Optimization of Benefits from Wetlands Restoration


July 1, 2001

THE OPTIMIZATION OF BENEFITS FROM WETLANDS

RESTORATION

A Workshop

Sponsored by:

The Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee &
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee

Final Report

1

-------
July 1, 2001

Optimization of Benefits from Wetlands Restoration

Executive Summary

This workshop was conducted to give Chesapeake Bay Program partners an opportunity

to exchange information, discuss emerging ideas, and suggest future directions in the

effort to restore 25,000 acres of wetlands in the Bay watershed by the Year 2010, a

Chesapeake 2000 Commitment.

Highlights of the workshop discussions include the following:

•	The bottom line in current wetlands restoration programs is the number of acres
created. Available programmatic resources make other considerations secondary
(e.g. optimization of wetland functions).

•	Monitoring restoration efforts is broadly viewed as critical for both short-term and
long-term program success. Workshop participants were of the opinion monitoring
should probably be required for much longer periods than is typical at present.

•	Recommendations for future research included development of inventories and
assessment tools to support new restoration efforts. A high priority need was
identified for an inventory and assessment of existing restoration programs'
accomplishments.

•	Additional program staff and funding are necessary to truly achieve the "no net
loss/net resource gain" goals for both acreage and function. Current resources may
support the acreage goal, but are insufficient for consistent focus on protecting and
enhancing values from wetland functions.

•	The Chesapeake Bay Program has important roles to play in interstate coordination
and development of resources needed by state and NGO programs.

Workshop participants also identified two policy recommendations.

•	Treat wetlands as part of the larger system. This reflects the state of the science
and the cumulative experience of existing programs, which together suggest success
in restoring wetlands and the values derived from wetlands are strongly linked to the
condition of the surrounding landscape.

•	Concentrate on improvement of the condition of existing wetlands. Research
findings suggest that much can be gained in value of existing wetlands by mitigating
factors that reduce their function.

2

-------
July 1, 2001

Table of Contents

Introduction:	4

What is happening in Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Restoration?	5

•	Table 1: Wetland Restoration Characterization	6
State of the Science	8
Lessons Learned from Ongoing Efforts	8

•	Planning	8

•	Construction	9

•	Monitoring	9

•	Interesting Ideas	9
Next Steps	10

•	Research	10

•	Program Managers/Legislators	11

•	Chesapeake Bay Program	11

•	Policy	11
Appendices

1: Questionnaire Responses	13

•	Maryland	14

•	Virginia	16

•	District of Columbia	19

•	Pennsylvania	21

•	Chesapeake Bay Foundation	23
2: State of the Science Papers	25

•	Integrating Wetland Inventory, Assessment, and Restoration for
Watersheds. Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center.	26

•	Watershed Restoration: Landscape Considerations for Design and
Function. Virginia Institute of Marine Science	30

3: Interesting Ideas from Existing Programs	37

•	Maryland	38

•	Virginia	38

•	Pennsylvania	38

•	The Chesapeake Bay Foundation	39
4: Workshop Participants List	40

3

-------
July 1, 2001

Introduction

The "Optimization of Benefits from Wetlands Restoration" Workshop was planned to
afford practitioners and interested parties from Chesapeake Bay Program partners an
opportunity to exchange information, discuss emerging ideas, and suggest future
directions.

The workshop outcomes are grouped in four general areas:

1.	What is currently going on in Chesapeake Bay wetlands restoration? Prior to
the workshop, representatives of Bay Program partners were asked to summarize
current wetland restoration practices by their organizations. This was accomplished
using a questionnaire. Responses were solicited from Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, District of Columbia, and Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The results are
summarized in Table 1, and the full responses are included in Appendix 1.

2.	What is the state of the science available to guide Chesapeake Bay wetlands
restoration? The status of the science applicable to wetlands restoration was
presented by Denice Wardrop of Penn State University, and Carl Hershner of the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Brief background papers were prepared prior to
the workshop and those papers are included in Appendix 2.

3.	What has been learned from ongoing efforts to restore Chesapeake Bay
wetlands? Workshop participants reviewed their cumulative experiences and
developed a number of consensus observations summarized under the general
topics of Planning, Construction, and Monitoring. One outcome of this discussion
was identification of some Interesting Ideas - things developed in one program that
might be of interest to other programs.

4.	What should happen next in restoration of Chesapeake Bay wetlands? The
cumulative experience of implementing policies for wetland restoration generated a
number of suggestions for consideration by researchers, program
managers/legislators, the Bay Program, and policy developers.

The workshop was held in Annapolis, Maryland over a two-day period. Approximately
45 individuals attended representing a wide variety of state and federal agencies, non-
governmental organizations, academia, and private sector interests. The product of the
workshop is this report, which includes the materials prepared for the workshop and a
summary of the discussions and ideas developed by the participants.

4

-------
July 1, 2001

1. What is currently going on in Chesapeake Bay wetlands restoration?

State and federal agencies have been engaged in restoration and creation of wetlands
for many years, generally as part of programs focused on habitat and water quality

resources, spurred Chesapeake Bay Program partners to make commitments to seek
not only no net loss of the resource, but an effective net resource gain. A goal of

adopted through the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.

Table 1 presents a summary of ongoing wetlands restoration programs. The information
Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

-------
July 1, 2001

Table 1: Wetland Restoration Characterization



Site Selection

Design Criteria

Management Response

Program

ation

Priorities



Goa ction

Watershed

Monitoring

Success
C r i tti r i

| ,.

HIDE

Based on
primarily on
opportunity;
GIS targeting
will be
important in
the future

Key functions;
CWAP sites;
Prior wetlands;
Marginal, non-
wooded land,
drained forest
land

Forested
wetlands;

Landowner
choice -
emergent #1

Designed w/
surface runoff as
source, flood
retention, & WQ
treatment;
NWI/HGM
assessment
when available

Funding to WO
Outreach &
coordination
through SAMP
& WRAS under
CWAP & TST

Mitigation = 5yr
other depends on
funding source

Mitigation =
presence of
hydric soils &
hydrology &
wetland plants
on 85%; other
depends on
funding source

DGII

OCR

Based on
voluntary
landowner;
CREPand
other grants
sought for
priority areas

Prior-converted
cropland;
functionally
destroyed
wetlands;

Areas with
declining WQ;
Focal areas for
the NAWMP

Landowner &
funding source
dependent but,
emphasis
placed on
habitat quality &
heterogeneity

Designed to
provide the
highest habitat &
migration corridor
value w/in the
existing
ecosystem

The VWRCC
(EO 72) is
charged w/
coordinating
state efforts -
goals include
C2K;

Diverse
Partnerships

Qualitative varies
w/ funding source

Establishment
of functional
hydrology &
wetland
vegetation for
5yrs;

Wildlife use;

landowner

satisfaction

PA - DEP

Opportunity,
private land

Return of drained,
ditched, or filled
wetlands

Project
dependent

Contribute to
overall WQ;
protect ecological
integrity of site;
provide wildlife
corridors

Growing
Greener
provides funds
& support as
does PWRP;

All PWRP sites
are monitored for
at least 5 years

Each project
has stated
goals and
objectives.
Success is
measured
against the
achievement of
the goals.

