types that commonly occur in the US. The evaluation
framework should provide recommendations on how to design a programmatic compensatory
mitigation monitoring and assessment program, including site selection, monitoring approach,
and selection of indicators that are designed to answer key assessment questions. The
framework is intended to support ongoing efforts to assess compensatory mitigation success
and program effectiveness, and state (and tribal) programs by providing recommendations for
how to monitor program performance/success, as well as report on the results, and improve
data availability. The aim is to help improve the evaluation of program effectiveness so that the
information can be used to inform decisions about state program enhancement or improvement.
States will benefit from improved ability to share data, protocols, and templates across
programs (so there are fewer parallel or duplicative efforts); increased efficiency for agency staff
because it is easier to find data and information and to use past project information to support
decisions; and improved public access to data (i.e., increased transparency). Improved data
access will have the secondary benefit of facilitating USEPA's ability to compile data from states
to conduct national assessments.
State program managers are a primary target audience for this publication for the following
reasons: 1) most of the past studies of compensation performance have been conducted by
states or defined by state boundaries (Morgan and Hough 2015); 2) states have an interest in the
long-term performance of compensatory mitigation project sites (e.g., all states have Clean
Water Act Section 401 certification authority and 29 states have relevant independent state
permitting programs (ASWM 2015) and 3) state agencies have mechanisms for conducting
evaluations and access to resources to fund such evaluations (e.g., USEPA Wetland Program
Development Grants). By targeting states, we are not suggesting that federal agencies such as
USEPA, USACE, USFWS, and NMFS do not have an interest in compensation performance.
These federal agencies have in the past and continue to have a keen interest in compensation
performance; representatives from all these agencies participated in the development of this
document. But robust compensation performance evaluation efforts are resource intensive and
federal agencies have not had sustained access to adequate resources to perform these kinds of
evaluations. In contrast, states have led many efforts in compensation performance evaluation,
in part, because they have access to resources to conduct such evaluations that are not available
to federal agencies (e.g., USEPA Wetland Program Development Grants). By targeting states
with this document, we are attempting to build on their demonstrated success and experience
in this area and expect federal agencies to continue to support and partner with states on
compensation performance evaluation efforts.
In addition to its inherent value for reflective assessment, the proposed assessment
framework should also be viewed as a bridge to future planning efforts. Analysis of
compensatory mitigation practices is critical to better understand how effective programs have
been at achieving their stated objectives and contributing to the overall extent and condition of
aquatic resources. Conclusions derived from monitoring and retrospective analysis allow
refinement of policies and improvement of implementation programs. However, the knowledge
gained through these assessments should also be used to inform watershed and regional plans.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
8
-------
CHAPTER 1 » Background, Objectives, and Approach
Over the last decade, there has been much discussion of the importance of landscape or
watershed scale planning to help prioritize allocation of scarce resources. Mitigation in the
watershed context is a key tenet of the 2008 Mitigation Rule and embodies the idea that the type
of aquatic resources restored and the location where they are placed should be done in
consideration of how materials and organisms move through the landscape and how resiliency
can be promoted across the entire system.
It is recommended that information produced as part of the proposed compensatory
mitigation assessment framework be used to support these planning decisions. This is
particularly true for the larger-scale questions addressed through program effectiveness
assessment and the longer time scale questions addressed through long term monitoring of the
resilience of compensatory mitigation sites. The former can provide insight into the appropriate
distribution of streams and wetlands across the landscape necessary to achieve integrated
watershed health, whereas the latter can inform design and management actions that promote
long-term sustainability. Creating a bridge between retrospective assessment and prospective
planning will require embracing the concepts of transparent evaluation tools and open
accessible data, but if realized, will greatly expand the return on the resources invested in
monitoring and assessment.
Approach to Developing the Framework
The integrated compensatory mitigation evaluation framework reflects both the experience
and the needs of state programs. As the intended end-users of this framework, input from state
programs was critical in identifying priority needs and in developing recommendations that are
useful and pragmatic for potential incorporation at state or regional scales.
Using the results of an initial literature review of past studies on compensatory mitigation
effectiveness, state program managers were contacted regarding their willingness to participate
in phone interviews on the structure of their compensatory mitigation programs, approaches to
monitoring and assessment, and data management practices. Fifteen states responded to the
request and were subsequently interviewed (Table 1). The outcomes of the interviews were
documented and verified by state program managers and are summarized in Appendix A.
TABLE 1: States surveyed regarding mitigation assessment structure and needs
California
Maryland
New Jersey
Florida
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Illinois
Michigan
Ohio
Iowa
Minnesota
Washington
Louisiana
Missouri
Wisconsin
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
9
-------
CHAPTER 1 » Background, Objectives, and Approach
Most states have some programs in place for assessing project-specific performance. Few
have any structured programs for measuring overall mitigation program effectiveness or long-
term performance/sustainability of compensatory mitigation. State program managers were
generally receptive to additional tools and guidance regarding how to improve compensatory
mitigation assessment. ELI conducted an additional assessment of current practice in collecting
and tracking compensatory mitigation data at the state level to help refine data management
recommendations (Appendix B). Interviews identified a common set of high priority needs
related to compensatory mitigation performance assessment and data management; these needs
form the foundation for this technical resource document and can be broken into two main
categories:
Monitoring and Performance Assessment Needs
Interpretive framework for assessing monitoring data
The appropriate spatial and temporal resolution for different indicators
Methods or approaches to differentiate reliable patterns in monitoring data from
background variability/noise to draw more defensible conclusions
Options for how to use data to establish thresholds or targets
Examples of how monitoring data can be appropriately used to improve program
performance, along with potential pitfalls for misuse of monitoring data
Standardization of monitoring requirements and performance standards by stream or
wetland class used to assess functional gains. The need is particularly great for stream
mitigation and includes the following:
Standard measures/indicators to be used by all projects within an aquatic resource type,
with an emphasis on measures of improved physical processes
Standard monitoring protocols or approaches
Recommended monitoring endpoints that are most sensitive to measuring gains
associated with compensation methods and least sensitive to normal climatic and
environmental variability
Checklist of items/ measures that should be included in all routine assessments
Guidance on how to define reference conditions (and reference standard) and development
of a national registry of reference sites
Guidance on how to assess watershed condition and how compensatory mitigation projects
contribute to overall watershed condition
Metrics and monitoring recommendations for how to synthesize results from numerous
projects to evaluate improvements at the reach and catchment scale.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
10
-------
CHAPTER 1 » Background, Objectives, and Approach
Data Management Needs
Web-based or off-the-shelf data management tools that could help get data from project files
to a queryable database (with reminders to help keep track of deadlines and due dates)
Better ways to compile and reconcile data from different sources
Standard data templates and automated data checkers (to improve quality control),
including for geospatial data
More integrated data tools that include data capture, compilation, and querying capability
and have the flexibility for modifying and appending data as necessary.
Improved access to existing data management systems and GIS data from other agencies
and programs, potentially through web services or open data access
Recommendations to address the needs identified through state-level interviews were
developed in coordination with technical experts from selected states, USEPA, USACE, USFWS,
and NMFS, as well as scientists from academic and non-governmental organizations.
The technical expert reviewers provided individual input to help USEPA ensure that the
final report reflects the best available science, best practices from past studies, and the needs
and interests of states, tribes, academics and others interested in evaluating compensatory
mitigation programs. The technical reviewers also provided input on the practicality of
recommendations and the likelihood that they could be implemented in ways that would
address the identified needs.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
11
-------
CHAPTER 2 )>
Overall Recommendations
2. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Modular Approach
Comprehensive compensatory mitigation evaluation should include assessment of both
project and program performance. A modular approach provides a flexible framework to
achieve different elements of compensatory mitigation assessments. States can prioritize
different modules depending on their needs and priorities, and the status of existing assessment
programs. However, implementation of all three modules would provide a comprehensive
assessment program. The three modules proposed are:
1) Compensatory mitieation site performance: This module evaluates the success of mitigation
projects relative to defined ecological endpoints (e.g., morphology, habitats, species,
communities), functional goals and permit requirements. This module can also help assess
factors that influence mitigation success and the length of time necessary to achieve desired
targets.
2) Proeram effectiveness: This module evaluates the overall effectiveness of the regulatory
program at achieving programmatic goals, such as no-net loss, specific area goals, and/ or
desired ecological targets at reach, watershed and regional scales. This includes an
evaluation of the relative success of different compensation mechanisms (e.g., MB, ILF,
PRM) and practices (e.g., use of standard performance standards) at achieving
programmatic goals.
3) Resiliency of compensatory mitigation practices: This module evaluates likely long-term
trajectories of compensatory mitigation sites at achieving functional replacement of aquatic
resource impacts. This would include the role of adaptive management, ability to adapt for
climate change effects, and vulnerability to future degradation due to changing land use,
climate, and management practices.
The three modules should be applicable to all
aquatic resource types and include the following
general practices:
All compensatory mitigation sites should be
catalogued in a database with appropriate metadata
and geospatial information.
Data entry should be standardized and streamlined
with appropriate QA/ QC procedures; building data
dictionaries is valuable.
AMBIENT ASSESSMENT
Ambient assessment refers to the
characterization of regional (or
statewide) conditions. Ambient
assessment provides information on
the extent, distribution, and
condition of aquatic resources across
a defined geography.
Ambient assessments sample a broad
range of indicators at sites selected
following a systematic or random
study design.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
12
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
Compensatory mitigation sites (and impact sites if possible) should be available on maps,
which will be essential for site selection in all three modules.
Data should be stored in an open-data format and linked to the internet to facilitate access
by the public, sharing among agency partners, and incorporation by USEPA into national
assessments.
Assessments should be integrated into ongoing, sustainable agency programs to facilitate
long-term implementation. These could be existing or newly created programs to measure
ambient conditions in specific areas or aquatic resource types.
Assessments should include regular reporting targeted to both agency/professional staff
and the public - this may require multiple reporting formats and approaches.
Together, the three modules address a comprehensive set of questions about short and long-
term effectiveness of compensatory mitigation programs (Figure 2). The modules are designed
to be nested such that sites evaluated as part of the program effectiveness are a subset of the
sites used for the performance assessment. Sites used for the resiliency evaluation are also a
subset of the sites used for the performance assessment and may or may not be a subset of sites
used for effectiveness evaluation, as shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 2: Overview of the three modules of an integrated framework for evaluating
compensatory mitigation
Module 1
Targeted subset of sites |
How resilient are compensatory
mitigation sites at achieving long-
term functional replacement of
impacted aquatic resources?
How well do compensatory
mitigation sites meet their stated
goals and permit requirements?
Mitigation Program Effectiveness
Ambient survey sites/ status and
trends sites
| Random subset of sites |
How effective is the compensatory
mitigation program at replacing lost
aquatic resource functions and
contributing to healthy watersheds?
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
13
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
Resiliency
FIGURE 3: Illustration of nesting of sites used for each of the three modules. All sites
are used for the performance assessment, a subset of sites is used to
evaluate program effectiveness. The sites used to assess resiliency are a
subset of those used to assess performance and may or may not be a
subset of sites used to assess effectiveness. Sites should include all stream
and wetland types within a watershed.
Each module described below is organized around the following elements: general goal,
main question, assessment approach, site selection, and approach to reference and indicators.
The main elements of each module are summarized in Table 2 and discussed in detail below:
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
14
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
TABLE 2: Summary of major elements for each compensatory mitigation evaluation
module
PERFORMANCE
EFFECTIVENESS
RESILIENCY
Goal
Ecological success of
compensation sites and
regulatory compliance
Effectiveness of program
at offsetting aquatic
resource losses and
contributing to no-net
loss goals
Long-term resiliency
and sustainability
Design
Approach
Comprehensive
Probabilistic
Targeted sentinel sites
Reference
Approach
Performance standards,
pre- vs. post-mitigation
site, comparison to
impact site or reference
sites
Comparison to
regional/ ambient
condition, comparison to
impact sites and
reference sites
Comparison to
regional/ ambient
condition, comparison to
reference standard sites
General Recommendations
Wetland, stream and other aquatic resource regulatory programs are structured around
specific projects. Consequently, most monitoring programs focus on performance of individual
compensation sites (e.g., MB, ILF and PRM sites). Few states have any structured programs for
measuring overall program effectiveness or long-term performance/sustainability of
compensatory mitigation. Arguably, these assessments are critical measures of how well
compensatory mitigation offsets permanent losses associated with permitted activities. Given
the inherent budget and staffing challenges of conducting more holistic assessments, all
monitoring and assessment programs are recommended to consider the following:
1) Establish goals against which overall programmatic success can be gauged. These may
include "no-net loss," achieving specific areal targets, establishing desired distributions of
aquatic resources, or restoring landscape-scale functions. Clearly articulated goals make it
easier to focus resources toward development of tools and capacity that are best suited to
evaluate these goals.
2) Program effectiveness and long-term resiliency assessments should be conducted by state,
academic, or NGO entities with dedicated staffing and funding for these activities in
coordination with state wetland, stream or water quality monitoring program staff.
3) Effectiveness assessment (Module 2) is best accomplished in one of two ways:
a) Improving data management systems to allow information from compensatory
mitigation sites to be more readily accessed and analyzed for programmatic trends
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
15
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
b) Partnering with an existing state or regional ambient monitoring or status and trends
program. Comparing results from a subset of compensatory mitigation sites to ambient
assessment data, which is often collected probabilistically, or to standard status and
trends plots may provide an efficient way to evaluate how compensatory mitigation
contributes to overall aquatic resource gains (or losses). The subset of compensatory
mitigation sites evaluated can be selected randomly or systematically to represent the
full set of required compensatory mitigation sites.
4) Long-term resiliency (Module 3) is best assessed through ongoing monitoring of targeted
(or sentinel) sites for a minimum of 20 years. Some stream or wetland types, including, but
not limited to, forested systems, arctic wetlands, or fens take much longer to mature and
may require monitoring of up to 50 years. Monitoring at these sites can occur less frequently
and should be funded through long-term dedicated funding, such as endowments
established using mitigation funds or permit fees or targeted program funds.
Core Elements for Monitoring and Assessment
Successful monitoring and assessment programs should include the following core
elements, which are discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections of this document:
1) Bioassessment indices or other quantitative measures that include standard operating
procedures that can be applied in a repeatable manner and have associated quality control
procedures.
2) Established (and protected) reference standard sites that reflect the range of stream or
wetland types occurring within the jurisdiction of the state program. Reference sites should
be monitored over time to provide insight into long-term patterns and natural variability in
condition.
3) Clear targets based on reference and related to wetland/ stream function and programmatic
goals.
4) Strong guidance documents on monitoring and assessment requirements to provide a clear
structure for program implementation - both for the agencies and the regulated community.
This guidance should include procedures for analyzing data, interpreting results, and
preparing reports.
5) Easy to use project/permit tracking system with automated reminders for both agency staff
and permittees.
6) Simple and transparent data management system that is integrated into the permitting
workflow. The following features promote efficient program implementation:
a) Map-based data management that tracks basic project information, location, and key
performance standards
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
16
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
b) Integrated data tools that include data capture, compilation and querying capability and
have the flexibility for modifying and appending data as necessary
c) Ability to schedule automatic reminders via email, group calendaring, etc.
d) Web-based systems that are readily accessible and can be queried by the public
e) Use of "web-services" that allow dynamic linkage to other databases and facilitate data
sharing between programs
In developing capacity for these core elements, state programs may draw from the tools and
resources developed through USEPA's National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS), which
include standard protocols, guidance for defining and selecting reference sites, methods for
establishing thresholds of response, and suggested analytical approaches. State programs
should also take advantage of the existing networks of reference sites established through the
NARS program to help provide context for site-specific and regional monitoring of
compensation sites.
Recommended Indicators
A common set of field indicators should be used to
facilitate data sharing across the three modules and
support the nested design. Indicators should be based
on the USEPA Level 1, 2, and 3 approach as described
in Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program (USEPA 2003; EPA 841-B-03-003; Figure 4).
Level 1 indicators are important for tracking gains and
losses in aquatic resource area and should include
measures of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional
wetlands and waters, adjacent upland and buffer
habitats, and open water. At a minimum both
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) and Cowardin classification
systems should be used for wetlands. For streams,
Level 1 indicators should include areal measures such as catchment area, catchment description
and condition, reach length, corridor width, and valley morphology. Standard stream
classifications such as Leopold and Wolman (1957), Montgomery and Buffington (1997), Cluer
and Thorne (2013) or Rosgen (1994) may be used.
Local or state classification systems can also be used, if classification details are included in
the data dictionaries.
PROBILISTIC ASSESSMENT
Probabilistic assessment is often used
to develop estimates of overall extent
or condition when comprehensive
sampling is not possible.
Probabilistic assessment involves
assessing a randomly selected set of
sites and then extrapolating to a
regional or statewide estimate of
extent or condition.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
17
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
FIGURE 4: Overview of the USEPA Level 1 -2-3 assessment framework - wetlands example.
Level 1 - Landscape Assessment:
Use GIS and remote sensing to gain a landscape view of watershed and wetland condition.
Typical assessment indicators include wetland coverage (NWI), land use and land cover.
Level 2 - Rapid Wetland Assessment:
Evaluate the general condition of individual wetlands using relatively simple field indicators.
Assessment is often based on the characterization of stressors known to limit wetland
functions e.g., road crossings, tile drainage, ditching.
Level 3 - Intensive Site Assessment:
Produce quantitative data with known certainty of wetland condition within an assessment
area, used to refine rapid wetland assessment methods and diagnose the causes of wetland
degradation. Assessment is typically accomplished using indices of biological integrity or
hydrogeomorphic function.
Level 2 rapid assessments can be used to provide general assessments of condition through
common field indicators. For wetlands, Level 2 assessments provide easily interpretable output,
generally on a 0-1 scale that facilitate comparison of scores across different wetlands and can be
readily used for assessing mitigation performance. Many states have rapid wetland assessments
(e.g., ORAM, NMRAM, CRAM, WAM); those that don't can use the USA RAM developed as
part of the National Wetlands Condition Assessment (NWCA). For streams, there are numerous
rapid assessment methods that focus on relatively simple visual observations of reach-scale
geomorphic, hydrologic, water quality, and biological indicators, as well as measures of
riparian condition. A summary of available physical stream assessment methods is provided by
Somerville and Pruitt (2004) and Somerville (2010). More recent methods include the Function-
Based Rapid Stream Assessment Methodology (Starr et al. 2015) and the Rapid Stream Riparian
Assessment (RSRA; Stacey et al. 2009). Some states and USACE Districts have developed their
own rapid assessment methods for stream compensatory mitigation programs.
Level 3 intensive indicators are necessary to provide more information on function or
condition and to guide adaptive management. The USEPA National Aquatic Resource Surveys
(NARS) have developed protocols for a suite of Level 3 indicators (Table 3). Specific indicators
may vary by aquatic resource type and different portions of the overall indicator list may be
used for the different modules. For example, a subset of Level 3 indicators may be used for
mitigation performance assessment (Module 1) and a broader set of indicators may be used for
program evaluation and resiliency assessment (Modules 2 and 3). Finally, bioassessment indices
(e.g., IBI, FQAI) can be used to provide integrated measures of community composition on a
common scale that can be readily compared among streams and wetlands. Existing protocols
developed by the various NARS programs (e.g., National Rivers and Streams, National Wetland
Condition, National Lakes Assessments) should be used to the extent possible (Kaufmann et al.
2014). Examples of the relationship between indicators and specific functions are provided in
the national and regional HGM guidebooks developed by the USACE and its partners
(https:/ /wetlands .el. erdc.dren.mil/guidebooks.cfm).
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
18
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
TABLE 3: Level 3 indicators of aquatic resource condition. Indicators are color
coded by the aquatic resource type to which they pertain.
FRESHWATER
ESTUARINE
RIVERS &
LAKES
WETLANDS
WETLANDS
STREAMS
Buffer and Landscape Context
Width and condition of buffer
Connectivity to adjacent wetlands/floodplain
Hydrology/Geomorphology
Duration of ponding, saturation or inundation
Flow dynamics and floodplain connection
Evidence of hydrologic alteration
Sediment deposition or erosion/ CEM class
Channel planform
Bank height, angle, consolidation
Water level or flow
Depth to subsurface water or soil water loss
Soils/Substrate
Soil morphology and type
Structure of soil column (including subaqueous)
Bedform
Substrate (surface) composition/ structure
Sediment chemistry
Redox conditions
Water Chemistry
Ph, EC, TDS, temperature
Clarity, suspended sediments, turbidity
Algal toxins (or toxic forming species)
Dissolved organic carbon
Chlorophyll a
Organic matter/metabolism
Dissolved oxygen (continuous)
Nutrients
Vegetation
Vegetation cover
Community composition & structure
Physical disturbance of the plant community
Invasive plants
Age-stand distribution
Evidence of recruitment
FQAI (or equivalent)
Shoreline and littoral habitat extent
Bioassessment Indicators
Algal index (e.g., IBI, MMI)
Macroalgal extent
Benthic invertebrate index (e.g., IBI, MMI, O/E)
Amphibian index
Fish community index
Evidence of wildlife/bird use
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
19
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
Level 1 assessment tools will be applicable to tracking aquatic resource area under all three
modules. Levels 2 and 3 tools will be useful for Modules 2 and 3. Level 2 rapid assessments will
be appropriate for answering questions of general condition and some degree of regulatory
compliance. Level 3 tools will provide detailed evaluation of condition or function and support
adaptive management decisions in addition to regulatory compliance.
Adaptive Management
Measures of landscape or local stress may be measured along with condition indicators and
can be used as a way to evaluate compensatory mitigation performance and understand reasons
why sites do or do not succeed. Stress measures may be Level 1 (landscape-scale), such as land
use/land cover, Level 2 (rapid assessment), such as buffer condition, or Level 3 (intensive), such
as sediment/contaminant input or patterns of human visitation. Compiling stressor information
over time at many sites can be used to both interpret compensatory mitigation performance and
improve mitigation practices, such as improving site selection, restoration design, or
management measures.
Review of data from numerous compensation sites can be used in conjunction with land use
factors (e.g., intensity and proximity of adjacent development, streamflow diversions,
groundwater extraction) to assess factors that contribute to mitigation success. Application of
standard monitoring and assessment approaches allows for statistical analysis of relationships
between factors internal to the wetland (e.g., hydrology) and external (e.g., runoff from adjacent
land uses) and various performance standards. These relationships can inform adaptive
management actions at the individual site level as well as programmatic changes (e.g.,
improving permit conditions). Analysis of stress-response relationships over time can also
provide information to factors that contribute to long-term success and can inform site selection
and watershed planning efforts, which may be able to address upland stressors that are
impacting compensation sites.
Performance Standards
Best Practices for Developing Performance Standards
Performance standards allow objective evaluation of the condition or function of a
compensatory mitigation site relative to an agreed upon target. Ideally, performance standards
should be related to design parameters, based on the same indicators used for monitoring,
similar to crediting and debiting measures (for MB and ILF), and should provide both interim
and ultimate measures of success relative to objectives/targets. Developing common sets of
performance standards at national or regional scales is not practical given the immense
diversity of wetland/stream types, physical settings, and regulatory priorities across the
country. Specific state or local performance standards should be developed based on literature
review, evaluation of past monitoring data, and local expert judgement. Development of
performance standards can also be informed by condition data from national assessment
programs (such as NRSA and NWCA), state, tribal, or regional monitoring programs.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
20
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
The following general recommendations regarding the structure of effective performance
standards can serve as a guide, or template, for development of program or project specific
standards. Effective performance standards generally address "what to measure," "how to
measure," and "when to gauge success," and have the following attributes:
1) Measures a sinele aspect of condition/function - Each standard should attempt to isolate
one aspect/indicator of function, such as recruitment of native plant communities or
appropriate hydrology during the growing season. Although compensatory mitigation
should strive to restore fully integrated functional ecosystems, measuring specific indicators
is often more practical and enforceable, and can be more easily tied to adaptive
management.
2) Can be measured objectively and in a repeatable manner - To the extent possible, standard
acceptable protocols should be used so that independent practitioners are producing data in
a consistent, repeatable manner. This allows for comparison of data over time at a given site
or between sites within a region.
3) Quantifiable tareets with known certainty - Standard protocols are typically associated with
specific error rates that provide known levels of confidence. These error rates may result
from variability during data collection or analysis (e.g., inherent errors in species
identification or instrument measurements) and should be accounted for during data
interpretation. Data from past mitigation sites and ambient monitoring programs can be
used to estimate natural variability between aquatic resources and help bound the ranges of
expectations for performance standards. Performance standards should account for such
measurement uncertainty.
4) Clear target or benchmark anchored to reference - Performance should be assessed relative
to a defined target and should include an expected timeframe to meet that target (e.g., at
year 5 following construction, 3 years after the first 5-year flow event). The target can be
based on conditions at reference sites (e.g., either minimally impacted or best attainable) or
relative to regional or ambient condition (e.g., comparable to the 75% of the range of
ambient conditions). Some states have begun the process of developing performance
trajectories that can be used to evaluate reasonable progress toward meeting defined targets
(Figure 5). Performance trajectories can also support the development of interim
performance standards that assess progress toward ultimate targets and can inform
adaptive management decisions.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
21
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
FIGURE
c
o
o
c
3
CT>
O
O
c_>
LD
>+—
O
a;
i—
3
in
CD
a)
5) Clear and concise wording - The period of performance evaluation often exceeds the tenure
of an individual permit manager or may involve staff who were not involved in writing the
performance standards. The language of each standard should be written so that an
uninitiated staff person can readily interpret the intent of the standard and reach a clear
determination of compliance. Clear and unambiguous standards can also reduce
disagreements between mitigation providers and regulators as to whether the standard has
been achieved. An example standard is provided in Box B below:
BOX B: Sample Performance Standard Wording
SAMPLE PERFORMANCE STANDARD
At the end of year 3, at least 80% of Area A shall have a benthic invertebrate index score
within 10% of the median reference population score.
If this standard is not met, the site will be re-evaluated within 120 days of the original
field assessment
If the standard is still not met, metric level analysis and/ or causal assessment shall be
conducted to identify likely reasons for failure
5: Hypothetical performance curve showing a trajectory of expected
response relative to a range of reference conditions.
1 7T-1
/
/•
/
*
/
/
~
Legend
Restored Wetlands
Keterence Wetland kange
Immature Restored Wetlands
Mature or Stable Restored Wetlands
t 1 1 1 r
Age of Restoration
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
22
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
6) Scientifically defensible - Standards should be grounded in sound scientific principles and
preferably related to peer-reviewed studies. Technical studies and data used to support
development of state water quality standards can be used to help inform compensatory
mitigation performance standards. Analysis of data from past mitigation projects and/or
reference wetlands/ streams can also provide scientific rationale and support for
development and ongoing refinement of performance standards, which should not be static,
but evolve over time as lessons are learned from past practices. Box C below provides an
example standard for wetland hydrology from the St. Paul District of the US ACE, that
provides defensibility based on data from locally relevant reference sites.
BOX C: Sample Hydrology Performance Standard
SEASONAL WATER LEVELS AT REFERENCE SITE
Vertical lines indicate seasonal breaks
PERFORMANCE STANDARD BASED ON REFERENCE DATA:
Hydrology shall consist of a water table 12 inches or less below the soil surface for a
minimum of 28 consecutive days during the growing season under normal to wetter than
normal hydrological conditions (typically July-Oct).
Inundation during the growing season shall not occur except: (1) at the start of the growing
season (following snowmelt); and (2) following the 10-year, 24-hour - or greater -
precipitation events. Depth of inundation shall be less than 6 inches with a duration of less
than 14 consecutive days.
St. Paul District Compensatory Mitigation Policy for Minnesota, 2009
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
23
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
7) Phased - Performance standards can be phased over time with performance of the physical
aspects of the stream or wetland being evaluated earlier in the restoration process and
obtainment of the biological aspects occurring later, once the physical and hydrologic
elements are well established (Figure 6). Such a phased approach may be more conducive to
development of interim performance targets and to earlier identification of problems that
require remedial action or adaptive management.
FIGURE 6: Phased implementation of performance standards can facilitate early
intervention and adaptive management, which may in turn promote
increased likelihood of mitigation success.
Management
Biology
Hydrology
Physical Structure
Landscape Setting
Time
Assessing Wetland Performance
The following should be considered when developing standards to assess the performance
of wetlands:
Wetland typology to ensure that the physical setting of the wetland being restored is at the
appropriate landscape position. For example, groundwater dependent wetlands must be in
a topographic low (or geologic contact point for slope and seep wetlands) and have
adequate groundwater connection. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification should be used
to support development of targets that are based on the physical setting and hydrologic
regime of the mitigation site.
Performance relative to appropriate reference or analogue wetlands. Reference standard
sites should be in the same HGM class and landscape position and should be subject to
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 24
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
minimal disturbance. Ideally reference sites should be subject to ongoing monitoring to
provide for meaningful targets that account for natural variability associated with weather
patterns and periodic natural disturbance.
The characteristic hydroloeic reeime necessary to support the desired wetland class. This is
particularly important for groundwater dependent wetlands which require connection with
subsurface water (often of specific chemical composition) during key portions of the
growing season).