6

-------
July 1, 2001



Site Selection

Design Criteria

Management Response

Program

ation

Priorities



Goa ction

Watershed

Monitoring

Success
Criteria

DC -
DOM

Geographic

targeting;

most

available sites
are on NPS
land

Tidal wetlands;
middle & low
marsh;

High marsh is
avoided due to
invasion by
exotic species

Tidal wetlands;
middle & low
marsh

Created for
habitat, storm
water detention &
treatment;
Restoration of
High marsh not
done due to the
invasive species
threat.

Work closely
with various
federal
agencies but
need & seek
support form
various
communities.

A recent project
had 3 yrs of
monitoring prior
to restoration,
monitoring is
expected to
continue.

Undefined;
expected to
have native
plants, wildlife
use & uptake
of toxins

NGO -
CBF

Opportunity,
PC cropland,
throughout
Bay

watershed

Headwater areas:
first and second
order streams

Landowner
objectives,
water quality
benefits

Water quality,
wildlife,
ecosystem
diversity,

Work with
diversity of
partners
including
agencies,
watershed
groups, and
volunteers

Annual

inspections for

structural

integrity,

invasives.

Limited long term,

quantitative

monitoring

85% coverage
by emergent
vegetation or
435 woody
stems per acre

Acronym Key:



CBF

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

CREP

Conservation Reserve & Enhancement Program

CWAP

Clean Water Action Plan

DCR

Department of Conservation and Recreation

DEP

Department of Environmental Protection

DGIF

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

DOH

Department of Health

EO

Executive Order

ERC

Environmental Review Committee

GIS

Geographic Information System

HGM

hydrogeomorphic

MDE

Maryland Department of the Environment

NAWMP

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

NGO

Non-government organization

NPS

National Park Service

NWI

National Wetlands Inventory

PWRP

Pennsylvania Wetland Replacement Project

SAMP

Special Area Management Plans

TST

Tributary Strategy Teams

VWRCC

Virginia Wetland Restoration Coordinating



Committee

WO

Watershed Organization

WQ

Water Quality

WRAS

Watershed Restoration Action Strategies

7

-------
July 1, 2001

2.	What is the state of the science available to guide Chesapeake Bay
wetlands restoration?

While wetland research continues to cover the gamut from investigations of basic
structure and function to very applied design criteria development, the state of the
science in providing guidance for wetlands restoration is reflected in two lines of work.
One is hydrogeomorphic (HGM) model development. The other is analysis of ecological
processes at the scale of landscapes.

HGM model development is being pursued at multiple institutions throughout the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. The primary contributions to wetlands restoration efforts
include the focus on establishment of "reference" sites that can provide guidance for
design and performance expectations of varying types of wetlands. Additionally, HGM
models provide a basis for rapid assessment of wetland functions, and can be
developed to guide enhancement of existing wetlands through removal of stressors.

Landscape scale studies consider wetlands as one of many elements in a landuse/land
cover pattern. The distribution of elements ultimately affects the type and level of
potential functions each element can provide. This perspective is beginning to generate
models that can have application to wetland restoration, but much of the work remains
theoretical.

Brief reviews of some of this ongoing work are contained in two papers generated for the
workshop. These are included in Appendix 2.

3.	What has been learned from ongoing efforts to restore Chesapeake Bay
wetlands?

The practice of restoring wetlands on the landscape can be divided into three general
activities: planning; construction; and monitoring. In wide ranging discussions of these
three aspects of the undertaking, workshop participants developed a number of
consensus observations about the practices to date in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Planning

The bottom line in current wetlands restoration programs is acreage restored. Available
programmatic resources make other considerations secondary.

Targeting wetlands restoration, in terms of selecting and pursuing optimal locations for
cumulative functional value, is not a typical practice in current programs. This is not
because practitioners are not aware of the issue, nor because they are uninterested in
the outcome. Current program activities are driven primarily by opportunity to create or
restore acreage. Landowner willingness, suitable conditions, and available resources -
the "practical" considerations in creating or restoring a wetland - overwhelm all other
factors in determining where program efforts will be directed.

Efforts to be more proactive in using emerging science or even best-professional-
judgement to target restoration are hampered by a number of constraints. Available
program resources are a universal limitation. Analyzing landscapes to select optimal
sites, working with property owners to gain access, and managing surrounding landuse

8

-------
July 1, 2001

to preserve benefits are actions that require personnel, funding, and authority beyond
the capacity of most existing programs.

Workshop participants identified two key factors in "successful" wetlands restoration

Interestingly, restoration practitioners agreed that having a project managed on-site by
someone with experience in creating/restoring wetlands was far more important than

conditions and avoiding creation of maintenance problems is best addressed by
engaging experienced personnel.

wetlands creation/restoration are significantly
increased by choosing a site which might naturally support a wetland. This seemingly

solutions to inappropriate hydrologic conditions or uncharacteristic soils are risky, and
can pose long-term maintenance difficulties. For a wetland restoration to be truly

landscape change.

Monitoring

success. It should

probably be required for much longer than is typical.

meaningful way to document a restoration program's performance. It is also essential
for validation of design criteria. And, it can enable adaptive management of restored

continuous monitoring program needs to be a significant component of any restoration
program.

at a restoration site in order to meet the three objectives. To actually determine if a
wetland has been successfully restored, the three basic identification parameters

to be paid to wetland function, the monitoring must also record landscape condition
(surrounding landuse/land cover).

creation, involve limited-monitoring requirements - typically three to five years.
Workshop participants agreed that the normal variation in hydrologic conditions and the

determination of success. Five years or more was much preferred. It was agreed that
monitoring frequency needed to be relatively high in the first years to allow correction of

was key however, to real utility of monitoring programs.

Interesting Ideas

needed), brought several items to light which participants believed noteworthy. Among

-------
July 1, 2001

these was the Chesapeake Bay Foundation recognition that incorporating citizen
involvement as an element in their restoration efforts had long term educational benefits,
facilitating better resource management practices by creating an informed public.

Among the unique elements in Pennsylvania's program is the use of an acreage cap (<
0.5 acres). This cap in conjunction with the standard environmental review for
avoidance and minimization of impacts is used to determine an applicant's participation
in the in-lieu fee program commonly referred to as the Pennsylvania Wetland
Replacement Project. This encourages impact minimization (to get under the cap), and
keeps individual restoration efforts at the scale of naturally occurring wetlands.

Maryland operates a registry program for property owners interested in restoration, and
has developed a watershed assessment program to target restoration needs. Virginia
has implemented an adaptive management element in its regulatory program through
the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

Short summaries of these program elements, and contact information for each are
included in Appendix 3.

5. What should happen next in restoration of Chesapeake Bay wetlands?

Workshop participants were given the opportunity to develop suggestions for
consideration by researchers, program managers/legislators, the Bay Program, and
policy developers. There were multiple suggestions in each category that were
grouped/interpreted by the facilitator as follows.

Research: The ideas for research contributions to wetlands restoration efforts could be
linked to the planning, construction, and monitoring elements of programs discussed
earlier in the workshop.

Planning

•	Develop an inventory of restoration opportunities (a consensus recommendation
reflecting the desire to know where restoration is most likely to succeed)

•	Develop an inventory/assessment of needs for wetland functions (where in the
landscape can wetlands be of significant value)

•	Develop riparian wetland sensitivity maps (addresses preservation and enhancement
of existing wetland functions — see policy recommendation section below)

•	Develop a comprehensive inventory of wetland resource status and trends (reflects
limitations of NWI particularly in ridge and valley areas, and the need for an iterating
inventory to track changes)

•	Develop socioeconomic models to aid in siting, marketing, and managing wetlands
restoration

Construction

•	Develop a quick method to predict design: function relationship (a consensus
recommendation reflecting the desire for simple guidance on siting and designing a
wetland to optimize certain functions)

•	Develop wetland reference sites (reflects the utility of HGM models for design and
assessment guidance, and the need for sites covering the range of wetland types,
settings and condition)

10

-------
July 1, 2001

Monitoring

•	Inventory and assess accomplishments of existing restoration programs (a
consensus recommendation reflecting a desire to have quantitative evidence to
guide program evolution)

•	Develop remote sensing methods for assessment of restoration efforts (reflects the
recognition that monitoring is a task that will constantly grow, and the need for a
rapid, validated methodology)

•	Develop monitoring tools such as biological indicators and wetland function
assessments

Program managers/legislators: Recommendations for this group focused on resource

needs to meet existing policy goals.

•	Additional program staff and funding (this was a consensus recommendation and
reflects the sense that programs generally have about one half of the resources
necessary to truly achieve the "no net loss/net resource gain" goals for both acreage
and function)

•	Increased public education and marketing of restoration programs

•	Support for centralized data base and geographic information system development

Chesapeake Bay Program: Suggested activities fell in three areas all reflecting a focus

on multi-state efforts.

Policy advocate/education

•	Lobby for relevant program continuance/expansion at the federal level (a consensus
recommendation reflecting the dependence of goal attainment on numerous federal
programs)

•	Provide education outreach to public and local governments (reflects the need to
expand public support for restoration efforts)

Coordination

•	Provide a forum and facilitate communication among partners (a consensus
recommendation reflecting the advantage of sharing experience and ideas)

•	Facilitate development of consistent data analysis protocols (responds to the
problem of variation among program definitions and procedures)

•	Maintain a restoration program accomplishment data base (clearly a Bay watershed
level activity)

Technical resource

•	Facilitate development of consistent GIS data layers (recognizes the benefits of
advocacy for common data needs)

•	Develop technical guidance (recognizes the efficiency in shared efforts to address
common needs)

•	Provide evaluation of completed projects (recognizes the benefits of objective and
consistent information)

•	Develop research support (reflects limited resources to support research funds in
most state programs)

Policy: Ideas for new or amended policy for wetland resource management centered

on two strongly supported concepts.

•	Treat wetlands as part of larger system (a strong consensus that this was critical to
effective attainment of existing policy goals) There were two relevant suggestions
here:

•	manage wetland resources at a watershed or subwatershed scale; and

•	work to achieve consistency among resource management programs

11

-------
July 1, 2001

• Concentrate on improvement of condition of existing wetlands (a strong consensus
reflecting research findings that much can be gained in wetland values by mitigating
factors that reduce function) There were two relevant related suggestions here:

•	improve protection of existing wetlands (reduce probability of direct impacts); and

•	implement a program of wetland BMPs (manage indirect/secondary impacts
associated with surrounding landuse practices)

1.

Columbia, and Chesapeake Bay Foundation

2.	State of the Science papers:

• Denice Wardrop. Integrating wetland inventory, assessment, and restoration for

wetlands restorations. Penn State
Cooperative Wetlands Center, Penn State University.

Jennifer Newton and Carl Hershner. Wetland restoration: Landscape

Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

3.	Interesting Ideas from existing wetland restoration programs.

Workshop articipants List

12

-------
July 1, 2001

Appendix 1:

Questionnaire responses from Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, and Chesapeake Bay

Foundation

13

-------
July 1, 2001

Maryland Department of the Environment
Denise Clearwater,
dclearwater@mde.state.md.us

Site Selection:

1. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to select restoration
sites (e.g. geographic targeting vs. opportunity)?

Maryland uses a combination approach of targeting and opportunity. Targeting has begun using
a GIS approach to identify technically suitable areas. There will be greater emphasis on targeting
to restore particular functions. Priority watersheds under the Clean Water Action Plan have also
been targeted. However, interested landowners are assisted with technical and financial support.

2. Identify some of the problems and solutions encountered when applying these site selection
criteria.

Better data layers are needed for GIS targeting, such as a digital soils information and elevation
data. More funding, particularly for non-agricultural lands, is needed along with additional staff.