Soil chemistry and structure. Where appropriate, hydric soils should be present. In all cases,
the soil profile should reflect appropriate zonation with appropriate organic matter. Certain
wetland types may require specific soil salinities. Specific metrics may include:
Presence of hydric soils or specific soil morphology (e.g., thickness of an O-horizon)
Soil salinity or cation-exchange capacity
Self-recruitment of diverse native plant communities of multiple age classes and spatial
heterogeneity. Initial active planting and invasive species control may be necessary, but
standards should reflect a long-term goal of self-recruitment. Specific metrics may include:
Relative abundance or cover of various age classes, including evidence of recruitment
Maximum allowable cover of invasive plant species
A measure of faunal community use. Indices of biological integrity based on benthic
invertebrates, fish or amphibians are effective measures of the health of faunal communities
and are often available from ambient monitoring programs. Specific metrics may include:
Indices of biotic integrity
Presence of key indicator taxa, sensitive species
Absence of nuisance invasive animal species
Assessing Stream Performance
The following should be considered when developing standards to assess the performance
of streams:
Hydrology - Begin by classifying streams based on their flow persistence (i.e., perennial,
intermittent, or ephemeral). This may be difficult because streams occur along a continuum
of flow permanence, which may vary based on climatic condition; most likely flow type is
sufficient. Streams should also be classified based on their predominant source of water
(e.g., snowmelt runoff, winter rain, groundwater dependent). McManamay et al. (2014)
provides a nationwide hydrologic classification (that is an update of the classification
developed by Poff (1996)) that combines both flow persistence and source of water. In some
cases, region or state specific classification systems may be available.
Geomorphology - Several national systems have been developed for the US and others have
been developed for Europe and Australia. Geomorphic classification can be based on valley
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
25
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
and channel form, morphology, equilibrium conditions, or combinations. Some states and
regions have developed localized classification systems (e.g., the Hydrologic Landscape
Regions approach for the Oregon Stream Functional Assessment Method; Nadeau et al. 2018).
Examples of common stream classification systems and channel evolution models include:
Montgomery and Buffington (1997) classifies streams based on bed morphology, such as
braided, pool-riffle, plane-bed, step-pool, cascade, bedrock, and colluvial.
Rosgen (1994) classifies streams into eight general types based on basic quantitative
measures of single versus multi-thread channel configuration, degree of entrenchment,
width-depth ratio (W/D), and planform (sinuosity). Slope and bed material are used to
provide further classification detail.
Cluer and Thorne (2013) classification is an extension of the classic channel evolution
model and is based on the evolution of responses and recovery that occur as channels
incise, widen and eventually re-establish equilibrium.
Appropriate reference analoe streams should be established based on the proposed/ target
stream type. Reference streams must be in the same flow class, geomorphic type, and have
similar bed material and boundary conditions (Hey 2006). If possible, reference analogues
should also be in a similar geologic setting and sediment regime class (e.g., depositional,
transport; see Church 2006) and should not be actively aggrading or degrading. This is more
important for vegetation and biological metrics than some geomorphic metrics that can be
normalized by the bankfull dimensions (Hey 2006). In landscapes that have been
substantially altered through land use change, analog streams will seldom represent
"historic" conditions, but rather represent reasonable expectations for the best possible
condition (or function) given the landscape setting.
Establish a domain of analysis. Streams are intimately linked to the conditions in upstream
and downstream reaches. Conditions with a reach can be influenced by adjacent reaches;
conversely mitigation/restoration actions in a specific reach may affect upstream or
downstream areas positively or negatively; for example, trapping sediment in one reach
may result in downstream incision due to sediment starvation. The "domain of analysis"
establishes the zone that should be assessed when evaluating mitigation performance.
Upstream domain should be defined as a distance equal to 20 channel widths or to the
next upstream natural or engineered grade control, whichever comes first.
Downstream domain should be defined as the closest of the following:
At least one reach downstream of the first grade-control point (but preferably the
second downstream grade control location)
Tidal backwater/ lentic waterbody
Equal-order tributary
A two-fold increase in drainage area
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
26
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
Upstream and downstream areas should be evaluated based on their
hydraulic/ geomorphic condition, channel evolution class, and degree of sediment
continuity with the reach of interest (i.e., the mitigation or impact reach).
Evaluate a core set of indicators relative to appropriate reference analogs based on stream
classification. These indicators should be assessed throughout the entire domain of analysis:
Bedform diversity (sequences of riffle, run, pool, and glide) stratified by flow and stream
type.
Channel planform appropriate for valley type, stream type, and substrate type.
Bank stability: height, bank angle, evidence of mass wasting and/ or toe erosion,
consolidation of bank materials.
Lateral migration rates stratified by flow type and stream type.
Substrate composition, embeddedness.
Evidence of aggradation/degradation.
Full annual hydrograph appropriate for the stream type and watershed position,
including peak stormflows, rate of change (flashiness), recessional flows and baseflows.
Specific metrics may include floodplain connectivity/inundation, frequency and
duration of saturation or depth of inundation, attenuation, and flow metrics relative to
dynamic equilibrium and species life history needs (e.g., timing).
Basic water chemistry as listed in Table 3.
Plant community using more "universal" indicators such as prevalence index, age-stand
distribution, evidence of recruitment, all strata present.
Index of biotic community condition (e.g., IBI/MMI, O/E) - for bugs, algae, fish.
Evaluate trends over appropriate time frames. The inherent variability and highly dynamic
nature of streams makes it difficult to establish static performance standards at a given time
point (e.g., achieve reference planform by year five). Instead, stream mitigation performance
should be evaluated based on the trajectory of indicators relative to appropriate reference
analogs over extended time periods (minimum of 10 years) that preferably includes at least
one 10-year flow event or larger. Streams in watersheds with highly variable (flashy) flows
in unconfined valleys and/ or rapidly changing land use and hydrology may need to be
monitored longer than streams with more consistent flow patterns that have coarse
substrates and occur in confined valleys.
Accounting for Non-Stationarity (Change Over Time)
Standards to assess the performance of wetland and stream compensation sites should
account for the inherent non-stationarity of most landscapes. Conditions will inevitably change
over the period in which compensation sites are maturing, and standards used during the
monitoring period and especially those employed after regulatory closeout should account for
this (Robertson et al 2018). Natural events such as floods or fires may change physical or
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
27
-------
CHAPTER 2 » Overall Recommendations
biological conditions. New invasive species or threatened/endangered species may inhabit the
site. Long-term climate change may alter hydrologic and temperature regimes over the decades
in which compensation sites are developing. Finally, other management programs, such as
stormwater runoff control, low impact development, water reuse and recycling, or groundwater
infiltration may fundamentally alter catchment water balances and affect the amount and
timing of water available to support compensation sites.
Standards should attempt to accommodate such changes to the extent that they can be
identified from existing conditions or reasonable future projections. Moreover, standards
should be periodically reevaluated for their relevancy as part of the ongoing assessment
process. This will support a determination of whether partial success (or failure) is due to site
conditions or a landscape-level shift across the range of conditions that would indicate a need to
adjust the standards. Development of function-based standards and coupling of performance
standards to reference conditions that are adjusted over time (based on ongoing monitoring
programs or, at a minimum, monitoring across a network of control sites) can help improve
their longevity and continued relevance.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
28
-------
CHAPTER 3 )>
MODULE 1:
Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
3. MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
At a Glance
This module is intended to help states better assess if compensatory mitigation projects (i.e.,
MB, ILF, and PRM sites) are meeting their permit requirements and/or achieving functional
success. It contains recommendations for the type of data collected and evaluated to address
compensatory mitigation goals, and includes recommendations for improving the flow of data,
to make sharing easier for evaluations on a regional, state, or national level.
Goal-
Assess compensatory mitigation site success
Evaluate regulatory compliance
Main
Questions:
How well do compensation sites meet their stated goals and
permit requirements?
Design
Approach:
Comprehensive assessment during the permit-required
monitoring period
Compensation sites assessed under this module become the
sample frame for the Program Effectiveness assessment
Site Selection:
All sites and/or assessment at end of required monitoring period
Approach to
Reference:
Compare to permit conditions/performance standards
Pre-project site conditions (if applicable)
Conditions at the impact site (which is the site creating the need
for compensation)
Goals
The intent of most compensatory mitigation projects is to replace aquatic resources area and
function that are unavoidably lost (or reduced). They may do this by creating, restoring,
enhancing, or in some cases preserving a surrogate stream or wetland to replace the function
that is lost at the altered site. Permit requirements usually specify the mechanism (or approach)
to stream or wetland replacement but may not require a strategy that specifically evaluates
whether aquatic resource function is being replaced. In addition, differences among projects
and the lack of a strategy for sharing monitoring results makes it difficult to examine
compensatory effectiveness among projects on a regional or state level.
This module lays out recommendations for the type of data collected and evaluated to
address compensatory mitigation goals, which could be applied among projects to ensure that
data are more uniform and therefore can more easily be compiled to make overall
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
29
-------
CHAPTER 3 » MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
programmatic evaluations. This module also includes recommendations for improving the flow
of data, to make sharing easier for evaluations on a regional, state, or national level. From a
permit-perspective, the questions being addressed by this module include:
1) Is the amount of compensation sufficient to replace (or increase) the aquatic resource being
lost?
2) Is the compensation replacing an appropriate/equivalent type of aquatic resource?
3) Is the compensation replacing (or offsetting) the functions being lost?
4) How long will it take for the compensatory mitigation sites to reach desired condition or
function?
Design Approach
The intended outcome of this module is for states to be able to better assess if compensatory
mitigation projects are meeting their permit requirements. The design assumes application to
new compensation sites; however, many elements of this design can also be used for
retrospective evaluation of past compensation sites. To achieve desired outcomes, monitoring
data are needed from all compensatory mitigation projects. Each mitigation project should be
associated with a spatially-explicit polygon and a unique site ID. Each project should also
include the following basic data:
Permit information
Name and contact information of the applicant or current holder of the permit
Permit number
Land owner and easement holder information
Project beginning and closing dates
Required compensation and compensation mechanism (MB, ILF, PRM)
Permit conditions, including performance standards, crediting mechanisms (etc.)
Wetland or stream type for both the impact and compensation site(s)
HGM and Cowardin wetland type, including hydrologic modifiers
Stream class (e.g., Montgomery and Buffington, Rosgen)
Stream flow class (i.e., perennial, intermittent, ephemeral)
Dominant plant community
Compensatory mitigation information
Compensation method (e.g., restoration, establishment, enhancement)
Associated MB or ILF information (if applicable)
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
30
-------
CHAPTER 3 » MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
Geospatial data of both the impact and compensation site (or MB or ILF)
Coordinates
GIS layer
Wetland size (total, wetted, buffer)
Stream length and width, including riparian zone
Surrounding land use composition, buffers
In addition to keeping track of compensatory mitigation sites, a consolidated database
allows for stratification of the data for analysis based on characteristics such as wetland type,
hydrologic regime, project size, location, or compensation mechanism. The monitoring data
generated by the permittees should be maintained by the state entity in an open data format
(discussed in Section 6) to facilitate access by the public, sharing among agency partners, and
incorporation by USEPA into national assessments.
The frequency of sampling should coincide with the expected rate of measurable change
and allow for intervention in case unforeseen corrections are necessary. Permitted impact sites
should be assessed prior to alteration, to establish a baseline for comparison of gains achieved
through compensatory mitigation relative to losses at the permitted project site. A baseline
should also be established at the compensatory mitigation site, before restoration activities
begin. At a minimum, compensatory mitigation sites should be assessed:
Prior to performing compensation activities (i.e., baseline conditions)
Immediately after initial compensation activities are completed (i.e., as-built conditions)
Upon completion of each milestone or remedial measure
Annually and/ or at each performance standard deadline
Monitoring periods may vary based on the type of aquatic resource being restored and the
desired functional lift (i.e., the gain in function achieved as a result of the compensation). At a
minimum, sites should be monitored at years 1, 3, and 5; slowly maturing sites, such as forested
wetlands, fens, permafrost or bottomlands may require monitoring for up to 10 years or longer.
Stream sampling often focuses on channel stability and in-stream habitat features in the early
years, with the later years focused on the riparian vegetation and any water quality and
biological metrics included. Sampling usually occurs during the growing season, which varies
by such factors as aquatic resource type, vegetation composition, altitude, latitude, and rainfall.
Specific indicators can be staggered such that greater emphasis is placed on hydrologic and
physical factors early in the monitoring period, with biological measures becoming more
important later in the monitoring period as the mitigation site matures.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
31
-------
CHAPTER 3 » MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
Approach to Reference
Evaluation of compensatory mitigation performance requires a basis of comparison, or
reference. Here, "reference" is used in a broader sense to mean target conditions. For all
projects, there are several options for reference approaches. These are not mutually exclusive
and multiple reference approaches can be used:
1) Conditions at the mitigation site may be compared with mitigation performance standards
and permit requirements. This may include items written into the permit such as a targeted
tree density, minimum vegetation cover, or maximum allowable slope in the littoral zone, or
other performance standards in a mitigation plan.
2) Pre- and post-restoration conditions at the mitigation sites may be compared to pre- and
post-impact conditions at the impact site (i.e., partial or complete loss of area or function).
Comparison of gains at the compensation site relative to losses at the impact site allows for
direct comparison of areal or functional replacement (although post-project assessment of
impacts is desirable, it may not always be practical). For MB and ILF, the aggregate losses at
all impacts sites using the MB or ILF could be compared to overall gains.
3) Conditions at the compensation site can be compared with regional reference conditions
[e.g., undisturbed ("pristine") streams or wetlands (see Stoddard et al. 2006 for reference
definitions), unaltered portions of the impact site that are fully functioning, or a mature and
successful mitigation site (of the same wetland or stream type and landscape setting)]. Past
mitigation sites may not achieve fully pristine reference standard conditions; however, they
can be important benchmarks for what is achievable in future compensation sites. Reference
sites should be in the same aquatic resource type, landscape position, hydrologic regime,
and similar soil type as those that are mitigated. For streams, comparisons should be to
streams in the same hydrologic and geomorphic class and in a similar landscape/ watershed
position. The reference approach allows for interpretation and accounting of regional
variances in the environment, caused by such factors as wet-dry conditions, fire, floods, or
other natural events.
Evaluation of mitigation performance requires a comparison approach that is appropriate
for each indicator. For many indicators, comparison between reference and compensation site
condition is conducted using a statistical analysis approach (e.g., t-test of soil redox values, or
ANOVA with a multiple comparison test when more than one site is assessed). However, some
indicators, such as indices of biological integrity or rapid assessment methods may have an
internal reference standard, which can be expressed as a threshold or target. Standardized
indices are typically developed and calibrated based on response along a gradient of
disturbance. Their derived threshold values represent an upper reference interval measured at
relatively undisturbed streams or wetlands along the gradient of sites. For these indicators, the
response at the compensation site would be compared to the published threshold value.
Measurements exceeding the threshold may be considered as out of compliance or in need of
remedial measures.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
32
-------
CHAPTER 3 » MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
Indicators
Mitigation performance should be assessed using Level 1 mapping and Level 2 rapid
assessment as discussed earlier in this document (Section 2). Level 1 tools can be used to track
aquatic resource area and habitat distribution of individual compensation sites, while Level 2
tools can be used to track general aquatic resource condition at those sites. A core set of Level 3
indicators (shown in Table 3) should also be included to capture general condition over the
course of the mitigation monitoring period. Recommended Level 3 indicators include:
Wetlands
Width and condition of buffer
Duration and frequency of ponding, saturation or inundation
Hydric soils, measures of reducing conditions in the soil
Soil organic matter, bulk density
Evidence of hydrologic alteration
Vegetation cover
Plant community composition & structure
Age-stand distribution and evidence of plant recruitment
Physical disturbance of the plant community
Invasive plants
Evidence of wildlife/bird use
Streams
Width and condition of riparian corridor
Evidence of hydrologic alteration
Continuous flow and/or water level
Bedform composition and structure
Channel planform and lateral migration
Channel evolution stage
Vegetation cover
Plant community composition & structure
Age-stand distribution and evidence of plant recruitment
Physical disturbance of the plant community
Invasive plants
Evidence of wildlife/bird use
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
33
-------
CHAPTER 3 » MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
The set of Level 3 indicators above should be used for all mitigation sites and form a core
assessment that can be integrated with assessments conducted under Module 2 (program
effectiveness) and Module 3 (resiliency). Detailed protocols for Level 3 indicators are available
from a variety of programs including the USEPA National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS)
program and the Bureau of Land Management AIM National Aquatic Monitoring Framework.
Additional indicators may be included to accommodate specific performance standards (or
targets) or MB or ILF crediting/debiting schemes.
Box D provides an example of comprehensive performance standards from Ohio. Box E,
from Wisconsin, illustrates how different vegetation measures can be used together to assess
compliance and how hydrology standards can be customized by wetland type. Performance
standards can also be staggered such that more structural measures are monitored earlier, while
biological community measures are monitored at less frequent intervals (Table 4).
TABLE 4: Conceptual 10-year schedule for required monitoring and reporting at
mitigation bank sites. From Ohio Mitigation Banking Guidelines
Years
Monitoring activity
0 1 2
3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
Delineation
X
X X
X
X
Hydrologic monitoring
X X
X X X X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation sampling
X
X X
X
X
Amphibian sampling
X
X X
X
X
Soil and water sampling
X
X X
X
X
Other taxa group sampling
X
X X
X
X
Mapping. % relative covers
X
X X
X
X
Ecological services
X
X X
X
X
As-built report
X
Annual report
X X
X X X X
X
X
X
X
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
34
-------
CHAPTER 3 » MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
BOX D: Sample Performance Standards
Performance standards developed for use in Ohio
CATEGORY
STANDARD
TIME FRAME
Acreage
Achieve a mitigation wetland that has the
minimum area specified in the certification
or permit
End of monitoring period
Morphometry
Side slopes of 15:1 (horizontal:vertical) or
shallower for the first 15 m, for >50% of
perimeter.
Perimeter: Area
Ratio
The perimeter length of the mitigation
wetland shall be greater than or equal to
75% of the perimeter length of the impacted
wetland
Hydrologic
Regime
A hydrologic regime equivalent to the
regime of a natural wetland of that
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class
<10% total area unvegetated open water
>75% total area vegetated with native,
perennial hydrophytes
Vegetation
<5% total area with invasive species
Achieve the minimum Vegetation IBI score
for that type of wetland (HGM class, plant
community, ecoregion)
End of the monitoring period unless the
monitoring data demonstrates that the
wetland is on a clear trajectory to achieve
the appropriate score within 2 years of
end of the monitoring period
Amphibian
Community
Achieve the minimum Amphibian IBI score
for that type of wetland (HGM class, plant
community, ecoregion)
End of the monitoring period unless the
monitoring data demonstrates that the
wetland is on a clear trajectory to achieve
the appropriate score within 2 years of
end of the monitoring period
Soil Chemistry
Process
Median values of the soil chemistry
parameters, by HGM class and plant
community, for % solids, % total organic
carbon, % total nitrogen
At the time construction is completed.
Alternatively, end of the monitoring
period or the monitoring data submitted
by the applicant shall demonstrate that
the wetland is on a clear trajectory to
achieve those values within 2 years of
end of the monitoring period.
Ecological
Services
Performance and success quantitatively
measured using methods appropriate to
evaluating whether the specific function or
value was created and to what extent
Source: Mack et al. 2004
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
35
-------
CHAPTER 3 » MODULE 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
BOX E: Composite Performance Standards from Wisconsin. Source: Haber 2013
Floristic Quality Benchmarks and Categories
(Ca, FQIJ
ja
Of
50.0
40,0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0 P
<2.4, 12.5)
(4.7, 31.8)
. . . y, . M
[iJ
—1 a*
¦ 1 1 rfX
¦¦ '
: *
* ; LOW
I 1 M 1 I I |
Excellent
'"¦•"""it
High
I—r
¦ in bounds
* out of bounds
Medium
P"
(4.2. 22.81
3 4
c~
I t I I I 1 I 11 I I I
5 6 7
Vegetation performance standards based on a combination of the mean coefficient of
conservatism (mean C) and Floristic Quality (FQI)
Wetland
Type
Minimum Soil Saturation to Inundation
Maximum inundation
Saturation
[from soil
surface)
Inundation
Duration
(minimum)
Measure
Duration
(maximum)
Storm
Event
General
Within 12
inches
< 6 inches
28 consecutive
days or two 14-
day hydroperiods
-
-
-
Shallow
Marsh
0 inches
< 6 inches
56-60 consecutive
days, two 28-30
day or four 14-15
day hydroperiods
<18
inches
30 days
> 2 year
Sedge
Meadow
Within 12
inches
-
28 consecutive
days or two 14
day hydroperiods
< 6 inches
14 days
> 10 year
Wet Meadow
Within 12
inches
-
28 consecutive
days or two 14
day hydroperiods
< 6 inches
14 days
> 10 year
Shrub-Carr
Within 6-
12 inches
< 6 inches
28-30 consecutive
days, or two 14-15
day hydroperiods
6-12
inches
14-15 days,
except in
hollows
> 10 year
Hardwood
Swamp
Within 6-
12 inches
< 6 inches
28-30 consecutive
days, or two 14-15
day hydroperiods
6-12
inches
14-15 days,
except in
hollows
> 10 year
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 36
-------
CHAPTER 4 )>
MODULE 2:
Program Effectiveness
4. MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
At a Glance
This module is intended to help states assess the overall effect of their compensatory
mitigation program and evaluate if the compensation program is helping/ contributing to
achieving policy or resource management goals, such as no net loss, achieving specific aquatic
resource acreages and distributions, or realizing functional goals relative to natural or reference
conditions. Data collected during this module may also be used to assess the relative
performance of different restoration practices and the relative efficacy of watershed vs. local
scale practices and restoring both site and watershed function.
Goal:
Evaluate effectiveness of compensatory mitigation program at
offsetting overall aquatic resource losses
Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the regulatory program at
contributing to no net loss, target area or other regional or
watershed goals
Main Question:
How effective is the overall compensatory mitigation program at
achieving programmatic goals of offsetting permitted wetland
and stream impacts?
Design Approach:
Probabilistic site selection through ambient or status and trends
assessment OR comprehensive synthesis of gains and losses data
assessed across all compensatory mitigation and impact sites
Site Selection:
Subset of sites from a probabilistic survey OR all sites at the end
of required monitoring period over a defined time period.
Approach to
Reference:
Comparison to ambient condition, comparison to reference
standard sites
Goals
Offsetting unavoidable wetland or stream impacts is a central goal of most state programs
and is required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Evaluating long-term goals such as
"no net loss/' achieving a desired aquatic resources extent and distribution, or realizing
landscape condition relative to reference is difficult because some aquatic resource changes
occur outside the purview of regulatory programs. For example, such changes include
unregulated or unauthorized activities, activities that fall below required notification
thresholds, grant funded restoration, and changes due to natural events such as floods or fires.
This module is intended to help evaluate the contribution of wetland and stream compensatory
mitigation to overall wetland/ stream change.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
37
-------
CHAPTER 4 » MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
This module is focused on overall program performance as opposed to individual site
performance which was emphasized in Module 1. The emphasis moves beyond evaluating
whether a site is meeting permit requirements, to assessing program goals on a regional and
state-level. While the main question of this module is "how effective is the compensatory
mitigation program at achieving no net loss in area or function, or other regional or state
goals?" information collected through this module can also be used to assess questions related
to the relative performance of different compensation practices, such as:
Which compensation mechanism (MB, ILF, or PRM) is most successful at replacing
wetlands or restoring streams?
Which compensation method (restoration, establishment, enhancement, preservation) is
most successful at replacing or enhancing aquatic resource function?
Which specific restoration practice is most successful?
What is the correct time-frame to expect sustainable stream or wetland function to occur?
What factors influence the degree to which compensation sites succeed?
Which aquatic resource types are most difficult to replace?
Which aquatic resource types are not being replaced in kind?
Results from assessments under Module 2 can also be used to assess the efficacy of
performance standards by allowing for an evaluation of how well sites that meet required
performance standards contribute to no net loss or other programmatic goals.
Design Approach
Two alternative approaches are available for evaluating overall program effectiveness. The
first approach uses only data generated in Module 1, and program effectiveness is based on the
proportion of compensation sites determined to be successful based on pre-determined criteria
and/ or relative to the permitted area of loss (Figure 7). Only sites that have reached the end of
their permit requirements and have been deemed successful based on their permit conditions
are included in the assessment, since newly restored streams or wetlands may not have the
ecological function and habitat value of a mature compensation site. To make data retrieval and
analysis more efficient, the data collected from each of the individual compensation projects
should be consolidated and maintained in a central database. Compensatory mitigation data
should be attributable to the associated impact sites. This is particularly important for
mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs where multiple impacts may be associated with a
single compensatory mitigation site. Under this approach, total gains at compensation sites are
compared to total losses at permitted impact sites to determine overall program effectiveness.
The benefit of this first approach is that it is a direct measure of program success. It is important
to acknowledge only considering compensation sites does not account for unregulated or
unreported impacts that affect the overall change in extent and distribution of aquatic resources.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
38
-------
CHAPTER 4 » MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
The second alternative approach is to include compensation sites as part of a broader
ambient assessment. In this approach, regulatory and non-regulatory activities are used to
assess the state's overall progress toward defined targets or goals. Ambient assessment
programs already exist for many states and adding mitigation sites to a state's ongoing Clean
Water Act Section 305(b) assessment program could provide an opportunity to leverage
funding among programs (Figure 8). This is particularly true for streams, where most states
have an ambient stream monitoring program that could be leveraged to help assess mitigation
program effectiveness. Integration of compensatory mitigation assessment with broader
ambient assessment requires harmonization of indicators and data management, which are
often developed and managed under separate programs. Such harmonization would allow
completed compensation sites to become part of the sample frame for ambient assessment while
allowing ambient assessment sites to provide context for interpreting the overall contribution of
compensation sites to change in wetland and stream extent and condition. If integration with a
state ambient monitoring programs is not possible, states may consider partnerships or
intensifications of the USEPA National Aquatic Resource Assessments which can also provide
information on ambient and reference conditions that can be used to assess compensatory
mitigation program effectiveness.
FIGURE 7: Evaluation of mitigation bank program effectiveness in Ohio based on a
vegetation IBI (VIBI). VIBI scores of 50-65 are considered "good"
condition; scores >65 are considered "excellent" condition. Results are
from the 2011 Great Lakes Basin Evaluation of Compensatory Sites.
Summary for Mitigation Banks VIBI
20
40
60
80
3ZZH
95% Confidence Intervals
Mean
Median
30
35
45
50
55
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared
0.60
P-Value
0.106
Mean
42.267
StDev
20.384
Variance
415.513
Skewness
0.047413
Kurtosis
-0.648288
N
30
Minimum
0.000
1st Quartile
26.000
Median
47,000
3rd Quartile
55.250
Maximum
79.000
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
34.655
49.878
95% Confidence Interval for Median
26.686
52.771
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
16.234
27.403
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
39
-------
CHAPTER 4 » MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
FIGURE 8: Relationship between Minnesota compensatory mitigation sites (left) and
ambient monitoring of status and trends sites (right) illustrating
opportunities to leverage ambient assessment programs to help evaluate
program effectiveness.
Under the second approach, all compensation sites deemed to have achieved final
performance standards should be included in the sample draw, and since the total number of
compensation sites will increase over time, new sample draws will be required at regular
intervals. Over long periods of time, stratification may be necessary to ensure that the sample
draw includes both past compensation and non-compensation sites. The sample draw should use
a weighted probability distribution approach to ensure representativeness and avoid "clumping"
of sites (e.g., GRTS approach). To investigate specific elements of performance, sites can be
stratified to include wetlands or streams of different sizes, different watersheds or geographic
regions, or different types of mitigation mechanisms (e.g., MB, ILF, PRM) or different
compensation practices. Sites can be stratified or given unequal weighting in the probability
distribution to ensure that strata of interest are represented. In general, 30-50 sites are needed for
each stratum. Probability based effectiveness assessments should be ongoing, but can occur
every year, or at specific intervals (e.g., every 5 years).
Approach to Reference
There are multiple options available for defining reference, in part depending on whether
program effectiveness is based on compensatory mitigation sites alone, or as part of a broader
ambient survey.
1) The preferred option is to establish a network of representative reference sites to allow
comparison to minimally impacted conditions. Past mitigation sites can be added to the
Laurent a r Mixpl Fortij,
A I I E«©l©flle«l R«gle>n»
T lYaclwid Chang*
A A
k A *15 to *10
r a »t0to *2 0
A >7 0 to •O &0
•050 to -0.50
* 0 5019 20
~ ^0to-t0
~ -10 to -IS
Pri.rf* Parktarxj
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
40
-------
CHAPTER 4 » MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
reference network if they meet established reference criteria described in Module 1. Past
mitigation sites may not achieve fully pristine reference standard conditions; however, they
can be important benchmarks for what is achievable in future compensation sites. A
reference network must match the categories of interest for program evaluation (e.g., size
distribution, setting, mitigation type).
2) The second option is to evaluate program effectiveness relative to ambient conditions. If
ambient assessment data are available, data from compensatory mitigation sites can be
compared to ambient to determine their function/ condition relative to the region as a
whole. This option is not only suitable for sites that are part of an ambient survey, but also
for evaluating how mitigation sites fare in the context of overall ambient conditions.
3) The third option uses the reference thresholds established for each of the biological indices
measured, such as macroinvertebrate and vegetation IBIs. Threshold values can be
identified from the literature or defined and re-calibrated from a local population for use on
a regional basis. Measurements exceeding the threshold are considered outside of the
reference condition.
Indicators
Level 1 landscape or watershed-scale indicators go beyond the Level 3 site-based indicators
listed in Table 3 by assessing the composition of streams and wetlands within a specific
geographic boundary and the physical and biological connections between those streams and
wetlands. The contribution of mitigation projects toward restoring desired landscape-scale
composition and connectivity is an important indicator of success. Moreover, landscape
assessment also provides insight into how setting or landscape position contributes to success
of compensatory mitigation.
Landscape profiles provide a summary of the composition and proportion of streams and
wetlands in the landscape (Figure 9). Program effectiveness can be evaluated by tracking the
change in aquatic resource profiles toward a desired landscape objective (e.g., historic, natural,
sustainable given current constraints). Success can be based on how well compensatory
mitigation sites in aggregate improve the trajectory of the landscape profiles.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
41
-------
CHAPTER 4 » MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
FIGURE 9: Example of landscape profile (from California) fhat could be compared to
a profile of compensation sites to evaluate how well wetland
compensatory mitigation sites have restored the appropriate composition
of aquatic resources in a defined area. Profiles can be based on area,
condition, or both.
Current
Marine and Estuarine Resources: 52,769 acres / 82.5 miles2
Historic or Natural
Historical Marine and Estuarine Resources: 94,383 acres /147 miles2
Am panne
# Tidal Marsh
Subtidal Water
# Tidal Channel
Tidal / Salt Marsh
• Tidal Flat
Shallow Water
Marsh Panne / Salt
Flat
# Deep Water
i Other
Palustrine Resources: 8,028 acres /12.5 miles2
Historical Palustrine Resources: 1,952 acres/3 miles2
Playa
Pond and associated
vegetation
# Fluvial Channel
# Vernal Pool
# Wet / Alkali Meadow
Grassland / Savanna
# Vernal Pool Complex
# Broad Riparian Co...
# Marsh
Broad Riparian Co...
i Other
Rivers, Streams, and Other Channel Resources: 736 miles
- Fluvial: 84 miles
- Tidal: 652 miles
In addition to composition, landscape indicators can evaluate the physical and biological
connectedness of streams and wetlands. The contribution of compensatory mitigation projects
to restoring appropriate landscape processes is an important indicator of success. Profiles can be
coupled with an assessment of the connectivity between compensation sites, other aquatic
resources, and natural upland areas. Example Level 1 indicators may include:
Wetlands
Wetland density or average distance between wetlands
Hydrologic or physical connectivity between adjacent/nearby wetlands
Proportion of groundwater dependent wetlands relative to shallow groundwater zones
Average buffer width
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
42
-------
CHAPTER 4 » MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
Streams
Intactness of riparian corridor
Drainage density and intactness of the drainage network (relative to reference)
Condition of hydrologic and sediment source areas
Overall catchment hydrology OR patterns of hydroperiod
Average buffer distances or riparian width
Number of fish passage barriers or obstructions to water or sediment flow
Compensatory mitigation projects can be evaluated for their consistency with watershed or
regional plans developed as part of other programs. For example, Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs) developed under the Endangered Species Act and water quality improvement plans
developed pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) often
include objectives for restoring wetlands and floodplains, reducing stressors, and mitigating
past effects through use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The location and function of
completed compensatory mitigation relative to the objectives of these plans can be used as a
measure of programmatic success.
In addition to Level 1, the same Level 2 and 3 indicators used for Module 1 can be applied to
assess overall program effectiveness. Ranges of Level 2 and 3 indicator values for all completed
compensation sites (i.e., those that have achieved final performance standards) can be compared
to the ranges of indicator values for reference or ambient wetlands. Programs may be
considered successful at achieving their objectives if the ranges of values from compensation
sites are statistically the same as at reference networks or within a designated upper range of
ambient condition (e.g., upper quartile).
Inclusion of measures of local or landscape stress (as previously discussed) also allow for
programmatic evaluation of factors that contribute to success or failure of compensation sites.
Analysis of relationships between stressors and condition or function (as indicated through
performance standards) can be used to improve mitigation practices over time. Examples may
include improved site selection, improved performance standards and monitoring
requirements, or improved management actions.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
43
-------
CHAPTER 4 » MODULE 2: Program Effectiveness
BOX F: Opportunities to Leverage Programs to Conduct Programmatic Evaluations
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
Evaluation of overall program effectiveness can be aided by taking advantage of existing
state programs such as status and trends evaluations and ambient assessments:
Michigan Status and Trends:
¦ Resettlement Wetland Inventory
Wetland Loss bv Region Since Pre-European Settlement . ¦ ,k ,
* ** r I | 2005 Wetland Inventory
Iowa's stream ambient monitoring program provides information on ranges of conditions,
including reference. Comparing mitigation sites to these locations using similar data
provides information on how well mitigation sites perform relative to the range of
conditions in the landscape.
Northern Lower Peninsula Southern Lower Peninsula Upper Peninsula
UPPER PENINSULA
17% LOSS (638,000 acres)
NORTHERN LOWER PENINSULA
20% LOSS (387,000 acres)
SOUTHERN LOWER PENINSULA
66% LOSS(3,320,000 acres)
The state of Michigan's assessment of wetland status and trends can be used to provide
context for evaluating how compensatory mitigation efforts have contributed to offsetting
these losses for specific wetland types or geographic regions.
Iowa Ambient Monitoring:
®>IOWA
A Bwt Creek Map
Bear Creek
«-v t | River &. Stream Biolocical Monitoring
D I O ET AND B6N7HIC MACRO!NVEHTEBRATl SuiVFrt
Pmwicai Habitat Assessments
Substrate Cwnpositiw
-------
MODULE 3:
Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices
5. MODULE 3: Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices
At a Glance
This module is intended to evaluate the long-term outcome of compensatory mitigation by
monitoring a subset of sites over extended periods of time, well beyond the permit required
monitoring period. The goal is to assess how well compensatory mitigation sites replace
impacted stream or wetland functions and how resilient compensation sites are to natural
climatic variability, episodic events, and long-term climate change.
Goal:
Assess long-term resiliency and sustainability of compensation
sites
Main Questions:
How well do compensation sites perform over the long-term in
terms of achieving functional replacement of impacted streams or
wetlands?
Design Approach:
Assess a subset of "permanent" sentinel sites relatively
infrequently (e.g., every 5 years) over long periods of time
Site Selection:
Select compensation sites that have completed their required
monitoring periods and been deemed "successful"
Sites should be subject to long-term protection (e.g., conservation
easement) and readily accessible
Approach to
Reference
Compare reference standard sites in conserved areas
Compare to ambient conditions
Goals
Compensatory mitigation is intended to offset permitted wetland and stream impacts,
which often involve permanent loss. To fully compensate for long-term or permanent loss,
mitigation sites must be resilient over the long-term, have the ability to recover from natural
events, such as droughts, floods, fires, etc., and be adaptive to long-term climate change and
changing landscape/watershed conditions. Most programs assume that if performance
standards are met at the end of a 5-10-year monitoring period, the mitigation site should be self-
sustaining over the long term. Unfortunately, this assumption is not well tested, and
retrospective studies have shown that many mitigation sites do not function beyond the permit-
mandated monitoring period once active management ceases (Robertson et al. 2018). In
addition to assessing long-term resiliency, ongoing monitoring can detect changes in the
trajectory of legacy compensation sites due to climate change, severe natural disturbances, pest
infestation, or unanticipated changes in land use. Trajectories at compensation sites can be
CHAPTER 5 )>
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
45
-------
CHAPTER 5 » MODULE 3: Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices
compared to reference sites to determine whether they are exhibiting similar patterns or
responding to natural disturbances in similar ways. This may provide the opportunity for
intervention or adaptive management to help ensure long-term viability of past mitigation sites.
From a program perspective, the questions addressed by this module include:
1) How persistent/resilient are gains achieved by required compensatory mitigation?
2) How long does it take for restored wetland/ stream condition or function to be comparable
to reference or to some agreed upon target of long-term sustainability?
3) What factors affect long-term resiliency of wetlands/ streams?
4) How much, if any, ongoing management is necessary to sustain restored wetlands/ streams?
Design Approach
Long-term monitoring should be done at a representative subset of sites at relatively
infrequent intervals, i.e., every five years. A subset of sites from the overall sample frame (i.e.,
map of compensation sites) should be selected for long term monitoring. These sites should
represent the major categories of interest (as described above). Additional sites may be selected
to represent specific management or restoration practices of interest. The size and scale of sites
should be selected to represent the various mitigation practices. For example, stream
stabilization may require reach scale assessment, whereas restoration of groundwater
dependent wetlands may require regional analysis that accounts for hydrologic processes. Sites
should be selected for inclusion in long term monitoring based on several
considerations / criteria:
Deemed successful at the conclusion of the permit-mandated monitoring period
Subject to long-term protection, such as conservation easement or on managed reserve lands
Are readily accessible
Can be instrumented for long-term monitoring
Represent the range of wetland/stream types typically used as mitigation
As a general rule, at least 30 sites per category
of interest should be included to provide a robust
evaluation of trends (although this may not always
be possible). Sites should be revisited at regular
intervals, such as every 3-5 years to establish long-
term trends in condition relative to short and long-
term climate patterns, changing land use and
water use practices, and various management
strategies. Additional sampling may be warranted
following episodic events that can fundamentally
SENTINEL SITES
Sentinel sites are targeted sites established
for long-term ongoing monitoring where
more in-depth data can be collected to assess
trends and variability over long time scales.
Sentinel sites should represent all major
aquatic resource types and can be used to
inform questions of resiliency and long-
term performance.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
46
-------
CHAPTER 5 » MODULE 3: Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices
alter wetland trajectories, such as large storms, fires, or sudden pest infestations. Sites can be
integrated into existing long-term or sentinel monitoring programs. An example of long-term
monitoring of compensatory mitigation is provided in Van den Bosch and Matthews (2017).
Approach to Reference
Long-term sentinel compensation sites should be compared to reference standard and
ambient assessments (as described for the Program Effectiveness module). Reference standard
sites should ideally be sites that have had little historical impact. Ideally, compensatory
mitigation sites would be expected to function similarly, and ultimately be indistinguishable
from reference standard sites (although this may take a long time and may not always be a
realistic expectation). Long-term sentinel sites can also be compared to the range of conditions
observed in ambient monitoring, status and trends sites, or National Aquatic Resource Survey
sites. This comparison will provide the ability to compare trajectories of response at past
compensation sites to regional patterns in wetland/stream condition. Ultimately, this will allow
evaluation of the long-term condition/function of compensation sites relative to regional
trends.
Indicators
Long-term success should be evaluated using Level 1, 2, and 3 indicators. Level 1 indicators
of wetland area, stream linear distance, and distribution of habitat types can be compared to
long-term objectives for wetland gain as the first measure of performance. Level 2 rapid
assessment methods are a useful tool to create time series of data that can support evaluation of
success and be used to develop habitat development performance curves to evaluate future
compensatory mitigation projects.
Level 3 indicators of long-term success should include more detailed assessment of
biological communities across trophic levels (i.e., food web analysis) and analysis of age-
structure and successional type of plant communities (including evidence of natural
recruitment). Long-term data sets can be used to develop performance trajectories that can be
used to predict changes in assessment indices over time. These trajectories can be used to
inform monitoring and performance evaluation on subsequent mitigation projects. Sentinel sites
may also be instrumented to provide semi-continuous data on water level, stream flow, soil
saturation, etc. For wetlands, hydric soils should also be evaluated during periodic monitoring.
Level 3 long-term indictors should include:
Wetlands
Water surface or water level
Hydric soils and measures of reducing conditions
Duration and frequency of ponding, inundation or saturation
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
47
-------
CHAPTER 5 » MODULE 3: Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices
Streams
Continuous flow (preferably through permanent instrumentation)
Geomorphic condition, cross section and profile
Floodplain connection
Channel planform and evidence of migration
Stage of channel evolution as well as bank height and angle
Bedform diversity / instream habitat
Evidence of sediment deposition or erosion
Both Wetlands and Streams
Vegetation cover, community composition and structure
Physical disturbance of the plant community
Age stand distribution
Evidence of recruitment
Invasive plants
Wildlife use and trophic structure
Bioassessment indices based on benthic invertebrates, algae, fish, or amphibians
Data management is particularly important and challenging at long-term sentinel sites
where staff consistency and institutional knowledge may wane over time. It is critical to
include these sites in an agency database with detailed metadata on site history, original
requirements, and past monitoring data so that the sites can reliably be located by future
agency staff.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
48
-------
CHAPTER 5 » MODULE 3: Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices
BOX G:
Long-term Monitoring of Sentinel Compensatory Mitigation Sites
Few states currently conduct long-term monitoring of completed mitigation sites, yet many states
have programs in place for long-term protection and stewardship. Several states have long-term
monitoring programs for reference or sentinel sites. Such programs provide an opportunity for
assessing long-term performance or condition of past mitigation sites to determine if functions or
habitat have been replaced in perpetuity, as is the intent of many regulations. Completed mitigation
sites could be incorporated into existing long-term trend monitoring programs and evaluated relative
to other sites in the program (e.g., natural or reference sites or other restoration sites).
In 2004, the State of Minnesota began designating long-term depressional wetland monitoring sites
that would be sampled every three years to determine temporal variability in indicators, trends in
condition due to regional effects, and the impacts of global climate change.
Term Monitoring Sites:
Triennial Sites
Annual Sites
I Mixed Wood Plains
I Mixed Wood Shield
I I Temperate Prairies
Condition is measured using macroinvertebrate and plant indices of biotic integrity. Selected water
quality parameters are also measured. Opportunities exist to incorporate past mitigation sites into this
program to assess long-term trends in condition and resiliency.
Macroinvertebrate IBI Scores
Plant IBI Scores
100
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
20
10
t
~
2010 2015
Good
Poor
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
49
-------
CHAPTER 6 )>
Data Management
6. DATA MANAGEMENT
Data management provides the conduit to transform data compiled from project and
program evaluation to information that can be used to support management decisions.
Although it is a critical element of program management, data management is often
underfunded and under developed. As a result, information is often fragmented, difficult to
coalesce, and/ or largely inaccessible. This has limited the ability of state agencies to conduct
evaluations of the administrative and ecological success of their compensatory mitigation
programs and to determine whether and what changes need to be made to improve outcomes.
Advances in software, open source analytical tools, web services, and cloud storage have
improved accessibility and may lower overall costs of data management, especially when data
is leveraged to support science-based decision making. Allocation of staff and funding for
ongoing data management should be prioritized as a critical element of state, regional, and
tribal mitigation evaluation programs.
The suggestions below are not intended to imply that states should "redo" their data
management systems. State programs have made many advancements in information
collection, storage, display, and analysis. Rather, they are intended to provide suggestions for
enhancements (as opportunities arise) and to help states who may be contemplating
updates/revisions to their data management systems.
General Philosophy of Data Management
In developing a data management system for compensatory mitigation evaluation, the
following general considerations and practices are recommended:
Strive for an integrated, electronic data flow through all steps of the data management
process from data collection through publication (Figure 10);
Manage data in a geospatial format to enhance data visualization and interpretation and
facilitate data integration across programs; and
Use an open data format, which may include web services and application program
interfaces (APIs), to facilitate data access and sharing.
In addition to these general practices, there are other desired properties that will improve the
success and longevity of data management systems. These include accessibility, integration,
stability, and quality control, and are discussed in more detail below. Where possible, a range of
options for incorporating these desired properties are provided. Additional discussion of the
need for and recommended approaches to data management can be found in the Internet of
Water Principles (see https:/ / internetofwater.org/internet-of-water-principles/) and the
Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse principles see: https://www.go-
fair.org/fair-principles/.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
50
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
FIGURE 10: The Four Stages of Electronic Data Flow for Mitigation Data Management
Electronic Data Flow
Integrated, electronic data flow is the foundation that enables all other desirable data
management properties (e.g., accessibility, integration, and sustainability). Data flow begins with
data collection, where data is captured electronically using, for example, standardized web-based
forms or data collectors. Built-in QA/QC procedures (such as drop-down menus and automatic
range checkers) are necessary at the data collection stage - and throughout - to ensure that
information is captured correctly. The next component is the design - or organization - and
maintenance of the database so that stored data can be readily used by state agency staff and
partner agencies and organizations to answer identified questions. Ensuring standardized data
fields, numerical formats (e.g., units), and naming conventions across all entries will facilitate later
program-wide assessments. Data dictionaries provide important information about the data (i.e.,
metadata), including format, structure, and how it will be used. Visualizing all compensation
sites as geospatial entities provides opportunities to overlay mitigation data (e.g., using the
National Hydrography Dataset) with other data layers (e.g., soils, geology, land use, etc.) and
enhances data processing and interpretation. Publication includes outputs at different levels
based on the uses of the data (e.g., leveraging the Water Quality Portal, available at
https:/ / www.waterqualitydata.us/) and public access to data. Data should be connected to the
web to allow data to be accessible for scientific analysis and public interpretation.
Data Collection
Ideally, data is entered into a database efficiently and accurately. Using standardized forms or
templates for all entries/sites (for basic mitigation project data as well as monitoring data) can
help ensure data are entered correctly and with the appropriate metadata. Standardized forms
also help to ensure data is comparable from the point of collection, rather than relying on
processing or interpretation at a later stage. Database applications often allow users to develop
standardized forms for data entry. Separate forms may be needed for different types of data, such
as, information on the mitigation site (e.g., site identity, location, contact information, mitigation
method, size, etc.), or various types of monitoring data (e.g., vegetation, hydrology, module, etc.).
Electronic data capture (e.g., through data collectors or web-based data entry forms) improves
accuracy and efficiency over traditional collection on paper data forms and transcription to
electronic format. Where possible, allowing permittees/applicants to upload information to the
database would save valuable staff time (See Box H). Additionally, remote entry (e.g., via
mobile apps for field data collection) can reduce effort by allowing staff conducting on-site
inspections to upload data directly from the site. For many database programs, available web-
based submission tools allow data to be automatically uploaded to the database.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
51
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
BOX H: Michigan's MiWaters allows permittees to electronically submit projects for
review
The Department of Environmental Quality in Michigan processes §404 perm its, among others,
through its online portal, MiWaters. After setting up an account, applicants may submit projects for
review. The software automatically tracks the application and allows for online fee payments.
Data Entry
This step allows you to fill out the form and to validate the information provided. The form is divided
into separate sections as listed on the left. Please fill out each relevant section.
The indicators next to the sections names on the left denote the validity of each section. A red X
indicates the section has an omission or invalid value. A yellow star indicates that the section has
not yet been visited. A green check indicates a complete section.
MDEQ/USACE Joint Permit Application (JPA)
version 1.11
(Submission #: 2EY-R2MH-Q4K0, revision 1)
1 Applicant Contact Information
Once the form is complete and all sections show a green check, click on the Next Step' button to
proceed.
Please note: Any work you perform filling out a form will not be accessible by MDEQ staff or the
public until you actually submit the form in the Certify & Submif step. At the time of submission, it
will be transmitted to MDEQ and it will become part of the public record.
A red asterisk denotes a required field
If the applicant is not the 'sole owner' OR an agent is submitting the application on beha
submit the application.
~ if an agent is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant, the agent contact information
this section. An authorization letter must be uploaded at the end of the application giving permission
Form Sections
Applicant *
O INSTRUCTIONS: Please read first!
1 # 1 Applicant Contact Information
•
1B Additional Contact Information
Prefix; First Name
* Mark
2 Project Location Information
Title
1 3 Project Description
4 Type of Permit Being Applied For
Phone Ext.
5 Application Form and Other Documents
6 Fees
Email
SchieberM@ivichigan.gov
Michigan's MiWaters MDEO/USACE Online Ioint Application Form
MiWaters' interface also allows the applicant to create a polygon of their site.
Michigan's MiWaters
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
52
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
To ensure data consistency and accuracy, data collection tools should have automatic
QA/QC procedures, such as drop-down data menus and automatic data checkers (many data
programs have data checkers available as add-ons). Regular staff review of data may also be
necessary to catch errors, address blank values, or otherwise clean-up the dataset. It is good
practice to document identified errors and corrections made to the dataset.
Data Organization
Each mitigation project should be associated with a unique project ID and spatial location to
facilitate tracking of basic information on the mitigation site (e.g., size, location, mitigation
method, mitigation mechanism, resource type, contact information, etc.) as well as monitoring
data and performance standards. Entering monitoring data directly into the database (versus
entering links to reports) improves access to important project information and is more efficient
for use in evaluations. Tracking monitoring data by creating links to monitoring reports (e.g.,
pdfs) should only be used as a last resort when interactive databases are not available.
Data should be organized in such a way that it can be queried to find the relevant
information to answer a given question based on specific criteria. This requires consistency in
data fields, acceptable ranges for entered values, specified data formats, clear naming
conventions, and standard units across all sites. Data dictionaries are a convenient way to
summarize metadata and specified data attributes to ensure data consistency and accessibility
over time (Appendix C).
Data standardization is especially important since databases may be built in stages; as new
data types or analyses are added. Consistency also helps to reconcile different sources of data;
originating from various staff within the agency or stakeholders from outside of the agency.
Care should also be taken to ensure that any data submitted by applicants/permittees is
comparable across projects and modules.
Using web-based data management tools maintained by state agencies is recommended.
Web-based (or at least linked) systems are generally readily accessible and can be more easily
queried by scientists at partner agencies or organizations and by the public (e.g., Water Quality
Portal or other web services). If web-based tools are not available, data can still be published to
the internet by uploading information (e.g., spreadsheets) to an open data portal. When
uploading to a public data portal (e.g., git, CRAN, EDI or STORET), information on sources and
data quality for all data types should be included. It is also important to include clear
information on versioning and the dates of the most recent updates.
Data Visualization
Data visualization is the visual representation of data, including maps, plots, and other
graphics. Visualization helps to make mitigation data accessible and understandable by
scientists, managers, and the public and can reveal trends and patterns not recognizable in the
raw data. The desirable outputs of the visualization tools will depend on the questions that
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
53
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
managers are trying to answer, but the goal should be to present the data to target audiences in
a way that allows them to assess trends most efficiently and effectively.
For mitigation data, maps may offer the most accessible form of displaying the data;
offering ability to overlay with other data sources (e.g., other protected areas, water quality
data, etc.) (See Box I).
BOX I: Louisiana's SONRIS Database
© Environmental
The Louisiana Department of Natural Resource's SONRIS Interactive Maps allow users to access
multiple map layers, including mitigation sites, various natural resources, municipal boundaries, and
more.
Q Louisiana Department o X \ 0 — 3 X
0 © sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/gis/agsweb/IE/JSViewer/index.html?TemplatelD=181 "fr © O :
|yj Mitigation Project Lines
O 3. M
@ Mitigation Project Polygons
« 3. M
I I Beneficial Use
~ Enforcement
© Coastal Protection & Restoration
Louisiana's SONRIS allows users to choose what is shown on the map, including mitigation projects
as polygons or lines.
Gulf of Mexico
~[1:150000 | ^l
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
54
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
Dashboards are also a useful way to display data (see Box J). Dashboards can include
graphs, tables, and other data summaries that are generated by dynamic queries of the data.
Thus, they can provide up-to-date illustrations of the information in the database. Dashboards
can be designed to answer or inform a variety of questions.
BOX J: Iowa's BioNet Dashboard
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources' BioNet (https://programs.iowadiir.gov/bionet/) allows
public users to access monitoring data for sites around the state. Each site's profile consists of site
morphology data (including local information, watershed land use, additional attributes, and a map)
and sampling history data (including IBI analysis, fish summary, habitat, field notes, historic flow
data, and water monitoring). Note the use of tables, maps, and graphics that help users readily access
and interpret data.
» « 0 * 1
* c, •
: h
Dm Mo*>cs River
—~ : -
-
—,
Site information and reported data accessible on Iowa's BioNet
Data Publication
When designing a data management system, careful consideration should be given to both
how and why users might access and use the data. What questions might users ask about the
mitigation program? Will certain users, like researchers, want access to all raw data; will others
look for summaries/processed data? Some users may want specific information on a specific
condition/quality (e.g., water quality) or resource (e.g., streams).
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
55
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
Data management systems should provide access at different levels based on the
uses/outputs of the data. Three possible levels include output based on specific questions,
output based on maps/geography, and dynamic data linkages.
1) Question driven information output. The first level of output should be information in
response to questions readily understandable to the public. Example questions could
include:
a) How much wetland/stream loss vs. gain has occurred in my watershed?
b) What is the condition of restored wetlands/ streams?
c) How is wetland/stream condition measured?
This level of information dissemination requires processing of raw data through standard
indices or metrics that interpret and simplify data into easily understandable outputs, such as
indices of biological integrity or rapid assessment scores. Many database applications have
calculator tools that will automatically calculate or summarize data to automate this process.
These can simplify the process of report writing and aid in data visualization. See Figure 11 for
an example of question driven data portal from California
(http://www.mywaterquality.ca.gov/eco health/wetlands/index.html).
FIGURE 11: Example of question driven data portal from.
My Water Quality
Are our wetlands healthy?
WITLANO MONITORING WORKGROUP OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY MONITORING COUNCIL
Work Groups
Wetland Link*
California Wetlands
Welcome Prop 1 Applicants!
Guidance on the WRAMP framework for monitoring and
assessment.
Questions Answered
An Integrated Framework » March 2022 56
• What is the extent of our wetlands?
• Where did our numbers come from?
o How much have we lost?
o What types are there?
o How do we classify them?
o What services do they provide?
o What is the status of mapping?
• How healthy are our wetlands?
o How do we know how they're doing?
o How do we assess wetland health?
o What studies have documented wetland
condition?
• How are our wetlands protected?
o What regulations protect them?
o Where are wetlands being restored near me?
Informational Links
Wetlands have both aquatic and terrestrial characteristics. Wetlands form along the shallow margins of
lakes, estuaries, and rivers, and in areas with high groundwater or shallow surface water, such as
springs, wet meadows, ponds, and freshwater and tidal marshes. They often go through wet and dry
cycles, and therefore support a unique array of life specially adapted to these conditions. Wetlands
provide important habitat for birds, fish, and other wildlife. They support local food webs, contribute to
flood protection, groundwater recharge, shoreline protection, and water filtration: all important
Click on an image above for more information
0 5/9 0
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
2) Map-based data queries. The second level of output allows users to identify polygons or
locations on a map and query data associated with those locations. Ideally, data could be
filtered in various ways to customize outputs based on user needs. For example, California's
EcoAtlas allows users to identify mitigation sites as polygons on a map. The status of
projects is color-coded for easy identification (Figure 12).
FIGURE 12: California's EcoAtlas's maps include mitigation projects.
9 EcoAtias: South Coast - X
C i Secure i https://wwvv.ecoatlas.org/regions/ecoregion/south-coast
EcoAtlas
ABOUT CONTACT DATA PROJECT TRACKER
South Coast Map Projects Groups Dashboards
Layers ~ Legends ~ Basemap - Overlays -
Habitat Projects
Transparency
0
Site Status
| Completed
| In Construction or Implementation
| In Planning
Proposed
O Approximate Boundary
DEVELOPERS
Dodge Development
M
At this location
Wetland Restoration Projects
Lake Forest Sports Park and Recreation Center
Types Compensatory mitigation
Total Area: 73.16 acres
Number of sites in project: 1
Project Details
Long: -117.75910, Lat: 33.71889
3) Dynamic data linkages. The third level of output would use APIs and web services that
allow other data systems to dynamically "pull" mitigation performance data (e.g., USEPA
or other state programs) (Figure 13). This would allow mitigation evaluation data to be
linked with other data types, such as wetland mapping data, ambient monitoring data, or
reference data sets (See Figure 14 for an example of overlays of multiple data sources).
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
57
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
FIGURE 13: Example of open data portal from state of Washington showing web-
based access of geospatial data, data query, and API.
Legend
Island
Kitsap
Wahkiakum*
Atlcro
WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value
4. *
| Reference Standard Wetlands
** (Ovenriew):KALALOCH BOG FOREST
• *
Reference Standard Wetlands (Overview)
Tnuia plicata
Tsugn
hetcopHylla /
Lys> chiton
ameticanus/
Sphagnum spp.
Treed Fen
Known Wetland and Riparian Plant
Communities of High Conservation Value
(Overview)
Mo'tfi PacitK
Coastal Bog
Woodland
Known Rare Plant and Nonvascular Species
of High Conservation Value (Overview)
Organic Ml /
Depre&sional
Counties
LewH
Pacific •
nRTURRL RESOURCES ^ W«hingtOn D«|
I Query URL
No Aaw* f tltera
ht(p*://(arlms.kj.psv,1 dnr/*r« g i%n «t r
HBlt CXI Ml Jjrtcrvupr/a V qii« r>' h*ber*» I.X)Dllc
utUeliv-'toutSMHrtl'lMO
* OBJECTID * UMffJO V SEDGE * SALTMARS.W v lOWMARSw
* SPAKTINA * MIX WAS SH •* SHAPE
IX* to D* MbM lo *4 wwvd «Uli IH
SpM'«r
Co.***.
S
0,03604233
0.0145 e .5340000000001
DoclAfter
O.TOW.
A
0.0227? 736000000000?
0009}9744
Sutherland
DoctrtPi«r
CMpM.
5
0.03256441
0 01317335
Late Sutherland
t>ock\ft«r
CampM.
*
0040 7485-6
0J3U49036
Sutherland
«"*•
J
0,01 1673600000000001
0.00472414
Late Sutherland
DotiAfter
c-pw.
8
0.01999S49
00080913900000000Q1
Late Sutherland
Dock\Pi*r
Complete
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
58
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
FIGURE 14: Example overlay of wetland projects, ambient wetland condition data,
and wetland mapping.