Former wetlands or marginal, non-wooded lands are preferred sites. A reliable source of
hydrology, from groundwater or over-bank flooding is needed. Seasonal high ground water is
usually within 1-2 feet of the surface. Many federal projects follow SCS or interagency
recommendations or standards.

Design Criteria:

3. Once a site has been selected, what evaluation methods and planning criteria do your state
or federal wetland restoration programs use to design a wetland restoration project (e.g.,
wetland type, hydrology and landscape)?

See above. Forested wetlands are usually preferred by MDE or DNR but ultimately the design
reflects landowner interests. Landowners most often want wildlife, usually waterfowl habitat. The
majority of wetlands voluntarily created, restored, or enhanced in Maryland are emergent. Most
wetlands replaced through mitigation are forested.

Watershed Management:

4. Describe some of the efforts of your state or federal wetland restoration programs to integrate
wetland restoration with the efforts of community watershed groups, and other state and
federal agency efforts that support watershed-based restoration.

There are several funding sources available to watershed organizations for restoration.
Community groups are also solicited in targeted restoration areas. Increased outreach and
coordination is expected through Watershed Restoration Action Strategies under the Clean Water
Action Plan and overall voluntary restoration efforts through the Tributary Strategy teams. An
increase in coordination is expected to occur through recommendations of the Governor's
Wetland Restoration Steering Committee and the Maryland Wetland Conservation Plan.

-------
July 1, 2001

5. How are landscape and ecosystem function criteria being incorporated into restoration
projects?

Projects may be designed to receive surface runoff as a hydrology source, flood water retention,
and to treat for water quality More refined criteria are expected to be developed in the near
future. A recent study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adapted the National Wetlands
Inventory classifications to provide a coarse hydrogeomorphic assessment of wetland function.
The study was limited to parts of the lower Eastern Shore.

Monitoring Approach:

6. Indicate the scope of your wetland restoration monitoring programs (e.g., what parameters,
how often and how long).

Monitoring is done in accordance with the pertinent funding entity requirements. For mitigation
projects, there is a 5-year monitoring period in which hydrology, soils, and vegetation are
evaluated.

Success Criteria:

7. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to determine the
success of a wetland restoration project?

Success criteria, if any, would be part of the funding entity program. Mitigation project criteria
require that hydric soils and adequate hydrology be present, and that 85% of the site support an
acceptable wetland plant composition.

Management Response:

8. Indicate the major management and data gaps affecting your state or federal wetland
restoration programs and how they are being addressed.

Management recommendations and gaps are being identified by a Governor-appointed Wetland
Restoration Steering Committee. Data gaps include lack of detailed statewide soils mapping and
digital elevation data. Restoration sites reported to the State often lack location information.

There is also much less funding available for restoration available for non-agricultural lands.

The Wetland Restoration Steering Committee reports that landowners are concerned about future
regulatory authority over voluntarily created wetlands, and that this is a disincentive. Federal and
state regulations do allow resumption of agricultural activities on farmland voluntarily converted to
wetlands through most cost share programs.

Recommendations are presented in an annual report with specific action items to be undertaken
by State agencies. Recommendations will also be part of Maryland's Wetland Conservation Plan.
In order to advise landowners of funding opportunities, a guidebook of funding sources and
contacts has been prepared. Information is also available online.

The Governor has issued an executive order directing each State agency to integrate wetland
restoration into existing programs and land holdings where feasible.

Additional targeted public outreach is planned.

Funding programs will be evaluated for efficiency and effectiveness and recommendations will be
made for improvement.

-------
July 1, 2001

David Norris

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
dnorris@daif.state.va.us

Site Selection:

1. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to select restoration
sites (e.g. geographic targeting vs. opportunity)?

The current Virginia Wetland Restoration Program is voluntary with the exception of state land-
owning agencies. Therefore the opportunity for restoration is largely in the form of volunteer
landowners that enter into cooperative agreements with a state or federal agency. Landowners
contact either the Department of Game or Inland Fisheries or one of our partner agencies for
assistance in restoring wetlands on their property. Department Biologists then work with the
landowner to design a project that fits our objectives as well as those of the landowner, l/l/e also
attempt to target certain areas within our state for restoration. In these areas we intensify efforts
through our partnerships with other agencies thereby increasing manpower and available
resources. Targeting is typically undertaken on a watershed basis, usually under the auspices of
a larger regional program such as the Chesapeake Bay Program or Coastal Zone Management
Program. Most of these watersheds have impaired or declining water-quality or are focal areas
for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Grant funding is sought wherever possible
to assist in the process. Other factors that play a role in site selection include the presence of
hydric soils, evidence of man induced impacts to the site such as draining and ditching, position
of the site in the landscape, topography, watershed, current wetland status, and current land use.
Generally prior-converted cropland or functionally destroyed wetlands are preferred sites for
wetland restoration projects as these areas have the highest potential for success.

2. Identify some of the problems and solutions encountered when applying these site selection
criteria.

A voluntary program does not allow the multiplication of benefits that watershed- targeting
presents. By concentrating effort and resources in one watershed, the benefits to that watershed
can be increased. The opportunity to educate the local landowners in the available programs is
increased and recruitment of additional landowners may be facilitated.

We have observed that the construction of a successful project in an area produces interest in
additional projects in that area. The landowners talk with each other and satisfied customers let
other individuals know about the assistance received. This helps concentrate projects and
increases benefits to watersheds. Additionally, targeting programs to geographic locations can
result in accepting marginal projects simply because they are located in the "preferred" area.
More viable Projects outside of the targeted watershed may not be restored, even if they have
more functions than approved projects in targeted areas. The lack of emphasis on non-target
areas may also cause desirable projects to remain overlooked, resulting in lost restoration
opportunities

Design Criteria:

Under Virginia's voluntary program projects are frequently located on private land. In these
projects the landowners' considerations have to be included in the final design. Generally the
landowner will need specific habitat objectives or water quality objectives addressed with the
project. These typically shape the planning criteria and evaluation of the success of a completed

-------
July 1, 2001

project. Additionally, The funding mechanism selected for the project typically has constraints
upon the type of wetland restored. This will in turn influence the type of wetland constructed. The
Virginia Wetland Restoration Program seeks to incorporate an eco-regional approach to the
extent the constraints of a voluntary process allow. It is preferred that restored wetlands be
integrated into the mosaic of habitats present within the watershed and surrounding landscape.
Emphasis is placed upon habitat quality and heterogeneity as an adjunct in facilitating
biodiversity. This approach seeks to provide corridors of high quality habitat for nesting cover,
forage and other functions critical to a healthy ecosystem, rather than the more simplistic
approach of re-establishing a pre-disturbance condition.