California Stream Condition Index (CSCI)
Info on this dat
• Very Likely Altered Condition (£ 0.62)
# Likely Altered Condition (0.63 - 0.79)
• Possibly Altered Condition (0.80 - 0.91)
# Likely Intact Condition 0.92)
# CRAM Assessment Sites
# CRAM State Reference Network Sites
# CRAM Self-Training Sites
Tidal Flat and Marsh Panne
B Tidal Marsh
Managed and Muted Tidal Habitats
¦ Subtidal Water
Beach, Dune, and Rocky Shore
| Tidal Channel
Palustrine and Riverine
Pond and associated vegetation
Lake, Reseivoir, and associated vegetation
Playa
Fluvial Channel
Existing Aquatic Resources - CARI
Desired Properties of Data Management Systems
Geospatial Format
Data should be managed in a geospatial format. To the extent possible, all mitigation sites
should be associated with a distinct geospatial entity (e.g., polygon, line, point) that facilitates
attribution of appropriate metadata and provides opportunities to overlay with other data
layers, such as soils, geology, land use, etc. Use of geospatial format also enhances data
visualization and interpretation and facilitates data flow across all modules/elements of the
mitigation evaluation process.
The Federal Geographic Data Committee develops or adopts standards for implementing
the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, including standards for Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats in the United States, Vegetation Classification, and Soil Geographic Data,
as well as those for metadata, web coverage service, and others (See
https://www.fgdc.gov/standards).
Many states already have web-based geospatial open data portals that could provide a
home for compensatory mitigation data (See Box K for an example from Florida).
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
59
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
BOX K:
Florida's geospatial data portal.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agency's Geospatial Data Portal includes a
mitigation bank service area layer. Banks and their service areas can be visualized on the site. In
addition, the user can download the full dataset (attributes include bank name, bank website,
permittee;, permit link, site id, potential credits, and total size, among others) as a spreadsheet, kml, or
shapefile.
Home Wetlands Mitigation Bank Data Sharing
Modify Map & Sign In
| ~ Details j | B:1 Basemap
Share © Print - ^ Measure |Fma*ddn
W
O About (1] Content - legend
Legend
Wetlands Mitigation Bank Data Sharing
Mitigation Banks
~
Mitigation Bank Service Areas
~
i Term of Use IVvacy Contact Hccxrt
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Geospatial Open Data
£v>. ItM, Gar-r.m. CAO, NOAA, MSGS. SPA. NPS
9 Q. My Data Sign In
Blake
Plateau
Cof Mexico
' H v? \ ¦
FttrM* fc Y. KHBHH
E*ri. DcLo-mo, GEBCO. NOAA NGDC, and othe- cor.lnfc.alo>* j Source. £»., GEBCO. NOAA, National G
So
;« 'aR
Mitigation Banks
f favorrtt! - Download APIs -
Showing 1 to 10 of 88 HlncClick on ~ to filter columns.
T OBJECTID Y STTEJD T PERMIT.MAINJD ~ BANK_NAME ~ LAST.UPDATED T CURR£NT_PERMITTEE T LANDOWNERJNFO
I 1 49 00002-M 49-00002-M Southport Ranch 3/27/2014,5:00 PM Southport Ranch Mitigation Bank... Southport Ranch Mitigation Bank..
2 113478 4-035-113478-1 Rth Tail Swamp 4/30/2014,5:00 PM Wilson Green LLC Wilson Green LLC
3 120012 4-019-120012-1 Greens Creek 3/12/2014,5:00 PM Reinhold Corporation Rcnhold Corporation, George E...
4 29983 43029983 Peace River 5/5/2014,5:00 PM Peace River Basin Partners LLC Peace River Basin Partners LLC
5 34641 43034&41 Green Swamp 5/5/2014,5:00 PM Green Swamp Mitigation Bank LLC Frasier Family Limited Partner
Florida's Mitigation Bank Data Sharing
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
60
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
Open Data Format
Data should be accessible and available for sharing. An open data format that includes web
services and APIs can facilitate data access and sharing. Open data formats allow the public and
other agencies to readily link to data products using dynamic connections reducing the need to
actively "upload" data to a central database. This is especially useful for mitigation databases
that will be consistently added to as new sites are added and monitoring data is collected. It
also reduces challenges with "version control" associated with data updates. Relevant
international (e.g., ISO) and US (e.g., ANSI) standards for open data formats can be found at
https://proiect-open-data.cio.eov/open-standards/ or http://datastandards.directory/ and
should be used whenever possible.
For example, California's EcoAtlas is an open data portal providing public access to
information about the state's wetlands. EcoAtlas provides various webservices to developers for
accessing and displaying data. These include web map services created in accordance with the
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) WMS protocol and RESTful (Representational State
Transfer) APIs (allowing for access of data over HTTP). See
https://www.ecoatlas.ore/developers/.
For water quality data sharing, the Water Quality eXchange (WQX) is a common water data
sharing format - developed under the Advisory Committee on Water Information, via the
National Water Quality Monitoring Council which represents federal, state, tribal and local
agencies, and watershed organizations. See https: / /www.epa.eov/waterdata/water-quality-
data-wqx. Data are are shared with 400 federal, state, tribal and other partners through the
Water Quality Portal as a single access point for over 300 million water quality data records.
If a state does not expect to have data available in an open data format, there are other ways
to make data available. For example, states may be able to upload Excel or CSV files to a
publicly available website (e.g. HydroShare https://www.hydroshare.org/) or share them via a
FTP site. See sections on accessibility and integration below.
System Attributes
When choosing or developing a data management system, states should strive to achieve
the following attributes:
1) Accessible - The data should be easy to access and navigate and able to accommodate
different outputs for different users. As already mentioned, APIs and web services can
allow data systems to dynamically link to mitigation databases.
There are also other options for making data accessible, including standalone data hubs or
independent ftp servers. Careful consideration should be given to the file types of the
shared data (see Table 5).
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
61
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
TABLE 5: Some Common Formats for Data Exchange
File Type
JSON
XML
XLSX
CSV
Description
JavaScript
Object
Notation
Extensible Markup Language
Microsoft
Excel
spreadsheets
Comma
separated
values
Example
{"SitelD":
1002,
"OwnerLast":
"Doe",
"OwnerFirst"
: "Jane"}
1002
Doe
< O wnerFirst> Jane
(Excel Doc)
SitelD,
OwnerLast,
OwnerFirst
1002, Doe,
Jane
Major
Advantages
Very efficient,
can be read
quickly by
programs.
Readily understandable and
compatible with many languages
Accessible
by anyone
with Excel
software.
Readable
by many
programs.
Regardless of whether static or dynamic information sharing is used, agencies should use
versioning to ensure that it is clear if an old data standard is being used in such exports.
Web-based systems or data portals may offer different dashboards for different types of
users. For example, agency staff may find a highly technical interface/dashboard that allows for
rapid access to specific data most useful, while members of the agency may share data with the
public via a simplified interface that allows access to a subset of final data. This can be
accomplished with different types of log-ins, which allow access to varying levels of data. The
underlying database should provide the ability to attribute data as public vs. draft (private) to
differentiate between interim and final data (or data that the state may wish to keep
confidential, such as contact information for landowners). The public/private categorization
should be explained in the metadata.
The public interface may also allow the user to query the database for a subset of
information on mitigation sites (e.g., water quality data). Where data are web-based, this could
be done through an online form. For example, the Water Quality Portal allows users to select
data for download based on location, site parameters, sampling parameters, and data source
(See https:/ / www.waterqualitvdata.us/portal/).
Web interfaces should be as intuitive as possible for the user, but a tutorial or instruction
document is also helpful. Tutorials or instructions should detail how the user can query the
relevant data, find metadata, and download selected data (or link to the data via webservers).
See EcoAtlas tool at https://www.ecoatlas.org/about/.
Web sites should be easy to find. This may involve outreach to target audiences or one-on-
one meetings with partner agencies/ organizations to publicize the availability of the site,
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
62
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
discuss how to access the resource, and provide technical assistance on how to use the site, if
necessary.
2) Inteerated - Systems should be able to integrate data from multiple sources and attribute
them through unique geospatial locations. As discussed, the system should be able to
accommodate dynamic linkages with other data systems, such as ambient monitoring or
other geospatial data (e.g., state water quality databases, federal databases such as WQX).
This should include a mechanism for verifying connections with partners' data systems on a
regular basis.
Many states have existing permitting databases where some mitigation data may already be
stored. In many cases, mitigation sites are not entered as separate entries, but mitigation
data may be found by querying the information. It may make sense to integrate mitigation
and permitting data, where possible.
In addition, some states also have existing web-based open water quality data portals,
environmental databases, and GIS viewers/ data portals that may also include permitting
data (although water quality and permitting databases may not be linked). These may also
provide a platform for integrating mitigation data. Examples include the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources' SONRIS and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources' Surface Water Data Viewer. Some of these platforms are already integrated with
monitoring programs or other related information. For example, Wisconsin's Surface Water
Data Viewer has wetland inventory, wetland restoration, and potentially restorable
wetlands layers. It also includes some water quality monitoring data, including the location
of monitoring stations, and data is linked to the state's surface water integrated monitoring
system (SWIMS) - https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/swims/. It does not include
mitigation data at this time.
Some users may prefer to analyze data with their own software, so a robust system should
allow for easy exportation of large amounts of data. For example, the Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources has implemented a subscription service that provides an automatic
way to access some specific datasets through its SONRIS system (http:/ / sonris-
www.dnr.state.la.us/Data Subscription Service Announcement.pdf). Data can be
downloaded via automated utilities or to data extracts (in CSV format).
3) Stable - Any data management system will require time and funding to develop and
maintain. Special attention should be given to the system's stability over time. Using off the
shelf and/or open source tools whenever possible is recommended. Systems should be easy
to maintain through changes in personnel, easy to update, and have low maintenance costs.
Cloud storage options should be explored as a strategy to maximize stability over time.
Regardless, agencies should allocate some funding to support database upgrades and
upgrades associated with browser updates.
4) Flexible - At a minimum, databases should include basic information on mitigation sites
such as location and contact information for the site manager (see section below on
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
63
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
minimum data needs). This information allows for later evaluation. The information in the
database should be expanded to include monitoring data and reports as needs arise and
resources allow. This may also include additional file uploads, such as scanned documents
or site photos. The database should be designed to be flexible enough to incorporate these
changes in future generations. This could be accomplished by integrating new tables in a
database as they are available. Multiple tables can be uploaded to a web-based system and
attributed by geospatial locations and unique project IDs. Again, standard formats (file
formats, data languages, common names for common fields (e.g., Site ID, Contact Info, Lat,
Long, etc.)) need to be consistent across all tables/databases to ensure that the integration is
seamless. This is where a data dictionary is valuable.
5) QA/QC - QA/QC procedures should be in place at all stages of the data flow. Systems
should include data dictionaries that support use of automatic data checkers. Data checkers
provide an easy way to standardize data inputs and provide immediate feedback to data
providers on the "acceptability" and completeness of their data. Most database programs
include some range of available data checkers, and add-ons or plugs-ins are available for
some of the open source programs.
QA/QC can also help to reconcile different sources of data. Michigan's MiWaters, for
example, includes a map-checker so that, when site location coordinates are entered on an
application, the applicant may instantly confirm that they have entered the correct
coordinates.
Overall, data systems should also provide transparent information on sources and data
quality for all data types. Periodic staff review, and database maintenance are also good
practice.
6) Reminders - Ideally the data management system should track tasks and send email
reminders to permittees or agency staff. For example, reminders could be sent when
monitoring reports are due. Florida's databases include calendaring and reminders to help
track deadlines, materials due, permit process, workloads, and compliance deadlines,
among other tasks. Similarly, Louisiana's mitigation database includes scheduling and
reminders to keep track of what is due on a monthly basis.
As mentioned above, open-source database programs may include options for reminders,
either as built-in features or via plug-ins. Reminders can also be programmed into Access
databases. These off the shelf programs offer enough flexibility to set up the kind of
reminders that would be useful for regular project tracking.
Database Software Options
Many state agencies use programs such as Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Access to store their
program data. Access allows for the creation of data input forms, automatic email reminders
(via custom code or plug-ins), and reports. However, Access requires a paid license and may
not be able to handle many entries or users (i.e., greater than a few dozen).
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
64
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
Several states also use ArcGIS for visualizing some mitigation data (e.g., Florida's
Department of Environmental Protection Geospatial Open Data Mitigation Bank Service Areas -
http://eeodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/mitieation-bank-ser vice-areas). ArcGIS, or another GIS
platform, may be synced with another database (such as Access).
Other states have developed Oracle-based SQL databases. SQL is a standard language for
storing, manipulating, and retrieving data in databases. SQL databases can provide better
performance, especially for large number of entries and users. For Oracle databases, the most
recent versions are subscription based. Agencies may also consider using open-source
platforms. Not only are such systems routinely updated, but they are also free, minimizing the
costs of implementation and upkeep. Such open-source database systems include Cubrid,
MariaDB, MySQL, PostGreSQL, and Greenplum Database, all of which are SQL-based systems.
The chart below describes some of their differences. Note, there are many more technical
differences between these and other open-source database systems. The descriptions below are
meant to be read at the most general level.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
65
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
TABLE 6: Some Common Open Source Database Systems
PRO
CON
MySQL
Widely used, has many third-party
plugins that have additional features;
Fast; Scalable; Supported by Oracle
May not be able to support all data types
(including geometric information)
Cubrid
Somewhat faster than MySQL
Not as widely used as other database
engines
PostGreSQL
More powerful than MySQL, supporting
more data types; Also has third-party
plugins
May be more complicated than agencies
require; Slower than MySQL; Fewer
service providers are able to host these
databases
MariaDB
Includes additional features,
enhancements, and better security than
MySQL
No commercial-grade option
Greenplum
Database
Is based on PostGreSQL, but provides
additional analytical features
Greenplum is optimized for very large
data sets, but may be slow given the size
of mitigation program datasets
Although no single database engine may provide all the functionality agencies desire, there
are many after-market plugins that provide additional features. These plugins can
automatically create email reminders, improve remote access, and provide cleaner interfaces for
interacting with the database. For example, see the applications built by Kintone and Zoho
Creator. State IT staff will likely be critical partners in helping to guide mitigation programs to
select a system that has the desired features and is practical and supportable over extended
periods of time.
Tables created in Excel and Access can both be linked to SQL or other databases. For
example, staff can enter data into tables created in Access and then either link (synchronized so
data updates automatically) or import (a one-time transfer of information) to a managed
database. Thus, less time is required to train staff on new software, while the program as a
whole benefits from the advantages an open-source database software can provide.
Rules of Practice
It is impossible to prove a standard set of recommendations or template that will be
applicable (or appropriate) for the range of data management needs across all programs.
However, some desirable "rules of practice" that can improve data access by agencies and the
public, facilitate data sharing between programs, and provide longevity that supports analysis
of trends in mitigation practices are provided. Table 7 summarizes the recommended "best
practices" for data management.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
66
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
TABLE 7: General rules of practice for data tracking
BEST PRACTICE
METHODS
Standardize Data Entry
Use standardized data forms to minimize errors and ensure
comparable data.
Use electronic data capture when possible.
Organize Data Tables for
Consistency and Efficiency
Associate Data with a Unique Project ID and Unique Geospatial
Location
Upload Raw Monitoring Data
Construct a Data Dictionary to improve data quality and comparability
Data table must include Metadata to allow for comparisons and
facilitate long-term assessments
Ensure QA/QC
Use Automatic Data Checkers or other data validation mechanism
(e.g., drop down menus)
Ensure Regular Staff Review of data
Facilitate Access to Data
Among Agency and Other
Partners and the Public
Data should be stored in an Open Data Format and Linked to the
Internet
Use Open Data Standards when possible
Use web services and APIs to provide Dynamic Data Linkages
Include clear information on Versioning and provide ability to
attribute data as Public vs. Private/Draft as appropriate
Use Visualization Tools to
Make Data Accessible and
Understandable
Attributing data to a Unique Geospatial Location provides
opportunity for spatial analysis with other data layers
Maps may offer the most accessible form of displaying the data
Dashboards can provide up-to-date illustrations of the information in
the database
Systems should be able to
integrate data from multiple
sources and attribute them
through unique geospatial
locations
Allow for easy Exportation of Data, via dynamic linkage or uploading
data to a publicly available site
Existing State Mitigation Databases and Water Quality Data Portals
provide integration opportunities
Make Use of Database Tools
for Analysis and Program
Operation/Stability
Calculator Tools can help automatically calculate or summarize data to
easily understandable outputs
Use database system tools to track tasks and send email Reminders to
permittees or agency staff
Invest in database
maintenance
Use Open Source database management tools when possible
Design the database to be Stable and Flexible
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
67
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
Data and Metadata Requirements
All mitigation projects should be associated with a unique polygon and project ID. The
following metadata should be included:
Data generator or owner, with contact information
Date of record creation
Contact information for property owner
Contact information for mitigation provider or key point of contact
In addition, each mitigation site should include the following minimum data fields (see Data
Template attached):
Permit number
Location
Size
Area of each habitat type, including area of jurisdictional waters and wetlands
Resource type (wetland, stream, etc.)
Wetland type/stream class - at a minimum HGM and Cowardin classes should be used,
including relevant hydrologic modifiers
Mitigation method
Mitigation mechanism
Date project began (or approved)
Project status
Other information collected on the mitigation project may include links to documents (e.g.,
mitigation and/or monitoring plans), performance standards, surrounding land use, etc. For
banks and ILF programs, additional information may include number of credits, credit types,
credit assessment methodology.
The minimum monitoring data to be collected will depend on the questions that managers
are trying to answer, monitoring requirements, resources involved (e.g., wetlands versus
streams), etc. Table 3 lists level 3 indicators of aquatic resource condition. These priority
indicators can be found on the template data table (Appendix C).
All data fields should be accompanied by data dictionaries that list acceptable values for
categorical or discrete data or acceptable ranges for continuous data. Data dictionaries should
be used in concert with data checkers employed as part of the QA process to improve data
quality and comparability.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
68
-------
CHAPTER 6 » Data Management
Collecting Historical Data
While collecting historical data on sites will allow for a more complete analysis of mitigation
programs, migrating that data into a new or unified system may be cost prohibitive. For
example, many states have paper copies of mitigation site data, but digitizing all of those
records is a time-intensive process, especially for resource-scarce state agencies. This section
discusses strategies to most effectively add historical data to a data management system.
Don't Seek Out All Historical Data
Data may have been stored in different formats throughout the life of a mitigation program,
so it may be most effective to focus on only certain eras of the program. For example, if the
agency changed practices after the 2008 Mitigation Rule, that agency may focus its migration
efforts on data from 2008-present.
Similarly, it may be most effective to focus on tiers of data. The locations of all old projects
may be simpler to find and input into a new data management system than other project
information.
Finally, even if the historical reports cannot be migrated immediately, paper records should
still be digitized. This will not only ensure that the data is not lost forever but may also allow for
automatic conversion of the scanned documents into usable data.
Find Community Partners to Aid in the Migration
Instead of relying on staff time to input historical data, agencies may utilize community
partners (e.g., AmeriCorps volunteers or interns). Similarly, graduate students may find the
experience useful, either to increase their understanding of the state's mitigation practices or to
allow for later use of the data in their own research. Agencies should reach out to local
universities or other community partners to explore opportunities for collaboration.
Identify Alternative Sources of Historical Data
Even if state records are incomplete or inaccessible, the data may be stored in other
databases. For example, mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program data may be pulled from
USACE's RIBITS site (https://ribits.usace.armv.mil/) to populate a state database.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
69
-------
CHAPTER 7 »
Case Studies and Baseline Applications
7. CASE STUDIES AND BASELINE APPLICATIONS
Comprehensive evaluation of compensatory mitigation programs should include all three
modules. No state was identified that currently incorporates all recommended elements into an
integrated assessment strategy; however, examples of all three modules exist individually around
the country. Below example applications (i.e., one-time assessments) of each module are
provided to illustrate the analysis and products that may be produced, along with lessons learned
that can guide states should they decide to incorporate specific modules into their program.
Module 1: Compensatory Mitigation Site Performance
At a Glance
Goal:
Assess compensatory mitigation site success
Evaluate regulatory compliance
Main questions:
How well do compensation sites meet their stated goals and
permit requirements?
Design approach:
Comprehensive assessment during the permit-required
monitoring period
Compensation sites assessed under this module become the
sample frame for the Program Effectiveness assessment
Site selection:
All sites and/or assessment at end of required monitoring period
Approach to
reference:
Compare to permit conditions/performance standards
Pre-project site conditions (if applicable)
Conditions at the impact site (which is the site creating the need
for compensation)
Module J. Example #1
Assessment of compensatory mitigation site success in Florida through evaluation relative
to performance standards
Question Addressed:
Are wetlands meeting the criteria and conditions set forth in their mitigation bank
permits?
General Approach:
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
70
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
The study determined the performance of 28 mitigation banks in Florida by comparing
permit success criteria with related field measurements. Wetland types included
depressional herbaceous, depressional forested, forested strand, and floodplain
wetlands. Streams were not part of the investigation.
Site selection criteria included length of time since permit issuance, progress towards
mitigation activities, and land owner or manager cooperation for site access. Permits
were issued between 1996-2005, and assessments took place in 2005 and 2006.
Most of the information for the review document was compiled from staff reports,
monitoring reports, and site visit summaries. Field assessments specific for the review
document were conducted at select wetlands. Baseline reference conditions were
developed from a database of prior work by the authors, or from reputable sources
(universities and state government). Assessments were conducted in phases, according
to credit release schedules. Final assessments compared field measurements (undertaken
by the permittees or as part of the review study) with permit criteria.
Data Source:
Reiss, K.C. et al. 2007. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mitigation Banking in
Florida: Ecological Success and Compliance with Permit Criteria. pl49
Data Availability:
Synthesis of the information was provided by Reiss et al. 2007 in two tables, one of the
success criteria (TABLE ), and one of regulatory compliance (TABLE 9).
Data Analysis:
Compliance success for each project was evaluated by comparing permit criteria to field
measurements.
Permit criteria varied by project, but usually involved measurements such as a
minimum percent area with plant cover, a minimum proportion of native plant species,
and minimum survivability (TABLE ).
Assumptions in Use of Data:
The numeric criteria often varied among projects and by wetland type, even when
performance standards used the same indicator and metric. For example, the minimum
percent plant cover varied from >50% to >90% among projects (TABLE ). Therefore,
interpretation of success among projects can be affected by the criteria being applied, as
well as the baseline conditions at the site and the specific expectations for the site. For
Module 1 performance is a relative measure of success for each specific site.
The sites were not necessarily mature compensatory projects (e.g., one site was only 1-2
years old), although all were still within the permit mandated monitoring period. This
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
71
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
may affect the conclusions because newer plantings may not have the same amount of
plant cover as older established projects. The inclusion of immature sites in this case
study is not wholly consistent with the recommendations of Module 1 but is still
illustrative.
This study was completed prior to the 2008 Mitigation Rule, so the results may not be
reflective of more current compensatory mitigation practices.
Conclusions:
Overall banks were only partly successful. Only three of the 28 mitigation banks
evaluated had reached final success criteria for the entire bank.
Not all projects allowed for comprehensive assessment. Some monitoring reports
consisted of only plant lists, with minimal analyses and vague descriptions. It could be
that some early permits did not specify enough detail as to what was required for
monitoring, making assessment difficult.
Compliance reports indicated that seven banks did not report on areas that were not
demonstrating ecological improvement or did not submit a report because no activities
were taking place.
Wetland scientists have recognized that permit success criteria and achieving wetland
function may not be equivalent (Mitsch and Wilson 1996), yet changes have not been
made in the permitting process to require completion of functional assessments for
attaining credit release.
Lessons learned, provided by Reiss et al. 2007:
Regulatory agencies must endeavor to write permit conditions that can be followed and
enforced that use the best available technology or protocol for restoration, be vigilant in
demanding accurate and representative monitoring reports, withhold credit for
underachieving sites, and ensure frequent communication and inspection of the sites.
Permits and attached or referenced documents should contain the detailed community
goals and/ or reference conditions the site is anticipated to attain. Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (FNAI) descriptions could provide a valuable starting point to ensure that
more than just vegetation is included. It is important to evaluate wildlife responses to
mitigation activities.
Final success criteria should be quantifiable reflections of these goals. Incorporation of
function-based performance standards, such as those recommended in this report could
help improve ecological success of completed compensatory mitigation projects.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
72
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
TABLE 8. Success criteria related to native vegetation cover and survivability of planted vegetation in state permits,
for the first of 28 wetland compensatory mitigation banks, from Reiss et al. 2007.
Bank Name
Dominant Habitat
at Site Visit
Final Success C riteria - percent cover of native vegetation
Survivability of planted
vegetation
Barberville
Flatwoods
Not specified
400 trees per acre
Bear Point
Mangrove swamp
> 50%
No planting in phase
reviewed
Big C aress
Flatwoods
Herbaceous: > 80% cover native wetland spp. and > 20 wetland herbaceous
spp. The herbaceous vegetation shall cover >60 % with plant species listed
FAC or wetter and be rooted for at least 12 months and be reproducing
naturally
Forested: >70% coverage by desirable ground cover plants, with > 75% of
spp. being listed FAC or wetter.
Hydric pine flatwoods: diversity of >30 herbaceous spp. shall be present.
For each 5 species over 30 3 1% credit bonus will be given for hydric pme
flatwoods.
Evidence of natural regeneration of planted species
> 80% survival of all
planted trees and shrubs
Bluefield Ranch
Flatwoods
Flatwoods graininoid vegetation in groundcover strata > 50% of total
coverage
> 70% of total groundcover strata consists of wetland vegetation (hydric
pine flatwoods only)
> 80% of total herbaceous groundcover strata FACW and/or OBL
vegetation
or OBL vegetation > upland vegetation
> 80% survival of planted
trees
Boran Ranch
Flatwoods, marsh
85 to 90% cover for desirable vegetation depending on community type
No planting in phase I
CGW
High marsh,
mangrove swamp
90%
No planting
Colbert-Cameron
Flatwoods, cypress
domes
Percent cover not specified, bank is primarily preservation with some
enhancement
No planting
Corkscrew Regional
Mixed forest,
cypress domes,
hydric flatwoods
Minimum percent cover of groundcover is 70% for hydric pines.
Minimum percent cover of groundcover in cypress and mixed forest areas is
75% unless there is a lower percent because of open water or shading.
Must show evidence of natural recruitment
No explicit numbers for
survivorship in final
success criteria.
East Central
Wetland forested
mixed
Bank was monitoring for vegetative cover but this study did not acquire
documentation that stated what that final success criteria was.
Unknown if there was a
requirement for
survivorship
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
73
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
TABLE 9. Summary of regulatory compliance for the first of 28 wetland compensatory mitigation banks, from Reiss et al. 2007,
Bank
Interim Criteria
Filial Success
Monitoring and
Management
Status Reports
Administrative Record
Keeping -Ledger:
Communication
Frequency of Compliance
Inspections by Agency
Biirbenille
Problems with planting pines, have
had to replant several times but latest
monitoring report reports good success
with second planting which occurred
in 2004. Bank has not had a permit
modification yet but has planted
cypress in areas that were more wet
than anticipated pine is not surviving.
Bank did not request credit release
when plantings were failing, now that
they are finding better success they
have asked for credit release.
Long ways off.
No problems.
Pretty good with
communication, good
about district visit.
New district staff has been out
to the bank a couple of times,
and going again now because
of credit release request. If the
bank is not improving, then the
district will allow more time to
meet criteria.
Bear Point
First release for exotic species control,
preservation, and financial assurance.
Practically meeting
success criteria after only
1-2 years.
Need reminders
when submitting
reports.
Needed help with process
but good communicating.
1-2 times/yr - with every credit
release.
Big Cypress
Time zero was reset because could not
get ground cover to proper
specifications. Recently bank
submitted request for credit release,
but the district only gave a partial
release because the herbaceous level 1
criteria could not be met because
torpedograss {Panicum repens) cover
was greater than 10%. Bank has
finished all planting.
Permit may have to be
modified either in
number of credits or type
of credits because they
may not be able to get
the torpedograss within
success criteria
requirements, (this may
not have ever been done
before as far S.McCarthy
knows) May experiment
with different techniques
to try and control the
torpedograss.
Prettyr good about
submitting reports
on tmie although did
withhold a
monitoring report for
a while because they
were trying to do
better with the
torpedograss, fell a
little behind trymg to
get it under control.
Communicating pretty
well Usually on time
except for what was
previously mentioned.
Generally visit Big Cypress
every time a request for credit
release is submitted. Other
than that, site visits may
happen at the request of the
permittee to address a specific
issue (i.e., analyze methods to
eradicate torpedograss). Site
visit may be requested if there
are any glaring non-
compliance issues from the
monitoring reports. District
staff has visited the bank for
training and educational type
purposes for district staff in the
past. The bank has always been
very accommodating.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
74
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Module J. Example #2
Assessment of compensatory mitigation sites to meet project success criteria in
Pennsylvania.
Question Addressed:
Are the wetlands meeting the criteria and conditions set forth in the permit?
General Approach:
The study determined the effectiveness of 23 compensation sites in Pennsylvania by
comparing permit success criteria with related field measurements. Wetlands were
selected for the study by age class; there were 8 sites from 1-5 years of age, 11 from 6 to
10 years, and four more than 10 years old. Hydrogeomorphic classifications included
depressional, slope, headwater floodplain, mainstem floodplain, and fringe wetlands.
The type of compensation mechanism used for each permit was not discussed.
Wetland plant community structure, percent plant cover, and evidence of hydrology
were visually evaluated by the authors during a field inspection of each site. Mitigation
success was based on comparing plant cover evaluated in the field with permit criteria.
Data Source:
Cole, C. A. and D. Shafer. 2002. Section 404 Wetland Mitigation and Permit Success
Criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. Environmental Management 30:508-515.
Data Availability:
Synthesis of the information was provided by Cole and Shafer 2002 in
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
75
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
• TABLE 10.
Data Analysis:
Compliance success for each project was evaluated by comparing permit criteria to field
measurements.
Permit criteria varied by project, but usually involved measurements of minimum
percent area with plant cover, and minimum survivability (
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
76
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
• TABLE 10).
Assumptions in Use of Data:
The numeric criteria often varied among projects, even when the same compliance
category was used. For example, the minimum percent plant survival varied from 75%
to 85% among projects (
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
77
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
TABLE 10). Therefore, interpretation of success among projects is affected by the criteria
being applied.
This study was completed prior to the 2008 Mitigation Rule, so the results may not be
reflective of more current compensatory mitigation practices.
Conclusions, by Cole and Shafer 2002
About 60% of the mitigation wetlands were judged as meeting their originally defined
success criteria.
Many of the permit files lacked sufficient information to determine whether the project
was successful. This was either due to a lack of clarity in the permit requirements,
and/ or a lack of monitoring of the mitigation wetlands during and after construction.
Performance standards for the determination of success were found in only 13 of 23 files
(57%).
The permit process appears to have resulted in a net gain of almost 0.05 ha of wetlands
per mitigation project. However, based on details provided in the mitigation monitoring
reports, there appears to have been a replacement of emergent, scrub-shrub, and
forested wetlands with open water ponds or uplands, mitigation practices probably led
to a net loss of vegetated wetlands. Combining Level 1 assessment of habitat distribution
of compensation sites with Level 2 and 3 assessments of condition provides this more
comprehensive evaluation of performance.
Lessons Learned, by Cole and Shafer 2002:
Although measurement of plant percent cover is a convenient method for assessing
mitigation wetlands, just what it assesses is subject to considerable debate. The
correlation between percent herbaceous plant cover and most wetland functions is not
clear. Having more than 80% plant cover (as is frequently required in a permit) is not
necessarily desirable in all cases. Somewhere in the transition from diverse to monotypic
plant communities, there is a loss in the suite of available functions, but it is difficult to
pin down exactly where that loss occurs.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
78
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
TABLE 10. Criteria required for assessment of success of wetland compensatory
mitigation project, from Cole and Shafer 2002. Sites without a criterion had
none found in the permit file.
Site
Age {fir)
Success criteria
Did the site soil meet success
criteria?
1
1 +
85% coverage of hydrophytes after 5 years
Yes
2
3
35% coverage of hydrophytes after 3 years
Yes
3
3
4
4
85% coverage of vegetadon
Yes
5
6
-«
4
35% cover of proposed plant species after 2 years
No
7
5
35% survival of planted hydrophytes after 2 years
Yes
3
5
85% survival of planted species after 5 vears
No
9
6
35% coverage of vegetadon
Ves
10
6
11
6
35% cover of hydroptmic vegetadon after 2 year*
No
12
6
35% cover of hydrophytic vegetadon after 2 years
Yes
13
7
1-4
3
IS
3
75% survival of planted species after 2 rears
Yes
10
8
17
9
Predominance of species adapted for life in
Yes
saturated soils
13
10
39% survival rate of transplanted species
unknown
19
10
20
12
35% cover of hydrophytes after 2 yean
No
21
13
22
13
23
14
Module ?. Example #3
Assessment of compensatory mitigation wetland sites to meet project success criteria over
time in Washington (state).
Question Addressed:
Are the wetlands meeting the required performance standards?
How does the ability of compensatory mitigation to provide functions vary over time?
How much time is required for the performance to stabilize following construction?
General Approach:
The study determined the effectiveness of 327 compensatory mitigation sites in
Washington by comparing permit performance standards with related field
measurements. Ages ranged from 1-17 years, with a median age of 4 years; most permits
were issued to be monitored for 10 years.
The performance standards based on an evaluation of the effectiveness of controlling
non-native plants (non-native, invasive, noxious, or weed) were assessed over 673
sampling events.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
79
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Both wetlands and streams were included.
Mitigation banks made up most of the sites (n=260), while "other mitigation" accounted
for 67 projects
Data Sources:
Washington State Department of Transportation public FTP site:
ftp://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/ public/tesc
T. Bush (WA Department of Transportation).
Data Analysis:
Comparison of permit performance standards to measured values to evaluate success.
The percent of sites meeting a performance standard was calculated by wetland age.
Evaluation ratings indicating whether the standard was achieved or not (e.g., "yes",
"no") were provided for each measurement in the dataset.
Assumptions in Use of Data:
Assumption that measurements of plant percent cover is a reasonable surrogate for
project success.
For both performance standard categories evaluated (cover of native vegetation, and
control of non-native plants), there were multiple performance standards enforced.
Three examples of the standards for native plant cover were: "aerial cover of native
woody species will be at least 50 percent in the urban forest riparian plantings", "native
salt marsh species will achieve approximately 15 percent coverage", and "three native
facultative or wetter vegetation species will achieve 8 percent or greater relative cover in
each forested wetland community". For this document, the success rate of meeting
permit standards was not broken down by each specific requirement. Rather, the overall
rate of success was considered, regardless of the specific standard.
For this document, when more than one standard was applied at a site, the site was
considered out of compliance if any of the measurements failed to meet a standard.
Measurements that had an ambiguous evaluation rating relative to the standard (e.g.,
"maybe", "depends") were omitted from the analysis.
Data accessible through the public ftp site only included measurements related to
vegetation (cover and survival of native species, and control of non-native species)
Hydrology data were also collected by Washington DOT but were not available through
the ftp site and were therefore not included in the analysis.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
80
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Conclusions:
Most wetlands met the performance standard for control of noninvasive species (87% of
sites) and minimum native plant coverage (81% of sites; Table 11).
Both performance standards continued to have high rate of success 10 years into the
projects (Figure 15)
Lessons Learned:
Evaluating permit performance standards resulted in replanting of native vegetation
and control of invasive species for some sites.
Permit standards are helping to address project closeout requests.
Public data access is extremely beneficial for long-term assessments as it allows for
extended evaluation beyond permit mandated monitoring periods.
Ambiguous assignment of success determinations (e.g., "possibly/' "maybe/'
"depends") makes evaluation difficult and required substantial amount of data to be
omitted from the analysis.
Lack of ambient or regional reference data limited a functional assessment of
performance.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
81
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
FIGURE 15: Rates of success at meeting performance standards for invasive plants (top) and
native plant cover over time (bottom). X-axis is age of site.
Non-native / invasive / noxious / weed control
to
o
t
•Zl-
100
80 -
eo
40
~ 20 H
% Sites meeting standard
10
Q
to
+
sz
to
CD
CD
>
o
O
100
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
Native Plant Cover
4 5 6 7
Age (Years)
10
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
82
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
TABLE 11. Performance standards and results of three of the 327 wetlands assessed, courtesy of T. Bush.
SITE NAME
099 West Fork
Hylebos Creek
PERFORMANCE STANDARD
ACHIEVED
532 Dugualla
Bay
542 Anderson
Creek
All woody vegetation installed in restoration areas sho
one year following installation. If dead plantings are re
plant establishment criteria will be met.
uld have 100% survival
placed, the first year
96% survival (CI80% =
93-99%)
Close
lied. The presence of any
contingency measures.
Achieved (<1 % cover);
No knotweeds observed
on-site
Yes
5% coverage in the high
2% cover (qualitative)
No
ieve an average density of
ting areas.
9.5 plants/100ft2
(CI80% = 8.8-10.1)
Yes
WSDOT will attempt to eradicate Washington State-lis
A weeds and Class B weeds designated for control by
accordance with this commitment, the presence of kno
loosestrife will not be tolerated. All occurrences of Clas
weeds, including knotweeds and purple loosestrife, wi
reported to the site manager and an eradication progra
30 days of the report.
ted or county-listed Qass
sland County. In
tweeds and purple
s A or Class B noxious
11 be immediately
m will be initiated within
No Class A weeds
observed. Qass B-
regulated spurge laurel
(Daphne laureola) reported
for control.
Yes
In addition, invasive species listed in Table 20 and any
competes with desirable vegetation will be controlled
until performance standards for native vegetation have
wetland and buffer zones.
other species that
icross the mitigation site
been achieved in the
Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvense) and bull thistle
(C. vulgare) observed and
reported.
Yes
1, and Class C noxious
<5% cover (qualitative)
Yes
The vegetation will achieve 100% survival of planted v\
of the first year plant establishment period. If all dead1
replaced, the performance standard will be met.
foody species at the end
woody plantings are
98% survival (CI80%= 96-
99%)
Close
No more than 20% cover by non-native invasive specie
the buffer communities across the entire site. Any presi
knotweed will initiate the invasive species contingency
s as listed in Table 5 in
ence of Japanese
' measures.
3% cover (qualitative)
Yes
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
83
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Keys to implementing Module J:
Clear articulation of performance standards
Unambiguous measures of success that can be readily quantified
Monitoring data collected in a manner consistent with performance standard, using
standard protocols, with clearly documented confidence levels
Monitoring data includes both abiotic and biotic measures of aquatic resource condition
Module 2: Program Effectiveness
At a Glance
Goal:
Evaluate effectiveness of compensatory mitigation program at
offsetting overall aquatic resource losses
Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the regulatory program at
contributing to no net loss, target area or other regional or
watershed goals
Main Question:
How effective is the overall compensatory mitigation program at
achieving programmatic goals of offsetting permitted wetland
and stream impacts?
Design Approach:
Probabilistic site selection through ambient or status and trends
assessment OR comprehensive synthesis of gains and losses
data assessed across all compensatory mitigation and impact
sites
Site Selection:
Subset of sites from a probabilistic survey OR all sites at the end
of required monitoring period over a defined time period.
Approach to
Reference:
Comparison to ambient condition, comparison to reference
standard sites
Module 2. Example #1
Evaluation of the condition of compensatory mitigation streams relative to ambient, and
reference conditions in southern California.
Questions Addressed:
How does the condition at compensatory mitigation sites compare to reference or
ambient condition in the region?
Is compensatory mitigation producing streams that contribute to an improvement in
regional stream condition?
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
84
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
What level of improvement in stream condition has occurred as a consequence of
compensatory mitigation activities?
General Approach:
The effectiveness of the compensatory mitigation program at offsetting stream impacts
was assessed by comparing the condition at 23 mitigation streams to 707 ambient and 40
reference sites in southern California, using the California Rapid Assessment Method
(CRAM).
Data Sources:
Compensatory mitigation data were taken from Fong et al. 2017. Perennial or
intermittent compensatory mitigation streams from 23 projects consisting of mechanical
channel grading and riparian re-vegetation were sampled. The projects ranged in age
from 2-26 years post-construction, with a subset of the sites having completed the
required mitigation monitoring period. The sites were visited for CRAM assessments in
2012 or 2013.
Data for ambient monitoring sites were taken from the Stormwater Monitoring Coalition
(SMC) regional monitoring database, and included data from both the SMC regional
program, as well as data collected as part of the statewide Perennial Streams Assessment
(PSA) program. The PSA is a long-term statewide survey of the ecological condition of
wadeable perennial streams and rivers throughout California, although only southern
California PSA sites were used for this analysis. The SMC is a regional cooperative
formed by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees and
regulators in southern California to coordinate and leverage existing monitoring efforts
in order to produce regional estimates of condition, improve data comparability and
quality assurance, and maximize data availability. Both stream assessment programs use
a probabilistic sampling design. Data for the ambient monitoring streams were collected
between 2009-2017 and included 707 sampling events. The SMC database maintains data
in an electronic format.
Reference site data were collected as part of the State's Reference Condition Monitoring
Program (RCMP). This statewide program uses a targeted approach to sample the
healthiest, highest quality streams in California as a foundation for establishing a
framework to identify and protect healthy watersheds. Data from this program are also
stored within the SMC database. Data were obtained for forty RCMP sampling events
conducted between 2009 and 2017.
Data Analysis:
Changes in the condition of compensatory mitigation sites were assessed relative to the
initial post-construction condition. All compensatory sites in the study were restored
from graded and recontoured channels that began with no native habitat, and therefore
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
85
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
would have the lowest possible scores for the CRAM metrics assessed from within the
stream corridor.
Restoring streams to a reference condition is often the goal of compensatory mitigation
programs. Therefore, the condition at compensatory sites was compared with the
condition at regional reference sites.
The CRAM scores at compensatory sites were then compared with the range of scores
from the ambient programs to determine where they fall relative to overall regional
stream conditions.
Significant differences among groups were determined using an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) of the CRAM scores, followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test.
Assumptions in Use of Data:
The age of some of the compensatory mitigation streams was not known and had to be
estimated based on the year of Section 404 permit issuance (Fong et al. 2017).
Conclusions:
The condition at the compensatory mitigation sites improved relative to the estimated
initial post-construction condition. The lower 5th percentile of compensatory site scores
(represented by the lower whisker of the box and whisker plot) was greater than the
highest value in the range of estimated initial post-construction CRAM scores (
• 16).
CRAM scores at compensatory mitigation sites were significantly lower than at
reference sites but were statistically similar to the scores at ambient monitoring sites. The
median CRAM score at compensatory sites, however, was lower than the median score
at ambient sites.
While conditions at the compensation sites had improved relative to pre-construction
conditions, the overall program failed to create streams that were comparable to the
reference condition, or even the best scores in the ambient assessment programs.
Lessons Learned:
At minimum, data from compensatory mitigation sites should be compared with data
collected from ambient monitoring surveys to determine how the mitigation program
contributes to overall regional condition. As a rule, at least 30 probabilistically selected
sample sites should be used to determine ambient condition. Targeted reference sites
can be included in the comparison, since restoring streams to a reference condition is
often the goal of compensatory mitigation programs.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
86
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
FIGURE 16. California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) scores for streams monitored
as reference sites, ambient monitoring sites, and compensatory mitigation
sites in southern California. The letters indicate results of Tukey's multiple
comparison test, following ANOVA (p<0.01). The striped box indicates the
estimated range of initial post-construction scores.
100 -I
90
80
x 70
<
Of
o
60 -
50 -
40 -
30
20
A
•w
T
*
Reference
2009-2017
(n=40)
1
«
X
t
Original condition
Ambient monitoring
2009-2017
(n=707)
Mitigation
(n=23)
Keys for Implementing Module 2
Ongoing and accessible regional/ ambient monitoring programs and/ or reference condition
monitoring programs
Common indicators that are used in both compensatory mitigation monitoring and ambient
and/ or reference monitoring
Sufficient geospatial and metadata to allow comparisons between mitigation and ambient
monitoring sites
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
87
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Module 3: Resiliency of Compensatory Mitigation Practices
At a Glance
Goal:
• Assess long-term resiliency and sustainability of compensation
sites
Main Questions:
• How well do compensation sites perform over the long-term in
terms of achieving functional replacement of impacted streams or
wetlands?
Design Approach:
• Assess a subset of "permanent" sentinel sites relatively
infrequently (e.g., every 5 years) over long periods of time
Site Selection:
• Select compensation sites that have completed their required
monitoring periods and been deemed "successful"
• Sites should be subject to long-term protection (e.g., conservation
easement) and readily accessible
Approach to
Reference
• Compare reference standard sites in conserved areas
• Compare to ambient conditions
No Module 3 examples in state programs were found that included compensation sites that
had been monitoring over extended periods of time after the completion of their permit
mandated monitoring, and conditions compared to long-term goals or to regional reference.
However, two examples found in the literature are presented here:
Module 3. Example #1
Evaluation of plant community composition and mangrove stand structure at 23
compensatory mitigation sites in central and southern Florida 17 years after the sites were first
sampled.
Questions Addressed:
How persistent are compensatory mitigation sites at maintaining ecological condition
over time?
How similar are compensation sites to natural reference sites over the long-term?
General Approach:
Eighteen of the 23 sites were monitored using the same indicators used during the 5-
year performance monitoring period required by the terms and conditions of the
permits.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
88
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Canopy height and species composition for three mangrove species were measured in
2005 and compared to data collected during the initial (1988) monitoring period.
Structural characteristics of the mitigation sites in 2005 were compared to natural
mangrove wetlands to determine if the sites approach reference condition over time.
Data Source:
Shafer, D.J, T.H. Roberts. 2008. Long-term development of tidal mitigation wetland in
Florida. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16:23-31
Data Analysis:
Paired t-tests were used to evaluate changes in average canopy height between 1988 and
2005. The 95% confidence intervals constructed from the paired t-test analyses were then
used to estimate rate of height increase during the first two decades of monitoring.
A structural complexity index (Ic) was calculated according to the formula Ic = number
of species times mean stem density (stems > 2.5 cm DBH/ ha) and compared between
1988 and 2005.
Structural characteristics (e.g., number of mangrove species, mean height, mean basal
area, and mean stem density) of the sampled mitigation sites were compared to natural
mangrove wetlands in Florida using multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and Euclidean
distance as the similarity measure.
Conclusions:
Of the 18 sites revisited, 72% would be considered successful based on the performance
criteria in the Section 404 permit
Canopy height and plant community richness and age-stand distribution all increased
between 1988 and 2005.
Mangrove mitigation wetlands ranging in age from 13 years to 23 years had not yet
reached a canopy height similar to that of natural mangrove forests (Figure 17)
Lessons Learned by Shafer and Roberts 2008:
Access to older permit records was challenging, so it was difficult to reconstruct the
original requirements for all sites.
Factors limiting mitigation site development included incorrect site elevation and
hydrology, invasion by exotic species, conflicting land uses, and human activity.
Three sites were apparently unsuccessful due to inappropriate planting elevation (either
too low or too high). Incorrect site elevations can lead to invasion and dominance by
exotic species
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
89
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
FIGURE 17: Multidimensional scaling plot showing that mangrove structural
characteristics in mitigation sites differed from those of natural mangrove
wetlands in Florida. From: Shafer and Roberts 2008
3) Stress 0.01
D • •
• • •
~
•
~ ~
•
§
•
^ Mitigation Sites
•
Q Natural Mangrove Wetlands
Module 3. Example #2
Evaluation of floristic quality of 30 permittee responsible compensatory mitigation sites in
Illinois 8-20 years after restoration was completed to determine if they continue to meet
performance standards and to determine ecological quality relative to adjacent natural
wetlands.
Questions Addressed:
How persistent are compensatory mitigation sites at continuing to meet performance
standards over time?
How similar is the ecological condition at older compensatory mitigation sites relative to
nearby natural wetlands?
General Approach:
Performance standards were grouped into nine categories based on restoration goals
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
90
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
All 30 compensation sites were surveyed in 2012 to assess performance relative to the
original performance goals. The amount of time since the "final" required monitoring
period ranged from 3-16 years
An additional 15 adjacent natural wetlands were surveyed for the same indicators
In addition to the original performance standards a Floristic Quality Assessment was
completed at all 45 sites.
Data Source:
Van den Bosch, K., J.W. Matthews. 2017. An Assessment of Long-Term Compliance with
Performance Standards in Compensatory Mitigation Wetlands. Environmental
Management 59:546-556
Data Analysis:
A nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test the null hypothesis that
there was no difference, between time periods, in the percentage of performance
standards that were successfully achieved.
A linear mixed effects model was used to determine the effects of time period (end of
permit monitoring period (EOM) vs. 2012) and the floristic quality of the adjacent
reference wetland on floristic quality in compensation wetlands.
Conclusions:
On average, compensation sites met 65% of standards during the final year of
monitoring and 53% of standards in 2012, a significant decrease in compliance (Figure
18).
The presumption of continued compliance with performance standards after a 5-year
monitoring period was not supported.
Standards related to the survival or establishment of planted trees and herbaceous
species were also often unmet at the end of the monitoring period and remained unmet
in 2012
Floristic Quality (FQI) was lower in compensation wetlands compared to reference, but
FQI in compensation wetlands increased significantly with increasing quality of the
adjacent reference wetlands.
Wetlands restored near better quality natural wetlands achieved and maintained greater
floristic quality, suggesting that landscape context was an important determinant of
long-term restoration outcomes.
Lessons Learned from Van den Bosch and Matthews (2017):
Five-year monitoring period is too short to assure ecological success.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
91
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Proximity to high quality wetlands improves the chances of a compensation site
exhibiting high ecological condition.
Decrease in achievement of performance standards was driven primarily by the
increasing dominance of normative and invasive plant species through time.
FIGURE 18: Number of compensation sites with performance standards related to nine
categories of restoration goals, and number of sites meeting those goals at the end of
site monitoring (EOM) and in 2012-2013. From Van den Bosch and Matthews 2017
Number of sites
Restore jurisdictional wetland
Native/non-weedy dominants
Percent native/non-weedy/perennial
Planted tree survival
Hydrophyte cover
Vegetation cover
Planted herb performance
Floristic quality
Other
Keys for implementing Module 3
Long-term monitoring requires clear and unambiguous success determinations. It is likely
that assessments will be done by different individuals than those that developed the initial
permit and monitoring requirements or that made the initial success determinations. Clear
terminology and definitions of "performance" or "success" are very important.
Public access to data in a simple and easy to understand format, including metadata will
facilitate long-term assessments.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
92
-------
CHAPTER 7 » Case Studies and Baseline Applications
Overall Lessons from Case Studies
The case studies were somewhat limited by a common set of challenges to directly applying
the proposed performance evaluation modules. The ability of state programs to more fully
assess compensatory mitigation performance would be enhanced by addressing these
challenges based on the recommendations provided in this document:
Few, if any, states have a comprehensive network of reference sites that represent all major
wetland and stream classes present in the state. Establishment of reference networks would
provide important context for interpreting compensatory mitigation program effectiveness
and would support application of all three Modules.
Performance standards don't always reflect ecological or functional success. By and large,
most performance standards are based on structural elements (although this is changing).
This disconnect makes it difficult to draw conclusions about functional replacement of
impacted aquatic resources over time.
Potential causal factors or stressors are seldom measured (or compiled) in association with
compensatory mitigation monitoring. For example, measures of upstream hydrologic
alteration, sedimentation, water quality, buffer condition, or documentation of human use
and visitation provide important insight into the reasons why a compensation site may or
may not be meeting its performance standards. Inclusion of such measures as part of routine
monitoring and assessment would aid in adaptive management.
Lack of comprehensive, integrated, and accessible data management systems is the most
consistent impediment to compensatory mitigation performance assessment. Data is often
incomplete and difficult to access, and different programs or departments often maintain
independent data management systems. This makes it difficult to conduct the assessments
recommended in this document, particularly those associated with Modules 2 and 3.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
93
-------
CHAPTER 8 )>
Pathways to Implementation
8. PATHWAYS TO IMPLEMENTATION
Implementing a comprehensive compensatory mitigation evaluation program can take
many pathways depending on the status, resources, needs, and priorities of individual regional,
state or local programs. The following steps provide a general implementation process that can
provide the information necessary to efficiently answer the questions of compensatory
mitigation performance, program effectiveness, and resiliency outlined in this document. The
implementation process is divided into planning, infrastructure development, and operationalization
phases. Programs may focus on different steps in the process depending on their needs and
priorities:
Planning
1) Identify (or develop) programmatic goals for the compensatory mitigation evaluation
program. Programmatic goals should reflect the goals for each module discussed in this
document and include measures of permit compliance, area compensated, function relative
to reference or ambient condition, and long-term sustainability. In developing the goals, it
may be helpful to explore opportunities across various programs to inform programmatic
goals that support multiple agency mandates and are relevant to a broad constituency of
end users (e.g., local watershed plans, wetland program plans, habitat conservation plans).
For example, goals can support regulatory programs in terms of compliance, regional or
watershed restoration targets, monitoring and reporting (e.g., Status and Trends or Clean
Water Act Section 305(b) requirements), community education, or evaluation of restoration
and management efficacy.
2) Assess the current condition and needs of your program in terms of:
a) Availability of Standard monitoring designs, protocols, or guidance documents
b) Training, auditing, and quality control procedures
c) Data analysis approaches and tools to support data analysis
d) Standard data formats and metadata templates
e) Database that allows easy data submittal and retrieval through an open data approach
f) The likelihood that the program design can achieve the stated programmatic goals
g) Staff to implement, manage, and support the program
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
94
-------
CHAPTER 8 » Pathways to Implementation
3) Establish priorities for program development based on current conditions/needs relative to
the agreed upon programmatic goals. The priorities should reflect areas of greatest
deficiencies, opportunities for greatest gains, abilities to form connections between
programs that improve leveraging of resources and information, or simply "low hanging
fruit". Priorities can also inform the identification of project partners who can contribute to
achieving the overall programmatic goals and project objectives.
Infrastructure Development
4) Develop, test, and refine standard protocols, procedures, best practices, and quality control
measures using the information provided in this document. This should include specific
indicators for monitoring and assessment, field and lab procedures, and basic reporting
requirements. Procedures should be clear and easy to consistently implement. Protocols
may draw from the tools and resources developed through USEPA's National Aquatic
Resource Surveys (NARS). Tools and resources are also available through many state,
regional and national guidance documents. Protocols and procedures should be developed
collaboratively among the different program partners and stakeholders/ end users identified
during the goal-setting step. This will help ensure broad support for the final products.
5) Develop data templates, checkers, and data management systems based on the open-data
approaches discussed in this document. Data templates should be flexible enough to be
used across multiple platforms and produce data that can be readily submitted via web-
based data submittal portals and can be shared across programs. Templates should be
accompanied by data dictionaries that define terms, metadata fields, and automatic data
checkers. The data should include coordinates, polygons or other geospatial information
that allows data to be managed using a map-based approach. To the extent possible,
existing or "off-the-shelf" data management tools should be considered as they will likely be
easier to maintain over the long-term. Once the initial data templates are developed, they
should be beta tested by a diverse group of stakeholders/end users to ensure that they work
intuitively. Ultimately data workflows should be integrated into standard permitting and
monitoring workflows so that data can support decisions and daily program administration.
6) Identify reference wetland/stream networks and ambient monitoring programs that can be
used to provide context for evaluating compensatory mitigation monitoring data. In many
cases, there will be opportunities for compensatory mitigation programs to partner with
existing programs. Ambient assessment programs may already exist and provide
opportunities for leveraging funds and efforts, e.g., Status and Trends or Clean Water Act
Section 305(b) assessment programs, and/or states can partner with or intensify National
Aquatic Resource Survey assessments. Integration of compensatory mitigation assessment
with broader ambient assessment will require harmonization of indicators and data
management. Such harmonization will allow completed compensation sites to become part
of the sample frame for ambient assessment while allowing ambient assessment sites to
provide context for interpreting the overall contribution of compensation sites to change in
wetland and stream extent and condition. If networks of reference wetlands or streams do
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
95
-------
CHAPTER 8 » Pathways to Implementation
not already exist, it may be necessary to develop definitions and criteria for inclusion of sites
into reference networks so that they can be established over time. Ultimately, compensatory
mitigation monitoring should be coupled with monitoring of both ambient and reference
monitoring.
Operationalization
7) Establish institutional partnerships to support implementation in a manner that supports
cross-program objectives and information sharing. In addition to resource leveraging,
partnerships enhance the ability to disseminate performance information to a broad
constituency and improves the ability to maintain long-term implementation support.
Partnerships may include:
a) Academic or NGO partners that can help develop protocols, assessment tools and data
management structures. They can also provide ongoing technical review, support data
analysis, and periodically serve as external auditors.
b) Other state, reeional or federal proerams can provide data, tools and resources that
support compensatory mitigation evaluations. Water quality, ambient monitoring, or
resource management programs may have data or tools that can support mitigation
program evaluation, provide contextual information, or provide stressor data that can
help with interpretation why mitigation programs succeed or fail.
c) Conservancies or land manaeement entities may be excellent partners for long-term
monitoring and resiliency assessment. They are also important partners for long-term
data stewardship and for helping with evaluation of adaptive management needs.
8) Develop shared funding mechanisms that can support ongoing program implementation.
Program development can often be funded through grants, such as those available under
the USEPA Section 104(b) program. However, ongoing implementation is best funded
through continuous funding streams, such as those provided through ambient or
compliance monitoring programs. Some states may also have funds for reporting status,
trends or condition that can be used to support Module 2 and 3 assessments. Permit fees
may also be a funding option for some programs. Finally, periodic resiliency evaluations
and adaptive management assessments may also be funded through grant funding to state
agencies, or academic or NGO partners. Partnering with other state programs through all
phases of compensatory mitigation evaluation will illuminate opportunities for joint
funding, cost leveraging, data sharing, or cross-program staffing.
9) Conduct ongoing outreach and reporting using a variety of outlets and media. The
information and knowledge gained through a comprehensive compensatory mitigation
assessment program is valuable to agencies, practitioners, decision makers, and the general
public. At the agency level, data supports evaluations of program performance, reasons for
success or failure, and informs adaptive management measures. Practitioners similarly gain
by having ready access to information that can improve the science and practice of wetland
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
96
-------
CHAPTER 8 » Pathways to Implementation
and stream restoration. Decision makers and the general public will support program
implementation, refinement, and expansion by having access to knowledge and reports that
demonstrate the value and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation programs. A multi-
faceted communication strategy can help identify the most appropriate mechanism to
convey information to each entity, such as reports, fact sheets, web sites, blogs, email
updates etc.
A mature compensatory mitigation evaluation program will include all elements of this
implementation pathway and provide for comprehensive and ongoing evaluation of
compensatory mitigation effectiveness. Some programs may be close to maturity, only needing
to develop a few outstanding critical pieces to complete their capacity for comprehensive
assessments. Other programs may require substantial time and resources to build a program from
near-infancy. In either case, regional or state programs should engage in the implementation
process wherever it makes the most sense for them and demonstrate patience and persistence in
developing their ultimate programs that meet the agreed upon goals and priorities.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
97
-------
REFERENCES
Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM). 2015. Status and Trends Report on State
Wetland Programs in the United States, 94 pp.