Watershed Management:

Governor Jim Gilmore issued Executive Order 72(00) on October 26, 2000 (See
http://www.thedigitaldominion.com/press.cfm). This order establishes the Virginia Wetland
Restoration Coordinating Committee, which under the leadership of the Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is charged
with the coordination of the various state wetland restoration efforts. The committee is comprised
of the major land owning, regulatory, and natural resources management agencies.
Representatives of these agencies meet on a frequent basis to coordinate their restoration efforts
to fulfill the restoration goals of the Commonwealth. These goals include the Chesapeake Bay
Program commitments and the community based efforts to achieve them.

Additionally we have since 1989, and continue to, partner with a diverse group of other
organizations to restore wetlands in Virginia. These include The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and
similar organizations. In the course of our partnerships, groups such as The United States Fish
and Wildlife Services' Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Ducks Unlimited have written
grants for support of watershed based restoration. These grants have allowed the partners to
emphasize advertising, manpower and money into the targeted watersheds.

5. How are landscape and ecosystem function criteria being incorporated into restoration
projects?

Within the constraints inherent with a voluntary program landscape and ecosystem function are
incorporated in several ways. These include but are not limited to the following steps. First a
review of the existing ecosystem within the drainage is undertaken using available digital
orthography, soil surveys, vegetative surveys, and topographic map tools. Secondly, an attempt
is made to determine which wetland type might produce the best qualitative fit within the existing
system. Finally, where vegetative augmentation is desirable, selection focuses on native species
with high habitat value. Additionally, some areas may be permitted to proceed through a normal
sequence of ecological succession in order to provide the broadest ecosystem benefits.

Ultimately, where it is feasible, emphasis on corridors, which facilitate the unimpeded migration of
organisms, is a priority.

-------
July 1, 2001

Monitoring Approach:

6. Indicate the scope of your wetland restoration monitoring programs (e.g., what parameters,
how often and how long).

Monitoring to date has largely been qualitative rather than quantitative. This is in large measure
due to the considerable resources that quantitative monitoring entails both in terms of manpower
and equipment. To undertake comprehensive monitoring of a single large project would exhaust
the resources of most natural resource management agencies and impede the restoration
process.

Existing wetland restorations are monitored differently depending on the funding source. Some
sites are monitored on an annual basis for several years to determine vegetative response, site
hydrology and wildlife use. Other sites are monitored frequently for the first year to determine the
same parameters, and then occasionally as opportunity arises, other sites are visited infrequently.
Some landowners provide frequent feedback, others provide infrequent or no feedback

Success Criteria:

7. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to determine the
success of a wetland restoration project?

Establishing success criteria has been a subject of many debates in the professional wetland
community. Frequently the establishment of hydrology and wetland vegetation for a period of 5
years has been the only criteria. While these are not entirely adequate they are expedient and
conserve valuable resources for the restoration process. Currently in Virginia, Success of projects
is determined by several factors. These include landowner satisfaction, ability of the site to reach
the predicted hydrology, wetland vegetation presence, and the use of the site by wetland wildlife.

Management Response:

8. Indicate the major management and data gaps affecting your state or federal wetland
restoration programs and how they are being addressed.

At present there are significant data gaps which affect Virginia's Wetland Restoration Program.
These include the lack of a comprehensive and accurate wetland inventory by Cowardin Type,
lack of a comprehensive GIS based wetland restoration and mitigation database, incomplete
digital orthographic coverage, incomplete soil mapping, and the lack of a county by county
landowner database/plat map.

The management issues are primarily related to the panoply of state and federal agencies and
programs involved in wetland restoration. Each agency has a role but may have differing and
conflicting priorities. In Virginia this was partially resolved with Executive Order 72(00), which
assigns the state agency leadership role to the DGIF and DCR. Currently DGIF coordinates the
staff level operations through a technical workgroup. Unresolvable issues and issues which may
require legislative or regulatory changes are brought before the full committee. The largest
management issue is due to the necessarily voluntary nature of the program and the need to
coordinate private landowner projects with state land projects within the resource constraints.
Additionally, the funding priorities of the various state, federal and private programs can differ
markedly, making coordinated efforts difficult. Finally, there is limited funding for restoration
projects, specifically for land acquisition. It will be very difficult to achieve the acreage goals in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage without state agencies having the resources necessary to acquire
critical lands within watersheds for restoration, preservation or enhancement.

-------
July 1, 2001

Peter May

District Of Columbia Wetland Restoration Program

pmav@mail. environ.state.de. us

Site Selection:

1. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to select restoration
sites (e.g. geographic targeting vs. opportunity)?

The District's program primarily selects restoration sites based on geographic targeting. In the
District, there are very few places which are open to non-tidal wetland restoration particularly and
those open to tidal restoration have mostly been restored or are currently identified and being
targeted for restoration.

2. Identify some of the problems and solutions encountered when applying these site selection
criteria.

Much of the lands available for wetland restoration, tidal and non-tidal, are on National Park
Service Property. This constitutes another level of approvals and input. Additionally, many
District parklands were given to the Districts Parks and Recreation by the National Park Service
with the criteria that the land only be used for recreation. Special approval is required for use as
stormwater detention and treatment or habitat restoration. A close working relationship and
ability to compromise with the NPS is crucial to moving potential projects forward.

Design Criteria:

The majority of wetland restoration projects planned and implemented by the District are in tidal
areas. Identifying and implementing the proper elevational grade for suitable tidal depth of
innundation of vegetation zones is crucial. It has been determined that high marsh zones only
create suitable habitat for invasive exotic plant species and efforts to create more middle and low
marsh types are made.

Watershed Management:

The District, by its very nature, must work closely with federal programs and entities to implement
projects. The National Park Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Geological Survey and
US EPA to name a few which contribute funding, lands, implementation and technical expertise.

Increasingly, watershed based and neighborhood community groups have become an active part
of levels of the restoration planning process. The Kingman Lake and Island restoration projects
have been incorporating local input and support.

The proposed fringe marsh project expects to incorporate the views of the River Terrace
Community as a major targeted fringe site is just outside its doorsteps. A stormwater quality and
quantity wetland infiltration area on DC parks and recreation land is currently being proposed to
the adjacent community and will go nowhere without their support.

-------
July 1, 2001

5. How are landscape and ecosystem function criteria being incorporated into restoration
projects?

In an effort to reduce the influence of invasive exotics on tidal wetland restoration projects, high
marsh vegetative zones are no longer being created with current and future restoration projects.
Several unavoidable nontidal wetland losses have been mitigated for in the immediate area of the
wetland loss with a similar wetland type.

Monitoring Approach:

6. Indicate the scope of your wetland restoration monitoring programs (e.g., what parameters,
how often and how long).

For the most recent tidal wetland restoration project at Kingman Lake, a minimum of three years
ofbenthic macroinvertebrate, fish, plankton, bird and water quality surveys were conducted prior
to implementation. It is expected that a five year post implementation monitoring plan will be
carried out as had been completed by an ad hoc group after the 1993 implementation of the
Kenilworth Marsh Restoration. A coordinated effort from other federal, local and university
entities will cover vegetation, sedimentation, and wildlife, toxics accumulation and other
parameters.

Success Criteria:

7. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to determine the
success of a wetland restoration project?

Currently, a successful wetland restoration project is not specifically defined. The persistence of
native emergent vegetation, documentation of the utilization of the areaby wildlife and analysis of
potential toxics accumulation and uptake are all loosely expected to be used to evaluate the
relative success of the project.

Management Response:

8. Indicate the major management and data gaps affecting your state or federal wetland
restoration programs and how they are being addressed.

Major issues affecting wetland restoration programs are the consistency of data reporting and the
availability of funds and staff to cover all of the needed monitoring needs for pre and post
restoration implementation. A major deficiency in monitoring is sufficient evaluation prior to
restoration, especially in the case of tidal wetland restoration activities. Currently, pre and post
restoration monitoring is addressed through an ad hoc group of federal local and university
entities who either fund their own monitoring through program fund and grants or a bid for limited
funds allocated for monitoring through the restoration funds. Pre restoration monitoring is often
not fully funded through the restoration project funds.

-------
July 1, 2001

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
From information provided by Kelly J. Heffner
717-772-5970

Site Selection:

Site Selection:

1.	What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to select restoration
sites (e.g. geographic targeting vs. opportunity)?

The goal of the Pennsylvania Wetland Replacement Project (PWRP) is to replace wetlands lost
through permitted actions in each of the 20 major subbasins identified by the Pennsylvania State
Water Plan.

Other volunteer efforts are opportunity based taking into account site conditions and landowner
interest.

Potential mitigation sites are field reviewed for:

a)	Hydrologic features

b)	Soil type

c)	Topography

d)	Old field with early succession plant communities

e)	Barren/open land

f)	Landscaped, managed areas

g)	Disturbed lands

h)	Prior-converted cropland as determined by NRCS

i)	Lands with any recorded and/or observation alterations to hydrology that can be reversed
to allow restoration

j)	Intermittent drainage

k)	Lands converted through drainage or minor filling
The site should have at least one, preferably more, of the following sources of water:

a)	Seasonal high water table

b)	Perennial stream on site that contributes to overbank flow

c)	Connection to other wetlands or surface waters

2.	Identify some of the problems and solutions encountered when applying these site selection
criteria.

Wetland restoration sites are located where there is a willing volunteer landowner, and the
presence of suitable soils, hydrology and topography.

Design Criteria:

3.	Once a site has been selected, what evaluation methods and planning criteria do your state
or federal wetland restoration programs use to design a wetland restoration project (e.g.,
wetland type, hydrology and landscape)?

Projects should be self-sustaining and use natural construction materials whenever possible.

21

-------
July 1, 2001

Watershed Management:

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's watershed approach is community
based, locally driven and specific to the needs of the local watershed. Backed by over $250
million of state funds for the next four years, the Growing Greener program enables local
watershed groups to plan and implement cost effective best management practices to support
and attain the Commonwealth's water quality standards. Wetland protection, restoration and
creation are critical components of effective watershed management in Pennsylvania.

5. How are landscape and ecosystem function criteria being incorporated into restoration
projects?

Sites are selected that require only minor alterations to provide proper hydrology and the
successful creation of the desired habitat. Restoring former wetland sites with the hydrology in
place increases the change of restoring the wetland function.

Monitoring Approach:

6. Indicate the scope of your wetland restoration monitoring programs (e.g., what parameters,
how often and how long).

Wetland restoration efforts funded by the PWRP are monitored annually by DEP for 5 years.
Growing Greener projects are monitored for the duration of the grant period. Monitoring will
include photographs, written descriptions of soils, vegetation, areal extent of wetland, associated
functions, values, and water quality benefits. The measure of success depends upon how well
the projects meet the stated objectives in their approved proposals.

Success Criteria:

7. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to determine the
success of a wetland restoration project?

Each project has a stated goal against which project success is measured.
Management Response:

8. Indicate the major management and data gaps affecting your state or federal wetland
restoration programs and how they are being addressed.

PA DEP publishes an annual report on wetland restoration/creation efforts as part of its net gain
strategy. A standardized data form has been developed for use by partners to report their wetland
restoration/creation projects. Occasionally this data is late or incomplete. DEP then follows up to
ensure that all data is accurately reported.

-------
July 1, 2001

Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Information provided by Bill Street and Rob Schnabel

RSchnabel@savethebav.cbf.org
Bstreet@cbf.org

Site Selection:

1. What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to select restoration
sites (e.g. geographic targeting vs. opportunity)?

The program is opportunistic depending on volunteers for both labor and restoration sites. CBF
has is focusing its restoration efforts in three watersheds, Pequea Mill Creek, PA, Shenandoah,
VA, and the Lower Eastern Shore, MD. Priority site include headwater areas with hydric soils,
ditched prior converted wetlands, tiled prior-converted wetlands, and grazed wetlands.

2. Identify some of the problems and solutions encountered when applying these site selection
criteria.

The main problem encountered in the desired to restore entire systems coupled with the means
to restore system components. CBF is meeting the challenge with the Chesapeake Bay
Conservation Planning Network and CBF targeting to enhance cumulative benefits to the entire
system.

Design Criteria:

CBF uses the following methods to restore and/or enhance wetlands: ditch plugs, low earthen
berms, excavation, and fencing to reduce the impacts from grazing.