Church, M. 2006. Bed material transport and the morphology of alluvial river channels.
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 34:325-354.
Cluer, B. and C. Thorne. 2013. A Stream Evolution Model Integrating Habitat and
Ecosystem Benefits. River Research and Applications 30:135-154.
Cole, C. A. and D. Shafer. 2002. Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in
Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. Environmental Management 30:508-515.
Fong, L.S., E.D. Stein, and R.F. Ambrose. 2017. Development of Restoration Performance
Curves for Streams in Southern California Using an Integrative Condition Index. Wetlands.
37:289-299 doi:10.1007/sl3157-016-0869-x.
Haber, E. 2013. Suggested Science-Based Criteria for Site Selection, Design, and Evaluation of
Wisconsin Wetland Mitigation Banks. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Hey, R.D. 2006. Fluvial Geomorphological Methodology for Natural Stable Channel Design.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(2):357-374.
Kaufmann, P.R., R.M. Hughes, J. Van Sickle, T.R. Whittier, C.W. Seeliger, S.G. Paulsen. 2014.
Lakeshore and littoral physical habitat structure: A field survey method and its precision. Lake
and Reservoir Management 30(2):157-176.
Leopold, L.B. and M.G. Wolman. 1957. River channel patterns: braided, meandering and
straight. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B:39-84.
Mack, J.M., S. Fennessy, M. Micacchion, D. Porej. 2004. Standardized monitoring protocols,
data analysis and reporting requirements for mitigation wetlands in Ohio, v. 1.0. Ohio EPA
Technical Report WET/2004-6. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface
Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio.
McManamay, R.S., M.S. Bevelhimer, S-C Kao. 2014. Updating the US hydrologic
classification: an approach to clustering and stratifying ecohydrologic data. Ecohydrology 7:903-
926.
Mitsch, W. J., R.F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration
with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6(1), 77-83
Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain
drainage basins. GSA Bulletin 109(5):596-611.
Morgan, J. A. and P. Hough. 2015. Compensatory Mitigation Performance: The State of the
Science. National Wetlands Newsletter 37(6):5-13.
Nadeau, T-L., C. Trowbridge, D. Hicks, R. Coulombe. 2018. A Scientific Rationale in Support
of the Stream Function Assessment Method for Oregon (SFAM Version 1.0). Oregon
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
98
-------
REFERENCES
Department of State Lands, Salem, OR, EPA 910-S-l 8-001, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Poff, N.L. 1996. A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and an
examination of scale-dependence in some hydrological descriptors. Freshwater Biology 36:71-91.
Reiss, K.C. et al. 2007. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mitigation Banking in Florida:
Ecological Success and Compliance with Permit Criteria. pl49.
Robertson, M., S.M. Galatowitsch, J.W. Matthews. 2018. Longitudinal evaluation of
vegetation richness and cover at wetland compensation sites: implications for regulatory
monitoring under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands Ecology and Management, doi. 10.1007/sll273-
018-9633-8.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 169-199.
Shafer, D.J, T.H. Roberts. 2008. Long-term development of tidal mitigation wetland in
Florida. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16:23-31
Somerville, D.E. and B.A. Pruitt. 2004. Physical Stream Assessment: A Review of Selected
Protocols for Use in the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program. September 2004, Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands
Division (Order No. 3W-0503-NATX). Washington, D.C. 213 pp. Document No. EPA 843-S-12-
002.
Somerville, D.E. 2010. Stream Assessment and Mitigation Protocols: A Review of
Commonalities and Differences, Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (Contract No. GS-00F0032M). Washington, D.C.
Document No. EPA 843-S-12-003.
Stacey, P.B., A.L. Jones, J.C. Catlin, D.A. Duff, L.E. Stevens, C. Gourley. 2009. User's Guide
for the Rapid Assessment of the Functional Condition of Stream Riparian Ecosystems in the
American Southwest.
Starr, R., W. Harman, S. Davis. 2015. Function-Based Rapid Field Stream Assessment
Methodology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. CAFE S15-06. Chesapeake Bay Field Office,
Annapolis, MD.
Stoddard, J.L., D.P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R.K. Johnson, R. H. Norris. 2006. Setting
expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition.
Ecological Applications, 16:1267-1276.
USEPA National Aquatic Resources Surveys (NARS). https://www.epa.gov/national-
aquatic-resource-surveys/manuals-used-national-aquatic-resource-surveys
USEPA. 2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed. EPA 841-B-03-
003.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
99
-------
REFERENCES
Van den Bosch, K. and J.W. Matthews. 2017. An assessment of long-term compliance with
performance standards in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management 59:
546-556.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
100
-------
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF STATE INTERVIEWS
Introduction
State interviews were an important component of background research on standards of
practice. The knowledge and insight gained through these interviews was an integral part of the
process of developing a basic approach and guidelines for evaluating and improving the
ecological and administrative performance of compensation projects. Offsetting unavoidable
wetland or stream impacts is required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well as
many state programs. However, the mechanism of coordination with the USACE's 404 program
varies by state, as do the mitigation and monitoring requirements placed on permittees. An
understanding of the various approaches used by states, what they find effective, and their
needs, provides critical information to inform development of national recommendations or
guidance. To this end, we reviewed monitoring and data management strategies adopted by
states that were available online or through journal articles, then followed up with interviews
with a subset of states to obtain greater details of their mitigation practices. This section
summarizes the information identified during the interviews, including the strategies used by
states, and a list of products and guidance that states would like to see in a document to help
them improve the effectiveness of their program.
Methods
Fifteen states were interviewed by phone between December 22, 2017 and February 1, 2018
based on their positive response to an email query (Table A-l). Representatives familiar with
their state's mitigation evaluation program were asked a variety of questions regarding the
background of their program, short- and long-term monitoring practices, leveraging
opportunities with other state programs, and database management strategies (see below for
the complete list of questions). States were also asked for input on lessons they had learned
through the development and implementation of their program. Meeting summaries were
reviewed by every state interviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to being finalized.
TABLE A-1: States interviewed regarding mitigation assessment structure and needs
California
Maryland
New Jersey
Florida
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Illinois
Michigan
Ohio
Iowa
Minnesota
Washington
Louisiana
Missouri
Wisconsin
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
101
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Mitigation Evaluation Interview Questions
Parf 1 - Program Overview
1) Describe ongoing wetland/ stream (and/ or mitigation) monitoring programs administered
by your agency - focus on ongoing program vs. project specific monitoring
2) What are the key questions/issues that you are trying to address?
3) What is the basis of comparison for performance evaluation (reference sites, permit
standards)?
4) How do you select sites for inclusion?
5) What indicators do you measure and what frequency? How long does monitoring last?
6) Are there other monitoring and assessment programs that you coordinate with?
7) What are the strongest elements of your program that contribute to its success?
8) What are the weakest elements/ things you would like to modify?
9) What advice might you give to other programs/ states wanting to build an evaluation
program?
10) Do you have external or alternative funding? How does financing impact your program?
What is the level of effort associated with this program in terms of staff, number of sites
assessed per year etc.
11) What are your initial reactions/feedback to the draft document we sent you?
Do you have any suggestions or examples for the approach we are pursuing?
Part 2 - Data Management
12) What is the source of the data you use for evaluations (submitted by permittees, collected by
your program, compiled from other programs)?
13) How do you manage your data - what type of system?
Do you use custom built software, or off-the-shelf/open source software?
How is the data inputted? Does a staff member do this?
Can the data be entered remotely?
What data is included (numeric only, or files/photos too)?
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
102
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
What QA/QC measures are used to ensure that the data is entered correctly?
14) What role does the public play in data input/management?
How can the public or other agencies access the data?
Do you have public collaborations to input current or historic data?
Do you have public partners (e.g., universities) that aid with data
storage/interpretation/ dissemination?
15) Does your database include historical data? How far back does that data go?
16) What data products does your program produce?
Can you provide any examples, documents or web links that we might want to review that
would help in our preparation of the guidance document?
Results
Summary of Practices
Most of the states interviewed have some type of independent authority to regulate
wetlands and streams, although the way the programs are administered varies. In the majority
of states interviewed, permits are issued by state agencies; however, some states delegate that
authority to local jurisdictions for specific areas, waterbody types, or compensation
mechanisms. Regardless of how the programs were administered, each state coordinates with
the USACE, including those that do not have independent authority under state statute. Much
of the coordination with USACE was through the Interagency Review Teams that provide
mitigation bank review, approval and oversight.
While most state programs require some level of project-specific monitoring (Module 1), the
strategies employed varied among states. For example, the minimum duration of sampling
ranged from three years up to 20 years (Figure A-l). Five years was the typical duration, and
most states increased their monitoring time frame for sites that were not meeting permit
requirements. All states interviewed use traditional condition indicators (e.g., vegetation or
macroinvertebrate IBIs, percent invasive plant species, soil indicators), while only three of the
states use formal functional or condition assessment methods. Within-program differences were
also noted. For example, most states do not use consistent performance standards across
projects. The three main reasons for this included geographic diversity, differences among the
local jurisdictions issuing permits, and practices where the permittee recommends the
performance standards to follow. Banks and permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) activities
were the most common mitigation mechanisms, with most states seeing a shift toward banks
since the 2008 mitigation rule. Less than half of the states interviewed use in-lieu fee (ILF)
arrangements. Many states use a combination of mechanisms.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
103
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
A quarter of the states interviewed conducted some form of programmatic assessment
(Module 2). These were either formal evaluations conducted through probabilistic assessments,
or an informal annual synthesis of gains and losses for internal use. Most often, theses
assessments focus on administrative and compliance aspects of the mitigation program, with
less emphasis on programmatic assessment of functional gains or losses. The majority of states
interviewed have either a stream or wetland ambient monitoring program or status and trends
program (82%), although only one state combines mitigation and ambient monitoring programs
when evaluating overall wetland loss. Typically, ambient monitoring is conducted by separate
programs, departments, or agencies with minimal interaction between those programs and
mitigation programs.
Few states conduct sentinel monitoring of their sites once mitigation projects are completed
(Module 3), whether for lack of funding or the expectation that wetlands will continue to
function properly after the monitoring has stopped. Long-term monitoring usually entailed
examination of aerial photography or the occasional visitation to check on encroachment of
exotic plants and maintenance needs, although one state conducted conditional assessments for
up to 50 years. All states that were asked had some type of long term stewardship for their sites,
whether protection in perpetuity by the mitigation banker, water management district, county
conservation board, state or federal park system, or non-governmental organization (NGO). In
many cases, a statewide or local entity has authority to enforce easement conditions, but seldom
do they conduct any long-term monitoring, nor do they have authority to require remedial
actions once the required mitigation monitoring period is complete and the site/bank has been
deemed "final" or "successful".
Less than half of the states maintain monitoring data in a database (Figure A-l). In most
cases, monitoring reports are submitted annually for review and reports are attached to the
project file as pdfs; few states enter raw monitoring data into a database that is easily accessible.
For project tracking, most states maintain an electronic inventory, but few programs have a
system that tracks monitoring and management activities and provides reminders of upcoming
deadlines and milestones.
The type of information accessible to the public and the method available to retrieve that
information also varied by state. Data were available only by request by four of the ten states
asked this question. Two states had data available online to the public, while three other states
only had permit information available online, and one state only had an incomplete GIS layer of
mitigation sites.
Summary of State Needs
As part of the interviews, states were asked what products and guidance would be useful to
improve the effectiveness of their compensatory program. Fourteen of the fifteen states
interviewed had at least one need. While no single product was mentioned by the majority of
states, three items were requested by half of the participants (Figure A-2), including:
Guidance on selecting appropriate indicators
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
104
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Standardized data templates
Recommendations for a data management and retrieval system
A fourth need that almost half of the states wanted guidance on was:
A framework that would help with interpreting data and determining appropriate actions
We have attempted to incorporate these products into the three modules of our reference
document.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
105
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
FIGURE A-1: Summary of responses to selected questions asked of state program
representatives
Mitigation program independent torn USAGE?
^ (information for 15 states)
12 -
10 -
« 8 H
m
a
12
10
5
6
4
2
0
Data maintained in a database?
(information for 15states)
Yes
No
Yes
No
w
=tt
10
5 -
6 -
4
2 H
0
Program assessment conducted?
(information for 12 states}
10
8
6
4
2
0
.Am bi ent a sses sm ent cc nd ucted?
(information for 11 states)
Yes
No
Yes
No
5 -i
4
M ¦> A
1 "
0
Sampling frequency
(information for 7 states)
7
6
5
d 4
s
w 3
%
2
1
0
Minimum sampling duration
(information for 10 states}
*
&
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
106
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
FIGURE A-2: Products arid guidance that states would like to incorporate to help them
improve the effectiveness of their program. Fourteen of the 15 states
interviewed identified at least one need.
State Needs
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
107
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Notes from Each State Interview (in alphabetical order)
California
Bill Ortne, Jean Bandura
California Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality
January 12, 2018
The State Water Board is working on a wetland policy (see below). The Water Boards
currently regulate water quality for all surface waters and groundwater, including saline
waters, within the boundaries of the state under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act. A number of Water Boards have addressed wetlands in water quality
control plans and have established specific wetland beneficial uses. The Water Boards
regulate discharges of dredged or fill material to wetlands under the Clean Water Act 401
Certification program for federal waters and issue WDRs for non-federal waters under
Porter-Cologne. Other agencies regulate wetland flora and fauna, such as CA Dept of Fish
and Wildlife, and CA Coastal Commission.
For discharges of dredged or fill material, Water Boards issue 401 water quality certification
and can issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for state waters that are not subject to
federal jurisdiction.
In California, the State Water Board establishes state policy for water quality control;
regional boards formulate water quality control plans and policies for their jurisdiction
subject to state board approval. Regulatory programs are generally implemented via one
of nine regional water boards, each of which operates largely autonomously.
Separate from Water Board regulatory programs, the State Water Board directs a strong
ambient monitoring program (Surface Water Ambient Monitoring - SWAMP). On paper the
SWAMP program includes all surface waters, but in practice has focused on wadeable
streams.
Results of the ambient monitoring are used to identify impaired water bodies.
Assessments based on benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) and algae.
Works with CA Fish and Wildlife.
Regional boards also have programs similar to SWAMP.
No wetland monitoring program (analogous to SWAMP). No institutional connection
between SWAMP and wetland/ stream permitting program.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
108
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) is the main level 2 assessment tool. Can be
used for all water body types - streams, wetlands, lakes, estuaries. Prior to CRAM (released
in 2006), there was no practical and consistent methodology for evaluating wetlands.
Do now have CRAM assessment manuals, CRAM assessments are approved by USACE
and Water Boards for regulatory applications; applicants are encouraged to use CRAM
for wetland assessments at the impact and mitigation sites.
USACE South Pacific Division references CRAM in Standard Operating Procedure for
mitigation.
State Water Board needs to establish wetland beneficial uses to encourage wetland
monitoring by the Water Boards.
Ambient assessment of watersheds would answer the question of wetland health at
the population level, either project could help (especially the beneficial uses).
California has developed a probability-based wetland status and trends program (funded
by USEPA 104 grants) - program has been developed and pilot tested but is not being
implemented due to lack of funding.
Wetland Mitigation
State is working on three phase wetland and riparian protection policy. The first phase is
a water board definition of wetland and dredge and fill procedures modeled after
federal guidelines, especially in relation to mitigation. SWRCQB is adopting 404(Subpart
J) almost wholesale to provide consistency with the USACE program
SWRCB contracted with Dr. Ambrose at UCLA in 2007 to do an assessment of wetland
mitigation (-150 sites)
Evaluated two questions:
Meeting permit conditions
Wetland in good condition
Largely, sites met permit conditions, but were not in good condition - not successful
from a functional perspective
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/mitigation_fina
lreport_full081307.pdf
Water Boards, region-by-region, require mitigation (as condition to USACE permit) -
mainly through Section 401 certifications.
Some/most do not require above USACE standards
Others are much stricter (may even deny permits if avoidance and minimization not
sufficient)
Large impact projects tend to require more mitigation by Boards
Authority for conditions comes from § 401 WQC and Porter-Cologne
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
109
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Monitoring required for ~5 years unless performance standards were not met (then
longer)
Other projects (e.g., vernal pools) default to lOyrs of monitoring
Projects may use PRM, Banks, or I LFs, sometimes mixing them
At closure of mitigation, new policy will require conservation easement and
financing for mgmt.
Turned over to NGO to manage - this has been only marginally effective
Wetland Definition and Dredge & Fill Procedures
New policy for evaluating permit applications
Will encourage use of same mitigation ratio calculator as USACE SPD which
evaluates how much functional lift is provided by the site
Based on CRAM or best professional judgment
Data
Boards require monitoring reports
Permittees don't always turn in reports though (see Ambrose Report). Poor methods
to track projects are partly to blame.
SWRCB has developed a permit template, trying to get regional boards to adopt
currently, there is not consistently used tracking system for mitigation projects, although
recently the database was updated to include geographic referencing of sites
Mostly narrative conditions in template
SWRCB has a list of all approved projects in the state
Mitigation required, methods used
Goes back to 2005, but data entry was inconsistent until 2014 when new data entry
rules were adopted
Information on mitigation sites should be available, but have to find through permit
entries - can query database for list of projects that required mitigation
Includes information on how much mitigation and what type (PRM, ILF, Bank)
Some regions required that data is mapped in EcoAtlas - www.ecoatlas.org, for other
regions user could query the database to obtain list of all projects requiring
mitigation to get lat-long information which could be plotted as points on a map
Can go to EcoAtlas to find map of mitigation sites for those specific regions
New § 401 data mgmt. system being developed (proposal with state's data management
division)
Applicant would enter data
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
110
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
All electronic
Project mgmt. system, tracking and tickling, staff assigning
GIS component (project and mitigation information)
Custom pilot software, newer system is getting bids now
Maps could be exported to EcoAtlas
Old data could be imported
May take a few years to build
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Reinforce need to standardize beneficial uses for wetlands.
California has a stated no-net loss policy. Guidance for no net loss on a project-by-project
basis, incorporated into the performance standards for individual projects - no
programmatic approaches for ensuring no net loss.
For data management, wetland data is largely being managed and developed by a third
party, non-governmental entity who has developed EcoAtlas using USEPA funds allocated
to develop state agency wetland development programs. It is not an official state data
management system, although SWRCB staff make can access the site and utilize the system
for mitigation project management and tracking.
Contractors developing the new State Water Board WQC data management system
understand the business application (project management) of the system, but may need
more guidance a wider management need by staff to assess impacts on water quality
standards at the watershed level using GIS.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
111
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Florida
Tim Rack, Donna Kendall, Nia Wellendorf
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
January 22, 2018
State of Florida issues Environmental Resources Permits (ERPs) for activities in, on or over
wetlands or surface waters; mitigation bank permits are ERPs.
ERP and 404 programs operate in parallel and state DEP coordinates with USACE in
terms of evaluations. However, given different regulations and jurisdictions, mitigation
requirements and bank credits can differ between state and federal programs.
0 https://floridadep.gov/Water/Submerged-Lands-Environmental-Resources-Coordination
State uses the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UM AM), Rule 62-345, Florida
Administrative Code to define the number of credits available in a bank.
State vs. federal credits and services areas may differ slightly.
0 DEP participates as a member of the IRT.
• There are no ILFs under ERP program, but USACE has some. Similarly, the state has
Regional Offsite Mitigation Areas (ROMA), Chapter 373.4135, Florida Statutes as a state
analogue.
Banks conduct quantitative assessments annually using standard field indicators until banks
are deemed successful by DEP - typically 5-8 years.
Success criteria are not standardized, but developed specifically for each bank.
0 Banks either identify reference sites themselves or use a state list of reference sites.
• Once banks are complete they are protected in perpetuity by banker, water management
district, state or federal park, local government, NGO. There is no long-term monitoring of
condition, but qualitative monitoring of site management issues (security, exotics,
maintenance needs, etc.) occurs in perpetuity.
Annual reports are submitted to DEP and tracked via their custom built ERPCE database
and stored in OCULUS database. Monitoring reports are stored with the project file, but
actual data is not compiled in a database.
State feels that they have good experience and technical resources to guide successful
mitigation, so they mainly want to track performance on an individual project/bank
level - no real need to compile the raw data; data is not submitted in a standardized
format, so compilation would be difficult without a rule requiring a standardized format
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
112
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Success is based on comparison to previous year's data (i.e., improvement along an
expected trajectory) and based on comparison to reference site - which are identified for
each bank based similar wetland communities (using the FL Natural Areas Inventory).
0 Data provided by bankers and field-confirmed by agency staff.
The ERP database (PA - Permit Application) includes basic bank information
(administrative aspects, such as name, location, etc.) as well as all actions taken on the bank
(including credit sales). The PA and ERPCE databases include calendaring and ticklers to
help track deadlines, materials due, permit process, workloads, compliance deadlines etc.
All banks and service areas are tracked in geospatial database and basic info is available
to the public via a web interface.
¦ http://fdep.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=e88el4fal7ad4a2c
a49d63a6016f3eaf&extent=-88.8398.24.5257.-76.7108.31.5023
¦ http://geodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/63be3554c59a4fcc8af4f34c64cb43b4 0?selecte
dAttribute=TOTAL ACRES
Florida has an ambient bioassessment program for stream and lakes, not for wetlands.
Benthic macroinvertebrate Stream Condition Index (SCI) is their main assessment tool for
streams, and they use rapid assessment methods for algae and plants as part of the numeric
nutrient standard.
0 https://floridadep.gov/dear/bioassessment
° Florida Bioassessment method information:
https://floridadep.gov/dear/bioassessment/content/bioassessment-methods
0 Training and proficiency requirements, method links:
https://floridadep.gov/dear/bioassessment/content/bioassessment-training-evaluation-and-
quality-assurance
0 Statewide Biological Database information (can't pull bioassessment data, can pull
attribute information for taxa): https://fldeploc.dep.state.fl.us/sbio/database.asp
Have bioassessment indices for wetlands, developed in the early 2000s for specific wetland
types, but not routinely used for ambient assessment. There is no real connection or
intermingling of the ambient monitoring program and wetland permitting program - ERP
process will consider impacts to impaired or high-quality waters - but no routine sharing of
assessment methods, data, etc.
Bioassessment data is stored in an internal database. Public can request data, but there is
not publicly accessible portal to retrieve data.
Data are stored in Oracle tables. User interface is old custom software, and is currently
being upgraded in new custom software.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
113
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Information on available data management tools or standard data forms
Ways to improve data comparability between sites and ensure more consistent data quality
Guidance on data analysis approaches to improve repeatability and validity of analysis -
NOTE, under the current rules DEP can only recommend, not require that specific methods
be used for mitigation bank vegetative monitoring
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
114
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Illinois
Keith Shank
Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystems & Environment, Chief, Impact Assessment Section
December 22, 2017
The state of Illinois does not regulate wetlands. They have an interagency wetland policy,
which is largely discretionary (i.e., no penalty for not following the policy).
0 The general policy is to encourage state agencies to avoid wetlands entirely when
funding actions.
• Illinois EPA administers the 401 certification program and 9 of 102 counties have local
wetland regulatory programs (largely in more developed parts of the state). For the most
part, regulation occurs through the USACE Section 404 program. - McHenry, Lake, Cook,
DuPage, Kane, Will, Kendall, Madison, St. Clair counties have local regulatory programs.
• Most compensatory mitigation is done through mitigation banks - often once the bank is
sold out it is turned over to the State for permanent conservation and management.
IL coordinates with USACE for certification.
Usually, IL defers to USACE's judgement.
One difficulty of the mitigation banks is that they work on a credit system, but don't
necessarily ensure that there is functional equivalence of lost and replaced wetlands.
Monitoring is largely restricted to bank compliance and typically measures, such as
wetland hydrology, vegetation, lack of invasives, etc.
USACE gets this data, IL has no separate database.
No structured assessment of program effectiveness.
0 Once banks are turned over to the state, there is no real long-term monitoring of
function or condition due to lack of staff, funds, and political support.
Historically, Illinois had a well-structured, strategic monitoring program for streams,
wetland and lakes, that used a combination of agency, academic, and citizen science -
program existed for about eight years before falling victim to budget cuts -The program
was called the Critical Trends Assessment Program, which looked at economic and social
factors in addition to natural resource trends.
Currently, no one tracks wetland losses/gains in the state.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
115
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Some nonprofits may on a local level. See the Nature Conservancy, Open Lands,
Chicago Wilderness. These nonprofits can be more effective at land conservation than
the state
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Proposed definition of reference - not reference sites per se, but definitions of what might
comprise reference condition for different wetland classes
Guidelines on indicators and basic protocols that could be included in monitoring programs
Guidance on specific wetland types that should be avoided due to the difficulty in
replacing them, e.g., groundwater dependent wetlands.
Note, guidelines have limited utility because they are not enforceable, or
communities may treat them as rules instead of recognizing that they should not be
applied in all situations
What is really missing is an interpretation framework that helps agencies better
understand how to use monitoring data to infortn decisions. For example, how to determine
when differences are sufficient to trigger action. How to distinguish real effects from noise or
natural variability. What are the appropriate spatial and temporal scales to look at in order
see effects?
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
116
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Iowa
Christine Schwake, Environmental Specialist, Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Claire Hmby, Geologist 3, GIS Section
Jackie Gautsch, Natural Resource Biologist
Nate Hoogeveen, Executive Officer 2, River Program Coordinator
Tim Hall, Hydrology Resources Coordinator
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
January 8, 2018
Iowa does not have independent regulatory authority. They administer the Section 401
certification program in coordination with USACE.
Historically, most mitigation projects were via PRM. More recently, banks have become
more prevalent. However, most of the banks are for wetlands; there is currently one
stream mitigation bank, and several pending.
Iowa is considering development of a state level ILF.
0 Performance standards and monitoring requirements are developed in a project specific
manner - there are no standard conditions used across all projects.
Monitoring data includes vegetation, hydrology, soils and basic (photo) observations.
Paper and electronic reports; if paper, scanned into electronic storage.
The only hard data included are acreage/length of mitigation and vegetation. All
else is narrative.
Reports are available through RIBITS, but raw data is not readily accessible.
Stream data may include bioassessment (bugs and fish) and stream physical habitat
measures.
PRM provides annual report on USACE form.
0 Banks provide semiannual reports. Include more data.
Mitigation monitoring reports go to USACE and the State is sent copies. The State does not
have its own database for tracking mitigation data. State tracks basic administrative
information, but monitoring data is not put into any sort of database that an easily be
accessed (only in project files) - there is also no State GIS for tracking locations of mitigation
sites.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
117
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
0 ILF may have an Excel sheet with cumulative data, but only for the sites they evaluated.
Once completed many mitigation sites are protected in perpetuity through easements that
are held by the local county conservation board and/ or by filing the permit/certification
with the County Recorder's Office. They are responsible for ensuring compliance with the
terms of the easement, but there are no structured field audits of past mitigation sites to
assess long-term performance of the mitigation sites. USACE staff inspect a percentage of
PRM's annually and banks once a year, but it is somewhat ad hoc -there is no separate
auditing/ inspecting/ evaluating of older mitigation sties done by the State.
0 No organized evaluation of program effectiveness.
Iowa has both wetland and stream ambient monitoring programs (two separate programs).
Ambient monitoring sites include probabilistic and targeted, minimally disturbed sites.
0 Currently the ambient monitoring programs are separate from the 401 program, so the
two programs are not leveraged. There is opportunity to use the ambient monitoring
data to provide context (or reference) for mitigation sites, share data through common
indices or incorporate older mitigation sites (legacy sites) into future ambient
monitoring programs - this would help assess the contribution of mitigation sites to
overall wetland or stream condition.
The ambient monitoring program has a database. There is a geospatial base that uses NWI
and NHD. The ambient program also has a second database that tracks water chemistry and
biological data collected as part of the ambient program (but web based data entry capacity
is not currently available).
0 Stream ambient monitoring data is available on the web at Iowa BioNet -
https://programs.iowadnr. gov/b i onet/
Uses EQuiS.
Note, has point-based map, no polygons.
Is helpful for site-by-site analysis, but has no aggregation tool for all sites.
Is an effective option given the budget constraints.
Data can be entered electronically, but all of this is done in-house.
There is no current analogue for making the wetland data readily available.
The state is developing a "river restoration toolbox" of best practices - goal is to
eventually make this web-based.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Guidance on ways to integrate data with federal programs - the timing would coincide with
proposals for new data systems. Improved awareness of ways to connect with other data
systems through open data standards etc.
Data templates and data checkers that could employed "off the shelf."
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
118
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Guidance on ways to select appropriate benchmarks for ecological lift. Recommendations
for ways to gauge ecological success (e.g., based on bioassessment scores). Which
metrics/measures are good choices for measuring success/progress vs. those that are not
expected to change much over the duration of the mitigation project?
For streams, need suggestions for ways to judge geomorphic success. When are reach-scale
vs. watershed scale measures appropriate to use? This may be another opportunity use
ambient monitoring programs to provide data that can help assess watershed scale
condition/ success.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
119
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Louisiana
Karl Morgan and Kelley Templet
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Office of Coastal Management
January 9, 2018
• In Louisiana, the only separate state wetland regulatory program is for coastal wetlands
under the CZMA. The 401 program is administered by the Dept. of Environmental Quality,
but they don't require mitigation separate from what is required by USACE under the 404
program. New Orleans District of the USACE typically does not require mitigation for
stream impacts, so the main state level compensatory mitigation program is under the
CZMA program administered by DNR.