Watershed Management:

CBF integrates education, outreach, and advocacy into all programs including wetland
restoration. CBF utilizes its 6,250 volunteers as well as local watershed groups and partners, like
Ducks Unlimited, as well as restoration programs like the Conservation Reserve and
Enhancement Program (CREP) to maximize efforts.

5. How are landscape and ecosystem function criteria being incorporated into restoration
projects?

These projects all in all are targeted restoration projects. State and County agencies have
completed watershed assessments and are for this most part prioritizing projects. One example
is all of the work DNR is doing in the Little Pipe Creek watershed (Monocacy River drainage).
DNR has approximately 10 projects schedule between Westminster and Union Bridge after these
projects are complete the goal is to make this area a greenway.

-------
July 1, 2001

Monitoring Approach:

6.	Indicate the scope of your wetland restoration monitoring programs (e.g., what parameters,
how often and how long).

CBF does not monitor all 1,650 projects however; annual inspections are conducted on selected
sites. Monitoring included measures of structural integrity, general wetland development,
invasive species, biology, chemical, and physical.

Success Criteria:

7.	What criteria do your state or federal wetland restoration programs use to determine the
success of a wetland restoration project?

85% coverage by 5th year for emergent wetlands

435 woody stems per Acre for shrub/scrub and forested wetlands

The goal is to also create a wetland that has high value and provides the desired function, for ex.
Flood water desynchronization

Management Response:

8.	Indicate the major management and data gaps affecting your state or federal wetland
restoration programs and how they are being addressed.

The major management/data gap is the lack of progress toward system restoration as opposed to
restoring single components within the system. Other gaps include design criteria to maximize
water quality benefits and effective management of activities across the watershed including
water quality benefits outside the Coastal Plain. An understanding of long-term succession of the
entire system is also needed.

24

-------
July 1, 2001

Appendix 2:

State of the Science Papers

25

-------
July 1, 2001

Integrating Wetland Inventory, Assessment, and Restoration for Watersheds:

Optimizing Benefits from Wetlands Restorations
Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center
301 Forest Resources Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802

Introduction

Optimization of wetland restoration can be approached on a number of fronts, and at a
number of scales. Certainly, an overall framework is necessary into which various tools can be
inserted. States and regional groups have developed these according to individual constraints
and opportunities, and it is obvious that no single approach would satisfy all. From a technical
perspective, it would seem most helpful to describe individual "tools" that have recently been
developed, and that could be utilized within existing policy frameworks. The survey strikingly
points to the need for assessment techniques that maximize opportunities within a watershed. In
this vein, I'll describe a family of recently tested tools from the CWC, including the following:

• An approach that recognizes the need to acquire information for three separate, but integrated tasks;
inventory, condition assessment, and restoration.

• In order to accommodate differences in resource availability among various agencies and
organizations, there are three levels of effort for each of the three tasks, with increasing confidence in
decisions made based on those levels of effort.

• The use of reference wetlands in both processes.

• The incorporation of TMDLs into wetland restoration.

Our overall goal is to make this approach operational in the state of Pennsylvania, USA, during the next
few years. A pilot application of the approach is being conducted in several watersheds to both begin the
assessment process for those watersheds, and to train agency staff.

The Process

The overall process is diagrammed in Figure 1, and begins with construction of a synoptic
watershed map containing the best available wetlands inventory information. A synoptic map provides an
overall visual representation of the watershed. We have modified the synoptic approach developed by
Leibowitz et al. (1992) due to differences in the availability of remotely sensed data. We recommend that
synoptic maps display at a minimum the most current land use and land cover data available. Although
land use patterns do not completely describe disturbance levels, they are usually highly correlated
(Brooks et al. 1996, Wardrop et al. 1998, O'Connell et al. 2000). A synoptic map provides a set of
baseline conditions for comparing long-term changes, whether these changes involve degradation or
restoration. The map can help identify potential landscape-level threats to parts of the watershed.
Targeting of major projects, such as mitigation banks can be facilitated.

Using a digital database for a synoptic map, a set of metrics for spatial analysis can be generated
from GIS software programs to characterize the patterns of the landscape (e.g., proportional land cover,
connectivity, Brooks et al. 1996, Miller et al. 1997). Recommended resources for developing synoptic
maps include:

• current land use and land cover from Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery

• stream network (digitized 1:24,000 blue line database)

• wetlands and water bodies (National Wetlands Inventory digitized 1:24,000 base maps)

• road network (digitized 1:24,000 database)

• topography (Digital Line Graph (DLG) database)

• hydric and non-hydric soils (digitized county soil surveys as available, STATSGO)

• trends data (indicators of expected change, such as land use conversion rates,

population growth rates, intensity of landscape use)

-------
July 1, 2001

Once the synoptic map is assembled, an assessment of wetland condition can occur using only
this set of existing remotely-sensed data. The assessment conducted at Level 1 serves as a screening
tool to focus on broad areas of concern within portions of the watershed, focusing primarily on proportions
of land use around each designated wetland. If the Level 1 wetland inventory is insufficient or too
outdated to conduct an assessment, we use landscape-based decision rules that identify areas of high
probability for wetland occurrence in which to search. The latter requires ground reconnaissance to
locate and classify individual wetlands, and results in an enhanced or Level 2 inventory. A Level 2
assessment combines the land use analysis from Level 1 with a characterization of the area adjacent to
the wetland of interest and a checklist of stressors (e.g., sedimentation, eutrophication, see Adamus and
Brandt 1990) observed during ground reconnaissance to determine the overall condition of the wetland.

Based on the results from a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment, an estimate of wetland condition
becomes available for the target watershed, but the estimate has wide confidence intervals. If this
collective set of landscape and site indicators detects a problem or irregular disturbance "signal" within a
specific area relative to an established reference condition, then a Level 3 assessment of
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functions and biological integrity (IBIs, Karr 1981, Karrand Chu 1999) can be
used to diagnose specific stressors. Data collected during a Level 3 assessment is compared to existing
set of reference wetlands of similar HGM type and condition. The data collection effort for a Level 3
assessment is substantial, and hence, is intended for use only on priority areas in need of protection and
restoration.