• DNR issues approximately 1500-1800 permits/year. For each project, the Wetland Value
Assessment (WVA) is used to assess the Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHU) lost at the
impact site. Mitigation is required to offset the lost AAHUs. A WVA is also run in order to
assess AAHUs gained for PRMs to verify that the AAHUs lost from the permitted activity
are replaced by the AAHUs gained by the PRM project. Monitoring focuses on documenting
the replacement of lost AAHUs. All WVAs run are reviewed by two DNR staff before
approved.
• In the past, PRM was the predominant source of mitigation. In the past 5-10 years, many
more banks have opened. The state regulations prioritize the use of PRMs, but permittees
typically prefer to use banks. The current requirements for conservation easements on PRM
projects and the requirement for long term monitoring tend to encourage permittees to use
banks as the preferred option.
Monitoring reports are required at years 1, 3, 5,10, and 20 (for forested wetlands,
monitoring may be required up to 50 years). Reports are reviewed by two DNR staff. If
necessary, a field audit is conducted.
0 Few (if any) sites have conservation easements - the sites are typically remote and not
likely to be subject to development. No follow up monitoring of old (legacy) mitigation
sites.
• In addition to WVA scores, monitoring typically includes elevation surveys, acres, percent
cover of vegetation, percent emergent marsh, and photo documentation. Monitoring reports
are not too detailed (don't want too much burden on PRMs). Reports do not have a standard
format.
The state has a database for tracking mitigation projects. It includes scheduling and ticklers
to keep track of what is due on a monthly basis.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
120
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
State tried to develop an electronic field data entry system (on a laptop or tablet), but it
was not successful.
Some difficulty in getting older staff to be able to use it.
Problems getting the system to link to the online database.
Instead, field visits use paper forms.
DNR uses the SONRIS site for storing data and reports http:/ /www.sonris.com/. Reports
are uploaded to the site and associated with the project file. However, the raw data used to
generate the reports and WVA are not stored in any sort of central database. It is, however,
possible to obtain the total AAHUs lost in a given time period. This information also
provides each individual habitat type.
SONRIS provides a GIS-based web access to project locations and basic project
information.
DNR staff upload information provided by the project proponents.
Project proponents can also upload files to their projects and staff are sent a notification
when a new file is uploaded so they can review and approve uploads.
System includes capability for (limited) batch download of data (data dumps).
Database that supports SONRIS is ORACLE with an ArcGIS front end.
Custom configuration, maintained by DNR IT staff.
Data includes permit number, applicant, size, photos, and type of wetland.
0 Minimal QA/ QC, mostly field filtering.
The state does not do any sort of routine programmatic assessment of effectiveness - there
are no resources for this type of assessment. The state is currently evaluating different
assessment methodologies under a NOAA grant.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Tools or guidance on developing tracking systems - this is the most valuable part of the
Louisiana data management system
Examples of good quantitative standards to assess mitigation success
Audit both banks and permittee-responsible mitigation sites
Recommendations for how to deal with the problem of transient permittees. Legal entity
responsible for the mitigation may dissolve after a specific time; nobody to hold accountable
for the mitigation site
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
121
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Maryland
Kelly Neff
Maryland Department of the Environment
Wetlands and Waterways Program, Mitigation and Technical Assistance Section, Chief
December 22, 2017
Maryland produced a program evaluation in 2007 that included recommendations for
improving mitigation monitoring and performance evaluation. Several improvements have
been made based on the recommendations in this document; however, regulatory changes
and increased budget/ staffing would be required to implement all changes:
Following up on a project earlier in the process.
Requiring performance bonds earlier and to be maintained through monitoring.
Changes in the design requirements - for signs to reduce encroachment and required
soil amendments.
Requiring payment into a compensation fund or bank prior to permit issuance.
0 Requiring that monitoring include testing for presence of anaerobic soils.
State program consists mainly of site-based evaluation vs. structured program effectiveness
assessment.
Data comes from project proponents and their consultants. State staff verify all sites at
least once through routine site visits.
In rare cases, certain projects (e.g., stream restorations, projects involving rare or unique
resources) may be independently assessed by the State Resources Agency.
Some coordination with other programs on individual projects, but no programmatic
connections to other state monitoring and assessment programs.
The mitigation permittee or sponsor completes monitoring in the form of area gained
compared to losses, basic plant community measures, soils, and hydrology. If wetland
mitigation sites have more specific goals (e.g., for habitat of RTE species), the monitoring
and performance standards will be adjusted accordingly. Stream mitigation projects
generally have monitoring and performance standards tied to project goals.
MDE also completes a rapid scoring method developed by the State. This method used
by MDE staff as part of their assessment of program effectiveness (i.e., not really used
for project evaluation.
Few wetland mitigation sites include measures of function, wildlife use, etc., but MDE
staff do a qualitative evaluation of functions.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
122
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
0 State produces an annual synthesis of gains and losses for internal use, but not a routine
program evaluation report that is made more broadly available.
Maryland has developed a template for required mitigation bank performance standards,
which is also being used for PRM. Maryland is working with some mitigation bankers to
evaluate how these standards should be adjusted to better reflect desirable site conditions.
Maryland is encouraging permittee-responsible mitigation projects to use those standards as
appropriate. This equivalency standard will be better clarified through an SOP that is
currently being developed.
0 Monitoring and performance standards are on MDE website:
http://mde.maryland.gov/programsAVaterAVetlandsandWaterwavs/AboutWetlands/Pages
/miti gati onb anks. aspx
0 The PRM standards are located at
https://mde.marvland.gov/programs/Water/WetlandsandWaterwavs/AboutWetlands/Page
s/permitteeresponsmiti gati on. aspx)
Additional information is available on their general mitigation website:
http://mde.marvland.gov/programs/Water/WetlandsandWaterwavs/AboutWetlands/Pages
/miti gati on. aspx
Tracking is done through a state-specific database of gains and losses. Data is being
migrated over to a custom data management system called TEMPO - which is available for
internal use only. It is not readily accessible to other agencies or to the public, i.e., no web
services.
TEMPO was custom built, migrating data from the old database system (RAMS).
However, relatively little mitigation data was located in RAMS, since it wasn't built for
that type of data. Most of the detailed mitigation data was in a separate database (Access
based), which was not migrated over. TEMPO tracks acreage gains at mitigation sites vs.
losses at impact sites.
Sites tracked as lat/long. It would be helpful to find a way to include polygons, which
may be done in the future.
Working to connect TEMPO to e-permitting system to improve automated data
reporting.
The e-permitting system is still in its early stages.
In the meantime, data is only publicly accessible through Public Information Access
requests.
Desire to add additional indicators of function/condition (see above).
Need resources to try and get historical data into TEMPO.
Most important data to grab would be site location (county, watershed, etc.) and
information on impacts and gains. Need to improve data QA and data checking
functions of TEMPO.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
123
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
QA/QC currently consists mainly of limiting choices through the use of dropdown
lists.
Data must be entered manually, no remote access from the field.
0 Data may include files or photos.
In response to a question on what the Maryland program does well, Kelly suggested that
their "to do" list function has great potential to help track information and provide
reminders of deadlines, due dates, etc.
Can be sorted in various ways.
Is internal to TEMPO, does not link to Outlook or other mail clients (as far as I know).
MD also has some good performance standards (e.g., for presence of anaerobic soil).
0 These may be updated soon though as we see how effective they are at capturing site
success.
Mitigation data locations (points) is also uploaded to the watershed resources registry -
http://watershedresourcesregistry.com/. Bank service areas and site polygons will also be
added shortly. Data from mitigation banks may be added to USACE's RIBITS system.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Registry of reference wetlands and data associated with those sites.
Tools that can provide an easy way for users to provide GIS polygons vs. points in standard
way that can be readily error checked.
Some standard templates for monitoring data/indicators.
Standardized performance standards.
Improved design standards.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
124
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Massachusetts
Lisa Rhodes
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Wetlands Program, Manager of Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment
January 10, 2018
Massachusetts' state law, the Wetland Protection Act, requires permits and 1:1 mitigation
for all wetland impacts that exceed specified guidelines and standards. Permits are typically
issued by local jurisdictions (local Conservation Commissions). State DEP will rule on local
appeals, and also issue permits for "variance" projects that don't meet basic standards due
to size (e.g., > 5,000 s.f. of impacts) + meet the overriding public interest criteria + No
Alternative.
0 Local permits often contain § 401 Water Quality Certification.
Wetland Protection Act expresses a preference for on-site permittee responsible mitigation
(PRM). There are no mitigation banks in MA. They were tried in the 1990s, but did not take
hold, due to:
Concern that use of banks would discourage avoidance and minimization.
0 Hard to administer because use of banks would require mitigation in different
jurisdictions, which is challenging in a program that is based on implementation at the
local jurisdiction level.
Mitigation criteria:
Compensation surface area shall be equal to lost area.
Groundwater and surface elevation shall be similar to lost area.
Horizontal configuration with respect to bank similar to lost area.
Unrestricted hydraulic connection to same waterway or body as lost area.
Same general area or reach of waterway or body as lost area.
0 75% surface shall be reestablished with indigenous wetland plant species within two
growing seasons.
Mitigation monitoring is administered separately by the local conservation commissions for
normal projects and the State DEP for appeals and the variance projects. Variance projects
have rigorous monitoring requirements.
Monitoring requirements vary by jurisdiction, some don't require monitoring, others
don't enforce requirements.
Reports are varied, and agency staff may conduct field audits, if necessary.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
125
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
No easy way to combine monitoring data from local jurisdictions and DEP.
Monitoring reports stay with the project file - no central database.
LCC's often use paper files.
The state DEP has worked with U. of Mass Amherst to study the effectiveness of the
wetland mitigation program by looking at data from a series of randomly selected towns
(done in 1998 and again in 2012-2016 (pending release)).
4,718 files reviewed for projects filed between 2004 and 2007 - to allow time for
mitigation sites to be established and mature.
Of the files reviewed, 176 projects required wetland replacement (creation) which was
the subject of the study.
Due to landowner access issues, the team was only able to review 91 wetland
replacement sites.
86% of sites were actually implemented (built) - those 79 sites were evaluated for
vegetation, soils, and hydrology.
65% of the 79 sites created a wetland - the 35% that failed were due mainly to poor
hydrology.
70% met the required size, less met all the performance standards.
39/91 sites were built, were wetlands, and were large enough (i.e., met size criteria).
MA also has a wetland monitoring and assessment program.
Statewide mapping of wetlands - very intensive.
Updated maps based on 2005 imagery recently completed.
Working with U. Mass, Amherst on developing monitoring and assessment tools.
Landscape assessment models.
Level 2/3 assessment tools - used to calibrate landscape assessment models.
Developed a plant IBI for forested wetlands, working on shrub swamps and salt marsh.
0 Testing assessment methods using a rotating basin/catchment approach.
MA has used monitoring and assessment program data to help interpret/understand
mitigation monitoring results.
Identified indirect impacts through monitoring and assessment program that can be
addressed through regulatory requirements.
Incorporate tools from monitoring and assessment program into compensatory
mitigation monitoring (e.g., Veg. IBI).
0 Compared forested wetland mitigation Vegetation IBIs associated with variance projects
to landscape level data - typically conditions at variance project mitigation sites were
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
126
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
found to be within acceptable ranges for ecological integrity, but the results did raise
questions about whether vegetation based IBI's are the best tool to evaluate mitigation
areas that have been built using nursery stock and seed mixes. More research is needed.
• The state has no real mitigation tracking system for data collection/ management, etc. and
no standardized reporting templates - but there are many experienced practitioners who
tend to use fairly consistent approaches.
The state has a map-based viewing system that allows projects to be accessed and see
location. System will indicate if there is mitigation associated with the project, but the actual
data is not available through the system.
Individual conservation commissions can enter data to the system to track basic project
information.
State Environmental Information Management folks are updating all of Massachusetts'
data management systems, so the current system may become obsolete.
Data includes Name, Applicant, Location, Type, Resource Impacts, and whether
mitigation was required.
Data comes from 1) applicant (electronically), 2) Local Conservation Commission, or 3) State
Agency (uploaded by staff).
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Data templates, data structures, simple databases that can help states manage data better
Common understanding of success and criteria for evaluating success for different
mitigation strategies. For example, what criteria should be used to evaluate success for
preservation vs. success for restoration.
As an illustration: Is 1 acre of successful wetland creation the equivalent of 1 acre of
preservation? If you use the USACE ratios for mitigation such as preservation, more
acres of preservation are needed for the equivalent of 1 acre of impact. But in many cases
a fee is calculated for in-lieu fee. That fee may go into a larger pot for purchase of a
parcel (funded by many sources). How much credit is given for the actual parcel
purchased if only a portion is funded by the in-lieu fee? In summary, what is the
equivalent of 1 acre of successful wetland creation if the mitigation is restoration,
enhancement or preservation? To get a common answer regionally or nationally this
question should be addressed.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
127
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Michigan
Amy hounds, Michael Pennington, Bethany Matousek:
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams Program
January 11, 2018
Michigan is one of two states that has state assumption of the Section 404 program.
Michigan's Wetlands and Inland Lakes and Streams Statutes provide Michigan's authority
to administer the 404 program.
State program is administered independent of the federal agencies - USEPA has
oversight and provides input on large projects (only about 2% of total permits).
0 In instances where state assumption is not allowed (Great Lakes coastal areas) - the State
and Federal programs are parallel and USACE and state permits are required.
The state had developed standard permit conditions and mitigation requirements.
Stream mitieation proeram (more recent than wetland mitigation program) has
developed standard monitoring and performance standards based on Will Harman's
stream pyramid concepts. Monitoring is required for five or more years. Standard
performance standards (and monitoring) include:
Floodplain connectivity.
Bank migration and lateral stability.
Large woody debris.
Riparian buffer - size and vegetation quality.
The state is developing a spreadsheet tool in collaboration with Will Harman, called the
Stream Quantification Tool, to quantify conditions based on these indicators and
facilitate data compilation.
Wetlands mitigation program (has been around for longer) includes standard indicators
for soil, hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife.
Standard vegetation worksheet (linked to master plant list) and mitigation plan and
monitoring report templates to improve consistency.
Working on an ArcGIS data collector to improve consistency, ease and quality of
data collection. Ultimately hope to link this to the state data management system.
Guidance on siting mitigation in a watershed context and better replacement of
impacted functions.
Standard documents for conservation easements, long term management,
stewardship agreements and endowments.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
128
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Require financial assurances (e.g., letter of credit or bond) for mitigation
requirements.
State has a Landscape-level Functional Assessment that addresses landscape and watershed
function and allows investigation of functions based on impacted systems compared to
landscape functions where mitigation has been done.
0 http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/wetlands/
0 https://www.michigan.gOv/deq/0.4561.7-135-3313 3687-10332—.00.html
Michigan has regional monitoring program (ambient assessment) for streams, and a
wetland monitoring program to look at overall status and trends at three different levels
(i.e., landscape level, rapid, and intensive site assessment). This includes watershed-based
assessment of trends in function (using the landscape level functional assessment method).
They are also updating NWI.
State is planning to use status and trends/ ambient data to inform refinement of
monitoring requirements and performance standards.
0 The stream quantification tools will be used through the regional monitoring programs
to assess overall program success and revise requirements based on the results of the
assessment.
Past studies of long-term success of mitigation have focused more on regulatory success
than ecological success.
PRMs don't typically have long-term monitoring and management associated with
them.
0 Mitigation banks and preservation sites are required to have perpetual monitoring via
an endowment.
Michigan's MiWaters web site - https:/ /miwaters.deq.state.mi.us/ - is a central repository
for information from all "aquatic programs", e.g., stream and wetland programs, water
quality (402), floodplain protection etc.
Custom developed application.
Has a GIS viewer.
Includes a joint permit for 404, floodplain protection, critical dunes, Great Lakes, high
risk erosion, dam safety, etc.
Permittees can submit information electronically to MiWaters (with an account). Once a
permit is issued, the system generates a compliance schedule, tracks easements,
including ticklers and tasking to both the permittees and agency staff. Mitigation
information is associated with the permit location.
Includes rules and data checkers to address QC issues.
Database is largely accessible to public - addresses many Public Records Act/FOIA
request.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
129
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
No easy way for bulk download of data.
Working on developing standard reports and queries from the database. Data
synthesis tools still need to be more fully developed.
Old data was migrated in, but with errors.
Student is currently fixing.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
130
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Minnesota
Ken Powell and Tim Smith
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
January 4, 2018
• Minnesota has independent regulatory authority under the State Wetland Conservation Act.
The state program largely mirrors USACE's 404 program but has broader jurisdiction. State
and Federal programs coordinate on development of performance standards and
monitoring requirements. Because MN has a state wetland regulatory program, the 401-
certification program is less significant (i.e., not as big of a driver as it is in other states).
Wetland programs are administered by three agencies in Minnesota:
Department of Natural Resources - Wetland Status and Trends.
Minnesota Board or Water & Soil Resources - State Wetland Conservation Act.
0 Pollution Control Agency - 401 Water Quality Certification Program.
Due to geographic diversity, no one performance standard is used throughout the state. All
mitigation sites are independently assessed by a technical evaluation panel of wetland
experts annually for performance relative to standards in the permit as required by law, and
as a follow up to reports provided by project proponents. Data from assessments primarily
includes photographs, water levels, veg composition, etc. In addition, annual monitoring
reports are required for all mitigation projects (banks and PRM sites). Monitoring results are
used to inform credit release at banks (which typically occurs over about 5 yrs). Currently,
monitoring reports are kept with the project files - MN does not currently have a main database
for compiling mitigation monitoring data in a readily accessible digital format. Reports may not be in
a standard format.
Reports are not publicly accessible unless specifically requested.
Mitigation bank locations (currently around 400 banks) are mapped in a GIS system with
basic info, including some general information on the impact sites (Sec. Township, Range)
that purchased credits from each bank. The State incentivizes the use of banks over PRM.
Readily accessible aerial imagery facilitates basic landscape scale evaluations.
0 Currently use ESRI ArcGIS online with standard format requirements for shapefiles.
The state used to track wetland gains and losses based on permitted impacts and mitigation
at over 300 local government units. However, this approach was deemed less than desirable
because many changes in wetland extent may not be captured through this accounting (e.g.,
exempt activities). Now the state uses their probabilistic wetland status and trends program
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
131
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
as a better way to account for overall gains and losses. Based on their experience, they
recommend the following for Module 2 of our guidelines document:
A more modest and realistic goal for module 2 would be to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of compensatory mitigation in providing high quality, high functioning
wetlands. This could be assessed by comparing indicators of function and condition for
compensatory mitigation sites with other reference wetlands on the landscape. In reality,
most programs use replacement ratios to establish wetland quantity requirements for
compensatory mitigation, so as long as the program uses those requirements, then it is
easy to document impact amount and mitigation amount in terms of acres. What is
typically missing in program evaluations is data/information on the condition and
functional level of compensatory mitigation as compared to some type of reference
wetland. Trying to make conclusions about program effectiveness beyond this level of
comparison is a stretch when just looking at impact and mitigation sites alone.
0 The state is currently working on a study (USEPA program development grant) that in
part is being used to assess the long-term condition of compensatory mitigation sites in
relation to a set of reference wetlands. The study also couples information from the
status and trends program with information from mitigation banks to better understand
how banks contribute to status and trends .
The state holds conservation easements on all banks. They conduct basic monitoring of
compliance with conditions of the easement every five years. The basic evaluation is GIS
based using imagery. If the basic assessments reveal potential issues of concern, there may
be a follow up field visit. For example, last year 100 sites were subject to the basic
assessment; follow up field assessments were conducted at 20-30 sites.
There is current project funded under 104 that is using a FQAI to assess condition at
these older sites to determine long-term performance/success.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Standard data templates and data entry approaches - it is a challenge to get data from files
into a readily accessible online data system where it can be used for performance
evaluations. Off-the-shelf database structures and guidance regarding how to set up data in
formats that make readily standardized.
Guidance on what kinds of variables should be measured under different circumstances.
For example, condition vs. function indicators or recommended indicators that can be used
to gauge success for different wetland types and different landscape settings.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
132
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Missouri
Stacia Bax
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
January 3, 2018
Missouri does not have its own separate wetlands program beyond administering 401 water
quality certifications. USACE typically takes the lead on wetland permitting in the state.
Staff from the DNR do participate on mitigation bank IRTs.
Most mitigation in the state is through mitigation banks. In lieu fee programs exist to
cover mitigation where there are no banks. There are very few off-site permittee
responsible mitigation sites; those that do occur are poorly tracked.
Banking has been in place since the 90's/2000's.
0 Onsite mitigation is usually only required when the party has already damaged the
wetland (without any permits).
• Monitoring consists of permit mandated monitoring which is conducted by permittees
and/ or bankers. Monitoring reports are submitted to USACE and the State DNR for review.
There is no independent monitoring or auditing mechanism conducted by the state.
• Performance monitoring typically consists of vegetation criteria (e.g., percent survival, plant
density), some hydrologic monitoring and occasional soils assessment. The state does have a
stream and wetland condition assessment method that is used to help establish and adjust
credits and debits at banks (the method is based on the Charleston District Method).
• Monitoring is conducted for the life of the bank (typically 3-10 years urban areas and 10-20
years in rural areas). Once the bank is sold out, the IRT will conduct a final review of
condition. No subsequent or ongoing assessments are conducted once the bank is closed out.
However, the data collected during the life of the bank may provide some information on long-term
ecological condition of mitigation sites.
The state does not have its own mitigation database or tracking system. Monitoring
information is largely located in project files. Tracking consists mainly of basic accounting,
such as the number of actions taken, number of site visits, etc.
0 The state had a minimal database in 2009, but doesn't use it any longer
Biggest impediments to state programs are:
Lack of staff - 1.5 FTE to administer the entire 401 program
Lack of access to USACE or USEPA data systems (i.e., ORM and DARTER)
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
133
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Inconsistency between USACE districts - the state is covered by five USACE districts (in
three different divisions). Different levels of expertise and experience between the
districts result in inconsistent approaches across the state
0 IT is statewide, making it difficult for the department to get attention
The state's Water Resources Center (through the State Geologic Survey) collects data on
wetlands located on public lands. They monitor hydrology and climate data and have/are
developing assessment indices (e.g., IB I, FQAI). Information and tools developed as part of
this program could be leveraged for mitigation evaluation. For example, data could be used
as reference or comparison sites for mitigation banks. Assessment tools developed through
these programs could be incorporated into mitigation monitoring. Wetland water quality
standards could be incorporated into performance standards for wetlands.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Recommendations for monitoring approaches and performance evaluation methods that
could improve consistency across projects
Checklist of items to be included in routine assessments
Recommended monitoring endpoints
Improved access to existing data management systems and GIS data, potentially through
web services or open data access
Web-based or off the shelf data management tools that could help get data from project files
to a queryable database (with ticklers to help keep track of deadlines and due dates)
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
134
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
New Jersey
Susan Lockzvood
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Land Use Regulation
January 19, 2018
New Jersey is one of two states (besides Michigan) to have state assumption of the 404
program.
The state Mitigation program has been in existence since 1990. The State has had a
freshwater wetland protection program since 1988 (law passed in 1987 with
implementation beginning in 1988). New Jersey obtained assumption of the Federal 404
program in 1994.
The NJDEP applies its wetland program to all areas of the State of New Jersey. In areas
where state assumption applies, NJ DEP is solely responsible for all aspects of permit
review including mitigation and monitoring. In non-assumed areas of the state, New
Jersey shares that responsibility with the USACE.
0 In New Jersey, assumption does not apply in coastal wetland areas, because the Federal
law and rules on assumption do not allow a State to assume wetlands that are tidally
flowed, or adjacent to tidally flowed waters. Therefore, in those areas (in NJ this
includes wetlands and waters along the Atlantic Coast in the east and along the
Delaware River to the west), the State applies its State program but the USACE also
continues to apply the Federal 404 program. The State reviews proposed Mitigation
Bank projects in non-assumed areas together with the Federal agencies, as one member
of the Interagency Review Team process (IRT) as established in the Federal regulations.
For non-bank mitigation projects in non-assumed areas, the State and USACE operate
independently under their own respective laws. However, New Jersey works to
coordinate with the USACE on issues like mitigation so that an applicant can satisfy
both USACE and the State with the same mitigation project.
• State law provides for development of tools to support program implementation.
Application of these tools occurs via joint coordination with USACE.
Monitoring requirements usually follow standard USACE monitoring guidelines - largely
derived from Wilmington (North Carolina) District.
0 Most mitigation projects require 5 years of monitoring.
Most monitoring is done by permittees / bankers. The state staff conduct audits and site
inspections to ensure compliance. The state currently is working on updating their
monitoring requirements to better reflect actual site condition/ function.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
135
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
NJ had an older (not very functional) database. They currently have a Section 104 grant from
USEPA to update their database. Old permit files are being manually entered into the new
database, documents are being digitized, and geospatial information is being added. Together these
new data will provide the capability for the state to conduct more comprehensive programmatic
assessments.
This will help guard against new projects being proposed on the location of prior
mitigation sites - currently, there is no easy way to prevent this from happening.
New data system is NOT easily compatible with RIBITS.
To date, there have been no programmatic big picture evaluations of the mitigation
program's performance. However, the new database will position the state to be able to
do these assessments.
An earlier assessment in the 1990s found generally poor performance of compensatory
mitigation. This report led to upgrades to the program in terms of increased
requirements, better standards, and more staff.
Database allows for setting deadlines, but does not automatically send reminders to staff
and does not track projects with ticklers.
Database includes information on approved plans, but does not include all collected
data.
QA/QC is performed through personal review of files (x2).
0 No remote or electronic entry into database, but permittees use standardized forms.
Once mitigation standards are met, long-term stewardship is done by a state agency or a
conservation entity with some sort of an easement. However, there are no State provisions
for ongoing long-term monitoring of legacy sites.
o The exception is a series of sites in the Meadowlands portion of the state, where
there is long-term data available on older bank sites.
NJ has an ambient monitoring program. However, there is little communication between
that program and the wetland regulatory program. BUT, if the ambient monitoring program
identifies high quality (Category 1) waterbodies, that can trigger extra regulatory
protections.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Example monitoring protocols and ways to assess monitoring data in statistically
appropriate ways - pitfalls to be aware of in terms of how data analysis can be misused.
Methods that allow sites to be looked at more holistically in the context of watershed
condition.
Guidelines on monitoring time frames
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
136
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Examples of how to write clearly defined goals of the mitigation project and for the
mitigation plan with quantifiable and measurable performance standards to measure
whether they have been met.
Suggestions on how to view a mitigation site comprehensively, and how to translate that
into success criteria. For example, if a site has a target goal as a forested wetland, and the
applicant plants one-year old seedlings, and annually conducts a "woody stem count,"
is it reasonable to declare the site a successful wooded wetland after 5 years when none
of the woody plants have escaped the herbaceous layer to reach the tree or shrub layer?
Technically, the site MAY turn into a wooded wetland, but it also may not since the
woody vegetation is so small that it has yet to outcompete the herbaceous layer and may
not ever.
Specific guidance on vegetation-based performance standards
An action threshold for invasive species. Currently New Jersey allows a final
composition of up to 10% invasive species. We think it may be too high and that perhaps
there ought to be a lower "action" threshold.
Suggested methods for measuring the presence of invasive species. For example, they
should be characterized on a sitewide basis and displayed spatially to illustrate
estimated overall percent coverage.
Discussion of monocultures. If there is a site where native species have volunteered but
they have formed monocultures effectively eliminating all the original, more diverse
plantings, is this desirable, and should the site be considered "successful" simply by
virtue of the fact that the species are native?
Guidelines on when monitoring should commence. If plants are planted in the spring,
can you/should you monitor that same fall and call it "one year" of monitoring.
When monitoring vegetation, methods of evaluating and reporting on each vegetative
stratum. For example,
The herbaceous layer - all vegetation less than 1.5ft in height
The shrub layer - Woody vegetation 1.5 to 3ft in height
The tree layer - Woody vegetation above 3ft in height. Perhaps there should be a
DBH and height requirement before signoff if someone is selling forested wetland
mitigation credits.
Suggestions and perhaps compare and contrast using a plot-based system of monitoring,
vs. transects in terms of how that may affect or skew data.
Suggestions on the percentage of a site that should be monitored as representational.
Should it be 5% of a site? 30%?
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
137
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
North Carolina
Mac Haupt -North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Todd Tugwell & Andrea Hughes - US ACE, Wilmington District
January 5, 2018
North Carolina coordinates closely with the USACE District. Historically most mitigation
occurred through I LFs, which are managed through the State's Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). In recent years, mitigation banks have become more prominent. The
amount of mitigation provided by banks now eclipses the amount of mitigation provided by
the ILF program (DMS); there are very few PRMs. The IRT processes banks and ILF projects
in the same manner. DMS provides a website for their projects and provides some oversight
but the IRT is still in charge of reviews/approvals.
The state has developed mitigation guidelines for both wetlands and streams (available on
the Wilmington District RIBITS page) that provide monitoring recommendations — these are
enforced by the IRT and required for mitigation banks and the ILF program. Annual
monitoring includes the following types of indicators:
Vegetation data - growth, vigor, survival.
Photo documentation.
Hydrology data (e.g., wells).
Groundwater gauges for wetlands.
In stream gauges for documentation of overbank (bankfull) events, typically
pressure transducers are best, sometimes they just put a crest gauge which uses
sawdust.
Bank stability and floodplain connectivity (for stream mitigation).
0 Some benthic invertebrate assessments and water quality - not for all sites.
ILF and bank sites also include a watershed-scale assessment component.
Monitoring data from ILFs is housed/ managed by DMS. For banks, monitoring data is in
annual reports and kept with the project file - there is no online database/ repository for
banks as there is for ILFs. To date, there has been no attempt to combine or consolidate bank
and ILF monitoring data.
There is no mandate (and therefore no easy mechanism) to develop a standard,
consolidated database.
DMS currently has a web portal for vegetation monitoring data that provides a way for
electronic data entry, management, and access.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
138
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Ideally there would an analogous portal for other types of monitoring data (e.g.,
hydrology), but that has not been developed at this time.
Other DMS databases (note, none are consolidated together DMS is working on linking
these data streams through their Customer Relationship Management system):
Geospatial.
Hydrological.
Stream (almost completed).
Credits.
The standard monitoring period is seven years. The DMS QA/QCs the monitoring reports
and DENR/IRT reviews and approves all mitigation and conducts an independent review
of performance at the site/bank level.
The state does not conduct any regular program evaluation or effectiveness assessment
(although it would be a good idea) - there are no staff or resources for this.
Annual reports by DMS.
Periodic academic study of the program - last one was in 2013.
0 Compilation of data to conduct a program evaluation would be difficult because of data
discrepancies (e.g., different ways of measuring stream length) - no current mechanism for
automated data checking or QC to make synthesis easier (and more meaningful).
Once projects are completed the State Stewardship Program is responsible for ensuring
long-term protection. There are other stewardship programs that are utilized, some of these
include local land conservancies or other privately managed land conservation groups.
They need to be approved by the IRT. There may be occasional or ad-hoc review of some
sites, but there is no systematic ongoing assessment of older sites to assess long-term
success/condition.
There is interest, but currently no resources, for assessment of legacy project.
0 Some discussion of ways to incorporate older projects into periodic regional or national
assessments.
The DMS has a CRM system for data management. It includes monitoring data, basic permit
data, information on impact sites, and financial data. It is connected to a geospatial database
for project locations - there is no current analogue for mitigation banks.
Credit tracking is done separately.
Data is available in reports and upon request, but no publicly accessible web-based data
query system - Geospatial/ GIS data is available via web interface, but not monitoring
data (at this time).
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
139
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Basic monitoring metrics and methods that all are required to utilize. These could be set up
by anybody (state, federal, academics) but should be approved by the District IRT. It is
likely more practical for the specifics to be done at the state level, but within general
guidelines. There will always be a need to balance this with cost considerations.
Tools and methods that provide the ability to import data into a database from the
beginning. Also, having the ability to modify the database based on changes in restoration
practices overtime.
Recommendations for project-level criteria that can be used to gauge success, especially for
streams.
Data collection and assimilation tools better ways to compile and reconcile different
sources of data.
Guidance on how to assess watershed condition and contribution of mitigation projects to
watershed condition.
Metrics and monitoring recommendations for how to synthesize results from numerous
projects to gauge the uplift at the catchment scale - possibility for some sort of
catchment mitigation units.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
140
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Ohio
Mick Micacchion
Wetland Ecologist, Senior Research Associate, Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Formerly of Ohio EPA, PWS
January 17, 2018
Ohio has independent regulatory authority under its own wetland (and isolated waters)
statute. The statute differentiates protections/demonstrations needed and mitigation ratios
based on wetland size and quality. Ohio also reviews Section 401 WQCs and some isolated
wetland permits (higher quality isolated wetlands) using a set of rules (Ohio Administrative
Code 3745-50 to 54), known as Ohio's Wetland Water Quality Standards. The Wetland
Antidegradation Rule (OAC 3745-54) provides standards for three categories of wetlands
and the different levels of protection and the demonstrations needed to receive a permit to
impact them. The Antidegradation Rule also includes language on how and where
compensatory wetland mitigation will be performed and specifies the mitigation ratios (1.5
to 3.0) for different categories of wetlands Historically, there was a lot of PRM, but over the
past 10 years the majority of mitigation is done through banks. ILFs are also becoming a lot
more common as another option (in addition to banks).
The state has invested heavily over the years in developing quantitative assessment tools,
such as their vegetative IBI and amphibian IBI based on robust data sets of natural wetlands
across gradients of disturbance. They also have a rapid assessment method (ORAM) that
has been around since the early 2000s. The biological indices are used to set quantifiable
performance standards for mitigations sites/banks. ORAM is only used to assess natural
wetlands and not compensatory wetland mitigation projects. Many of the metrics and
submetrics in ORAM evaluate the intactness/ disturbance levels of the wetland. Recent
disturbances associated with compensatory mitigation construction activities leads to low
scores, if evaluated correctly, on these metrics and an overall low ORAM score. Therefore,
the level 2 ORAM is not appropriate and level 3 IBIs and other quantifiable performance
goals are used.
• The state has also invested heavily in developing distinct and specific guidance for different
types of mitigation (e.g., PRM, banks) and different types of sites, that include things like
site selection, what to monitor, when, how, etc.
The availability and use of biological indices and guidance to provide consistent,
quantitative standards for mitigation has been one of the keys to the success of the Ohio
program because it provides clear structure for the program to operate. (Mack et al. 2004).
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
141
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Monitoring data is provided via paper reports- there are automated spreadsheets available
for calculating the I Bis, to reduce errors. The monitoring reports are associated with the
project file.
The paper reports are largely standardized.
Some QA/ QC is built into the automated spreadsheets, as they give error messages
when data is not entered correctly, and further calculations are not possible.
Off-site data entry was tested several years ago, but software reliability issues led to staff
reverting back to the use of paper forms - (same is true for 2016 NWCA).
Mitigation monitoring data is not readily accessible to the public (has to be requested),
i.e., no online system to access monitoring data or results.
0 Paper files are stored for 5-10 years, then archived off-site.
The state has a database to track the administrative aspects of mitigation projects, but there
is no database for tracking the monitoring data - it is still largely associated with individual
projects through reports vs. a central database. Bank and ILF reports and other information
are posted on RIBITS.
Database is organized by permit number or bank name.
0 Data is often in Excel files - especially true for data collected on natural and mitigation
wetlands that were part of studies funded by USEPA Wetland Program Development
Grants. This information has been used by many others for a broad range of reasons.
Bank sponsors or their consultants perform monitoring of wetlands and submit data in
reports to the Ohio IRT. Bank performance is independently audited through Ohio EPA and
IRT, through site visits and at times Ohio EPA sampling. Credits are not released unless
performance standards are met
The Ohio IRT is strong and serves to help ensure required performance standards are
met.
No good mechanism for cataloguing specific data that may be produced through
monitoring or auditing.
0 Banks monitored periodically, primarily using agency scientists assisted by summer
interns to do field sampling visits - Ohio EPA has a wetland mitigation coordinator
whose job is to assure compensatory mitigation is meeting permit
conditions/ performance standards and wetland ecologists who monitor compensatory
mitigation when the studies are funded by a Wetland Program Development grant.
Ohio's Wetland Ecology Group does conduct probabilistic assessments of mitigation sites in
order to report on overall program performance. They are also conducting a watershed
study to better understand how natural and mitigation wetlands affect watershed condition.
Conducted a study of 32 bank wetlands in 2003 and 2004 using level 3 tools and found
extremely low levels of performance (Mack and Micacchion 2006).
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
142
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Conducted probabilistic study of permittee-responsible sites across the state in 2007 and
again found extremely low levels of performance (Micacchion et al. 2010).
Ohio conducted an intensification of the 2011 NWCA that allowed them to report on
state-level status and trends (Gara and Schumacher 2015, NWCA Intensification).
0 Watershed studies or probabilistic chosen wetlands in the Cuyahoga River watershed
and urban central Ohio wetlands have been performed using level 1, 2, and 3 assessment
tools. (Fennessy et al. 2007(Cuyahoga Report), Mack and Micacchion 2007 (L919, Vol. 1),
Grody et al. 2007 (L919, Vol. 2), and Micacchion and Gara 2008 (L919, Vol. 3).
Long-term stewardship is generally done on a bank by bank basis. No additional
monitoring is typically required (to minimize additional burdens on the stewards). Once
banks are signed off on, the conservation entity is relied upon for long-term management;
there is no formal follow up by the state
One exception is 30 sites in the Lake Erie drainage that were monitored by Midwest
Biodiversity Institute in 2011 under contract with USEPA using NWCA and Ohio
methods (2012 Great Lakes Basin Evaluation of Compensation Sites Report, Micacchion
and Kirkeby). The same sites were monitored again in 2017 for USEPA using a different
contractor (document pending: Great Lakes Basin Compensation Sites: Lake Erie Basin
Ree valuation).
Banks usually aren't closed until long-term success seems certain or all credits have been
released. (Ohio IRT 2011).
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Examples or recommendations for how to use monitoring data to improve program
performance. Examples of what adaptive management at the program level would look like.
Example performance standards along with a discussion of the relationship of ecological
function to the traditional community-based measures of condition that are more commonly
used for monitoring and assessment.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
143
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Washington (state)
Dana Mock, Lauren Driscoll, Amy Yahnke, and Patricia Johnson
Washington Department of Ecology
January 22, 2018
Has § 401 authority.
Ecology tracks mitigation for projects that were issued under a 401 water quality
certification.
Many projects fall under Nationwide Permits, which are not tracked by Ecology.
Also regulate wetlands not under Federal Authority (isolated wetlands, prior converted
croplands that meet wetland criteria).
These wetlands are tracked under the same project.
Local jurisdictions can also have requirements.
E.g., requiring mitigation within their jurisdiction.
Not necessarily bound by watershed, just the physical limits of the city/county.
Majority sites are PRM, has banks and ILF as well.
-250 active PRM currently tracked.
About 50 active projects have used banks or ILF.
17 approved banks; 4 currently under review.
Encouraging more banks, because they are considered to have less risk than PRM.
But permittees suggest the mitigation they'd like to use, Ecology cannot require a
particular method.
Ecology generally follows preference hierarchy of USACE.
Performance Standards are unique to project.
Some are usually required for all projects, but agencies can only comment on the
permittee's proposal.
Ecology can add specific performance standards as conditions to the permit (401 water
quality certification) if necessary.
Guidance on performance standards is provided in an Interagency Wetland Mitigation
Guidance document.
Long-term.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
144
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Most PRM are simply closed.
Banks and ILF do have long-term requirements, but none have gotten to that point yet.
Monitoring is typically lOyrs, some are 5yrs for emergent wetlands, some are longer for
more complex projects.
Conservation Easements have grantees, who may act as long-term stewards.
• Site Visit Form.
The form itself doesn't go into the database.
Form is saved in the project/site file.
Sites are visited by Ecology staff ~3x during the site's lifetime.
• Monitoring Reports.
These also go into project files, not the database.
Currently, permittees cannot electronically file their reports [in a way that connects the
data to the permit database].
Permit Database.
Database goes back to 2004.
Early system included far more data, but required too much personnel time to enter
that data and would crash/not save entered data.
Custom software, built by contractor based in Portland + India.
Permit Database was rebuilt in 2014/15.
This one records minimal info.
Permit No.
Applicant Info/Contact Info.
Impact Site Location.
Date of Permit Issuance.
Also, custom built, but in house.
Was able to migrate in data from old database.
Monthly Reports/Permit Data can be pulled from database.
Staff converts that to a SharePoint/Excel.
Each project is assigned to a person for follow up.
Applicant reports are stored in electronic and paper copies.
Database does not automatically do any administrative tracking.
Public Access.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
145
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Permit database connects with a publicly accessible Ecology facility site database.
Includes GIS.
The only information pulled into the Ecology database is site long/lat (automatically
pulled) and unique facility site ID.
Ecology database covers essentially all projects that deal with Ecology.
-10% of the total statewide mitigation sites are entered and viewable.
Otherwise, the permit database is not public-facing.
Ambient Monitoring.
Ecology doesn't conduct for wetlands, just does compliance monitoring.
Participated in National Wetland Condition Assessment.
Also has list of reference wetlands, but no monitoring happens at those sites.
Tribal Institutes may be doing reference.
Reference sites were used to calibrate WA wetland rating system scores, but no
specific metrics used for performance standards.
Programmatic Evaluation.
Ecology wants to do this, hasn't yet because not enough sites have gone through 10-yr
monitoring lifecycle. Programmatic evaluation is part of Ecology's approved 2015
Wetland Program Plan.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Data Management general information.
Balancing clear performance standards with the need for flexible, site-specific standards.
Repeatable standards.
What makes a good standard.
Ways to determine if current standards yield ecological success.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
146
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
Wisconsin
Pam Scheme, Cami Peterson
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
February 1, 2018
Wisconsin has independent permitting authority under state statute. State regulations
require mitigation for wetland impacts (but not for impacts to streams) - current policy has
been in place since 2012.
The state regulations have a hierarchy of mitigation with a preference for use of banks,
followed by I LFs, and finally PRM.
Recent analysis shows 150 banks, 90 I LFs, and 10 PRMs since July 2012.
• The state participates with USEPA and USACE on the IRT and uses that process to help
coordinate the federal and state oversight of banks.
There are no set standards for performance standards. DNR staff use their experience from
past mitigation to develop performance standards for new mitigation projects - no standard
set that are used from project to project.
USACE St. Paul district is developing mitigation guidelines for vegetation and
hydrology; Wisconsin DNR is coordinating with St. Paul District on these.
There are set reporting requirements that banks must use that guide credit release,
trigger adaptive management actions, etc.
Wisconsin has a wetland rapid assessment method that can be used for monitoring and
is developing a Floristic Quality Index.
Five monitoring reports are required over the life of a project, which is typically 5 years for
herbaceous wetland mitigation and 8-10 years for forested wetlands. Reports are used to
determine credit release.
Data based on site-specific performance standards (vegetation and hydrology data).
DNR has general outlines for report requirements, but no standardized format.
State DOT has a separate mitigation program - DNR ensures consistency, but does not
"permit" DOT project.
DNR tracks the administrative aspects of banks and uploads information to RIBITS. There is
no tracking of the raw data that is collected as part of mitigation monitoring.
There is no structured reporting of program effectiveness beyond the annual reporting on
administrative aspects of the program
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
147
-------
APPENDIX A » Summary of State Interviews
There was a previous USEPA-funded study on the effectiveness of various restoration
practices.
0 From the DNR website - The Department has recently been awarded a Wetland Grant (from
Oct 2014 - September 2016) to develop a suite ofGIS Functional Assessment Tools to conduct
watershed scale assessment of the wetland functions covered in the WRAM. The tools will be
developed in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and will be designed to be used in 9-Key
Element Plan and TMDL Plan development, In-Lieu Fee and compensatory mitigation program
implementation, and for wetland conservation planning by land trusts and local governments.
No requirements for ongoing/long-term monitoring of closed out banks or completed
mitigation. This would be at the discretion of each bank.
DNR often holds the easement for closed banks, and could, in theory, enforce the terms
of the easement.
There is a new project recently funded by USEPA to look at closed out sites and
determine their long-term success.
Wisconsin administers a lake, river, and stream monitoring program that has long-term data
on water quality, bioassessment etc. - however, the program does not include wetlands.
Staff are consulted on water quality effects of projects, but there is no formal crossover
between ambient monitoring and compensatory mitigation programs in terms of shared
data, common tools, etc.
Monitoring reports (hard copy and electronic) are attached to the mitigation project file.
Mitigation projects are tracked through an old Access database that needs to be updated
manually.
Databased tracks administrative aspects (e.g., sponsor info, approval date, report dates),
but not the actual data.
Administrative database does not provide notifications for required administrative
actions.
DNR has a separate Oracle database for permits (Waterway and Wetlands Permitting
Database), parts of which are publicly accessible. However, the permitting and mitigation
databases are separate.
Last few years, the state has transitioned to electronic permitting, which should increase
the opportunities for improved data access in the future.
Can't bulk download data - needs to be obtained via a public records request.
In response to questions about what products/guidance would be useful for state programs:
Information on specific metrics that should be used to assessment mitigation success (e.g.,
species richness, water levels).
Guidance on basic designs for mitigation monitoring (e.g., appropriate plot density).
Off-the-shelf data templates or data management tools.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
148
-------
APPENDIX B - SURVEY OF STATE DATA MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
ELI conducted an assessment of current practice in collecting and tracking compensatory
mitigation data at the state level. The assessment, developed in collaboration with an advisory
committee of experts, was sent to wetland contacts at state government agencies across the
country.1 Information from 35 states wTas collected through the assessment (Figure B-l). Non-
participation does not necessarily indicate that no data is being collected in those states, but
rather that we did not receive a response to our assessment.
FIGURE B-l: Map of the states participating in the study.
I. Compensatory Mitigation Tracking
We started by asking a series of question related to the tracking of compensatory mitigation
data. The goals of this section were to identify the types of data being collected, how the data is
being collected, and accessibility of the data.
A preliminary list of possible data types being collected was provided for participants to
review. This list was in part identified from a previous ELI study, Towards a National Evaluation
1 The contact list was based on contacts found in Association of State Wetland Managers, Status and Trends
Report on State Wetland Programs in the United States (2015) and in ELI's database of wetland program contacts.
New contacts were added over time as agencies suggested appropriate staff to complete the assessment.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
149
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
of Compensatory Mitigation Sites: A Proposed Study Methodology.2 These data types were
determined to be the minimum information needed in order to effectively evaluate the success
of compensatory mitigation on a national level. The data included:
Project name
Location
Size
Mitigation mechanism
Mitigation method
Date project approved
Data project completed (e.g., monitoring
completed)
Resource (e.g., wetland, stream)
Wetland/ stream type/ classification
Permit file
Monitoring reports
Annual reports
Performance standards
Aerial photos
Contact information (for the permittee,
consultant, and/ or project manager)
Of the states that reported collecting data, about 90% collected the location, size, and permit
file of each mitigation site (Figure B-2). Many others also collected the project name, resource
type, site owner's contact information, date of project approval, and mitigation method. The
figure below illustrates the data collected by each state.
FIGURE B-2: Data collected by states participating in the study. Note that Washington
data is from the Department of Transportation and not from Department of
Ecology
Resource (e.g., wetland, stream)
Contact information
WA WA
UT SC ID VT IA MA MN ME MO NY MT IN NJ PA DO NC OR CA FL MD LA Ml TN VA DO NH
Permit file
Project name
Mitigation method
Date project approved
Monitoring reports
Mitigation mechanism
Data project completed
Wet I a nd/st rea mtype/classification
Performance standards
Annual reports
Aerial photos
Types of Data per State
# States
WV Recording
26
26
25
24
23
23
21
20
20
19
17
16
15
12
10
9 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2 M. Siobhan Fennessy et al., Towards a National Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Sites: A Proposed Study
Methodology, Environmental Law Institute (2013).
An Integrated Framework » October 2018 150
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
Participants also reported collecting additional data, including: maps, compliance status,
ledger transactions for credits, e-mails related to the mitigation site, and best professional
judgment on likelihood of success.
The assessment also asked participants to indicate what types of mitigation projects were
being tracked. This question was used to better understand what types of projects are currently
driving or enabling the collection of data at the state level. Many fewer states indicated that data
were being collected for federally permitted projects alone; 73% of the 30 states responding to
this question indicated they track data associated with state permits where no federal permit was
required and 23% indicated collected data for only federal permits (where no state permit
applies). Among the states that reported collecting data (30 states), permittee responsible
mitigation had the highest rate of being tracked at the state level (77%), followed by In-Lieu Fee
projects (63%), and then mitigation banks (57%) (Figure B-3).
FIGURE B-3: The number of states that reported recording data for each mitigation
mechanism.
Number of States Recording Data for Each
Mitigation Mechanism
1
Mitigation Banks In-Lieu Fees Permittee Responsible
Mitigation
Understanding the current extent to which states share data collected on compensatory
mitigation with other agencies, entities, and the public was an important goal of this section of
the assessment. The results indicated that 60% of participants share their data to some extent
with other agencies or entities; however, this is primarily being done on a case-by-case basis or
upon request. The most common context is related to compliance with other state agency
requirements. However, participants reported some regular coordination with federal agencies
due to federal regulation or permit requirements.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
151
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
Similar results occurred when participants were asked if compensatory mitigation data
were made available to the public, with 63% indicating that they make the data available to the
public. Again, this sharing is typically being done only upon request. While some states have
made the raw data available through online databases or have incorporated it into GIS layers, or
are working towards this capability, it is not common for data to be available to the public in a
readily usable format.
Participants reported that state employees were most often responsible for data collection. A
few states reported that data is collected in collaboration with a federal agency or other
organization. State permit fees or regular state funding (i.e., appropriation) were the most
commonly reported funding sources for data collection and tracking. Other funding sources
included in-lieu fee program funds (for data tracked by in-lieu fee programs) and grants.
II. Data Management Logistics
The second section of the assessment asked participants about their data management
systems. The goal of this section was to determine how states are storing, managing, and
utilizing their compensatory mitigation data. Participants were asked whether they use any of
the following to manage data:
Excel document • Spatially-explicit/GIS-based database
Internally developed database/program • External data portal
Purchased database/ program
The majority of states are using an internally developed program or system (often Access or
Oracle based), but three respondents indicate that they have purchased a database or program
(Figure B-4). Also, nine programs reported using Excel to manage at least some of their data,
with most using the program in addition to another program. Several respondents mentioned
using ArcGIS databases for spatial data and visualization.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
152
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
FIGURE B-4: The data management systems states reported using to track
compensatory mitigation project data
20
16
12
10
Excel
document
Internally
developed
database/pr
ogram
Purchased
database/pr
ogram
(specify,,.
SpatialLy-e
xplicit/GIS
-based
database...
External
data portal
(please
specify ...
Other
(please
specify In
comment,
Several participants noted that their programs use multiple databases, including separate
databases for project tracking and mapping. Often, historical data is also stored in a separate
database.
Participants were also asked about the visualization capability of their data management
systems. More than half of respondents indicated that their state incorporated spatial data in a
viewer or mapper. Examples provided show this is done in a variety of ways across the states.
For example, Florida's Wetlands Mitigation Bank Data Sharing Site3 "provides mitigation bank
information for permits issued statewide by either the FDEP or the Water Management
Districts." Louisiana's SONRIS database site4 includes interactive maps with layers for
mitigation areas. Other examples included the Watershed Resources Registry,5 Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection's eMapPA,6 and the Center for Coastal Resources
Management's Wetlands Data Viewer.7 For some states, the spatial data is only available
internally to state employees.
3 Available at
http: / / fdep.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html ?webmap=e88el4fal7ad4a2ca49d63a6016f3eaf&extent=-
88.8398.24.5257.-76.7108.31.5023.
4 Available at http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/gis/agsweb/IE/TSViewer/index.htmI?TemplateID=181.
5 Available at www.watershedresourcesregistry.com.
6 Available at http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/emappa/.
7 Available at http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis data maps/interactive maps/disclaimer wetlandsdataviewer.html.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
153
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
III. Evaluating for Success
In this section of the assessment, participants were asked how they evaluate the success of
compensatory mitigation across their state, based on the following choices:
File review (e.g., review monitoring • Combination of file and field-based
reports) review
Field-based review • State does not evaluate success (e.g.,
defer to USACE)
Of the 22 states that reported that they evaluate success of compensatory mitigation, the
responses nearly all indicated that they do a combination of file and field-based review (Figure
B-5). However, this is often case dependent or only when funding is available. Four participants
reported that their state does not evaluate success.
FIGURE B-5: State evaluation of the success of compensatory mitigation.
20
16
12
19
4
2
1
3
| u
File review Field-based Combination State does Other
(e.g., review review of file and not evaluate (please
monitoring field-based success specify)
reports) review (e.g., def...
When project files are being evaluated, the majority of states are reviewing monitoring
reports to determine whether project is meeting performance standards (Figure B-6). To a lesser
extent, states are also looking at annual inspection reports, as-built reports, permit documents,
protection mechanisms, and credit release schedule and ledgers.
When evaluations are being conducted in the field, states are mostly verifying results in
monitoring reports to determine whether the project is meeting performance standards. Only four
respondents indicated that they determine whether goals and objectives are being met using
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
154
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
measures other than the performance standards. Similarly, only two respondents determine
whether the project is meeting water quality standards or other independent measures of function
or condition.
FIGURE B-6: Project documents that states reported evaluating to determine success.
50
40
30
21
15
15
20
6
10
0
Monitoring
reports
Annual
Inspection
reports
Credit
release
schedule and
ledeer
We do not
conduct file
reviews
Other
(please
specify)
Based on responses, the selection and frequency of site evaluations is variable across states in
both protocol and practice. Some states indicated that they attempt to have all sites evaluated
annually, but that may not actually occur due to a variety of obstacles. Some states resort to
random selection of review sites, prioritize sites to review based on risk, or evaluate when
complaints are received—all of which are done when time allows.
Participants were also asked what they do with the results of evaluations. Answer choices
included:
Publish report • Document in comments to the
a /r • x • 1,1 mitigation provider and/or the
Maintain database b r '
permitting authority
Maintain paper files
Most participants indicate they are maintaining a database and providing comments to
mitigation providers or regulators (Figure B-7). Additionally, approximately half still maintain
paper files. Overall, the data is mainly being used for internal purposes related to permit
compliance requirements. The data is also used to determine timing on site and credit releases
and maintenance or adaptive management needs. Only four states indicated that they publish
reports.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
155
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
FIGURE B-7: What states reported doing with the results of evaluations.
20
16
12
16
13
Publish
report
Maintain
database
Maintain
paper flies
Provide
comments to
tlie provider
Other
(please
specify)
The availability of reports to the public is mainly a case-by-case situation for most states. In
addition to what is eventually posted to RIBITS for mitigation banks and ILF projects, most
states indicate that, upon request, they will share the results of evaluations. Some states also post
the results on a publicly accessible internal site or public database. Certain regulatory agencies
and groups additionally receive the evaluations for banks and ILF program projects due to
involvement on the interagency review team.
IV. Enhancing Compensatory Mitigation Work
The final section of the assessment asked several questions on challenges and success in
working toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation.
Staffing issues was cited as the main problem for the majority of the states in their efforts to
track and evaluate compensatory mitigation. This is true both in terms of the needing funding
for sufficient staffing and high turnover rates generally in the field. The lack of staff prevents
the ability of states to do long-term evaluations or conduct field monitoring and analysis. States
also indicated there was a need for more support staff in both the IT and legal departments. As
states begin to update old management systems or programs, there is insufficient staff available
to properly carry out these transitions.
Consistency and quality control issues in data management were another frequently
reported problem. Incomplete or inaccurate data can prevent the state from conducting long-
term analyses or contributing to national analyses. States are also facing problems from data
being submitted from mitigation providers, contractors, or other outside sources in the wrong
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
156
-------
APPENDIX B » Survey of State Data Management Practices
format or incomplete. Participants indicated a need for standardized protocols across mitigation
programs and types.
In addition to a general lack of funding or resources being an obstacle that prevents states
from undertaking this effort, the lack of support or priority by decision makers impedes the
ability of states to carry out this work.
Participants also shared details on successes and strengths in their programs. Open
communication and long-standing partnerships with other agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and other groups is great benefit to compensatory mitigation. Supporting
watershed planning on a state level is also an important step in effective mitigation.
Additionally, states that issue their own permits and have a strong compliance program have
more success with ensuring effective mitigation. Another strategy provided is to focus on
avoiding and minimizing impacts to avert the need for mitigation.
Finally, the ability to utilize data in a spatially relevant way was seen as crucial for state
evaluation of compensatory mitigation. This is particularly true for states in the process of
digitizing files or moving to new formats or programs to keep in mind. Additionally, finding a
way to incorporate this visual element in such a way that not only meets internal state agency
needs, but also benefits the federal government, academia, and the public, is seen as equally
crucial.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
157
-------
APPENDIX C - DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE
The compensatory mitigation data collection template is an Excel-based spreadsheet that
includes several tabs designed to track the minimum data that recommended to be collected at
each compensation site. The template is meant to provide a starting point for states that have
not already developed databases for tracking data on compensatory mitigation projects. But, it
provides recommendations for how to structure a database, including the necessary metadata
that should accompany each worksheet, and some tips for QA/ QC that may be applicable for
all states.
TAB NAME
DESCRIPTION
Metadata
Data that should be included with the dataset so that it can be shared across
agencies.
Project ID
Tracks information about the project that will carry across all data entry
worksheets. Data Includes project ID, permit number(s), and contact
information for each mitigation project.
Basic Information
This worksheet tracks the minimum information about each compensation
project necessary to conduct further evaluation of the state's compensatory
mitigation program. Data includes background information, size, location,
mitigation mechanism, mitigation method, resource type and classification.
Basic Information
Dictionary
This worksheet includes information about each of the data elements/attributes
in the basic information worksheet. This information helps to ensure quality
control in the data collection and input and allows data to be more readily
shared among internal and external users.
Monitoring Data
This worksheet tracks the minimum monitoring data necessary to conduct the
kind of evaluations outlined in this report. The fields in this tab are designed to
track summaries of collected monitoring data. If appropriate and feasible,
database designers may want to design a tab(s) to track the actual monitoring
data. Additional monitoring data worksheets could be added as needed and
appropriate to collect various kinds of data (e.g., water quality, vegetation,
hydrology, etc.).
Monitoring
Indicator Measure
Options
The monitoring indicator measure options worksheet lists the measurement
options for each of the monitoring indicators included in the monitoring data
spreadsheet (in the drop down menus for each indicator). This should be
customized to include the methods/protocols employed by the state.
Monitoring Data
Dictionary
This worksheet includes information about each of the data elements/attributes
in the monitoring data worksheet. This worksheet should be customized based
on the indicators and measures employed by the state.
An Integrated Framework » March 2022
158
-------
APPENDIX C - Data Collection Template
The complete data collection template (Excel spreadsheet) is available on EPA's website
under Compensatory Mitigation Resources - https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/background-about-
compensatory-mitigation-requirements-under-cwa-section-404.
An Integrated Framework » October 2018
159
------- |