Selection and Classification of Reference Wetlands

The use of reference wetlands is increasingly more common as ecologists and regulators search
for a reasonable and scientific method to measure and describe the inherent variability in natural
wetlands (Hughes et al. 1986, Kentula et al. 1992). Using reference wetlands from a wide variety of
wetland types, disturbance regimes, and landscape positions allows for that characterization. Although
reference sites often represent areas of minimal human disturbance, in some instances it is more useful
to represent a range of environmental conditions across a landscape. The primary reason for developing
a set of reference sites is the need to compare impacted or degraded sites to a standard set of
conditions. These baseline conditions can represent a starting point in time for trend analyses (e.g., long-
term successional studies or impact analysis on a group of wetlands). Reference sites can also serve as
alternatives to standard experimental controls that are seldom available. Reference sites provide the
assessment criteria use in site evaluations. They can be used to set design standards for mitigation
plans or provide performance criteria to measure success of projects.

Sites within the reference set should span several gradients. They should include, at a minimum,
the common types of wetlands found within a region, and range across the conditions found from
relatively pristine (ecologically intact) to severely disturbed sites (degraded ecological integrity and
functions). This will provide the data necessary to assess and rank the condition of other sites that are
being assessed. If the measurement and establishment of baseline conditions is important for evaluating
some anticipated impacts, then this could favor selection of sites either in degraded conditions facing
further degradation, or sites with pristine conditions against which relatively minor impacts can be
compared. The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach is based on characterization of reference wetlands
across a wide range of conditions (Brinson 1993, Smith et al. 1995).

Given limited human and financial resources, creating a pool of reference wetlands that satisfies
multiple objectives is desirable. Investigators must decide upon the acceptable level of analytical
compromise they can tolerate versus the advantages of shared data and resources. Most studies will be
able to benefit from some overlap among populations of reference sites. Once established, a set of
reference wetlands can be used to set the standards by which wetland creation and restoration projects
can be judged.

Since 1993, the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center (CWC) has established and studied a
set of reference wetlands; the current total is approaching 200. Reference wetlands were chosen
according to three criteria. First was long-term access, which suggested use of sites on public lands or
on private lands with a written agreement from the landowner and an expectation of continued access if
ownership changed. The CWC secured access agreements in all cases, with most sites being located on
public lands. Second, the CWC emphasized wetland types and landscape settings that are most
commonly impacted during the permitting process or prescribed under permit conditions. In general,
these are HGM subclasses without significant amounts of open water. Third, sites were selected

-------
July 1, 2001

primarily at random. Randomized selection procedures should be followed during an assessment of
wetlands for any given watershed. To ensure that all major HGM subclasses of wetlands were
represented in our reference set, however, we selected individual wetlands from a pool of sites across a
disturbance gradient. Also, part of our set of reference sites contained sites previously studied.
Photographs and descriptions of many of our wetlands can be viewed on the web site,
www.wetlands.cas.psu.edu.

Based on the observed characteristics of our original set of 51 reference wetlands and
preliminary information received during the evolution of the Corps' HGM program, we developed a
regional HGM classification key for the inland freshwater wetlands of Pennsylvania, with further relevance
to other Mid-Atlantic states. This dichotomous key is used to designate the HGM subclass based on
examination of field characteristics (Brooks et al. 1996, Cole et al. 1997). Classifying by HGM is not
enough; one should link or modify regional HGM schemes to include wetland vegetation types (Cowardin
et al. 1979) and disturbance levels. As with any classification system, there is overlap among
subclasses, but if recognized, this aspect does not nullify the benefits of using the approach as proposed.
Professional judgment must be used to select the best possible match to a subclass. Most actual
wetlands contain a mix of water sources and vegetation communities, and hence, will not result in perfect
correspondence with reference subclasses. Usually a single HGM subclass will dominate a wetland site,
but in some cases, two or more HGM subclasses will be present.

Incorporation of TMDLs

The use of TMDLs as a part of an overall restoration program is in the early stages of development, but
TMDLs could prove to be a useful approach for optimizing restoration efforts. In conjunction with
Pennsylvania DEP, we have postulated the following scenario to illustrate how the process might proceed
utilizing the three-level approach described previously:

Level I

• Select a watershed for assessment

• Sample 50 points from NWI

• Analyze landscape circles based on sites

• Compare results to those from other watersheds in the same ecoregion

• Prioritize top 20% watersheds of concern

Level II

• In the selected watershed, and using the same points, conduct Level II assessments

• Level II assessment provides a distribution of scores for sites; identify lowest category of site
scores

• Based on stressor diagnosis and site visits, we find that the predominant HGM type of the
lowest category sites is headwater floodplain in agricultural land use setting.

• Coordinate with other agencies and programs, integrate various BMPs for HWFP in
agricultural setting (TMDL is off-the-shelf)

Level III

• Utilize HGM and IBI assessments for site-specific or highly controversial TMDLs
The process repeats as necessary.

Conclusion

This comment document outlines a proposed approach to targeting opportunities for
wetland restoration in a watershed context and optimizing those opportunities, when appropriate.
The CWC is currently testing these approaches to demonstrate their feasibility and effectiveness.

-------
July 1, 2001

Literature Cited

Adamus, P. R., and K. Brandt. 1990. Impacts on quality of inland wetlands of the United States: A
survey of indicators, techniques, and application of community-level biomonitoring data. U. S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, Environ. Res. Lab., Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-90/073.

Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Wateways Exp. Stn., Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-4, Washington, DC. 79pp.+app.

Cole, C. A., R. P. Brooks, D. H. Wardrop. Wetland hydrology as a function of hydrogeomorphic (HGM)

subclass. Wetlands 17(4):456-467.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. USDI, Fish Wld. Serv. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131pp.

Hughes, R. M., and D. P. Larsen, and J. M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for

assessing stream potentials. Environ. Manage. 10(5):629-635.

Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.

Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Island

Press, Washington, DC. 206pp.

Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneos. 1992.

Wetlands. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation.

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 151 pp.

Leibowitz, S. G., B. Abbruzzese, P. R. Adamus, L. E. Hughes, and J. T. Irish. 1992. A synoptic approach
to cumulative impact assessment: A proposed methodology. EPA/600/R-92/167. U.S. Environ.
Protect. Agency, Environ. Res. Lab., Corvallis, OR. 127 pp.

Miller, J. N., R. P. Brooks, M. J. Croonquist. 1997. Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities.

Landsc. Ecol. 12:137-153.

O'Connell, T. J., L. E. Jackson, R. P. Brooks. 2000. Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition in

the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10(6):1706-1721.

Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland
functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. U. S.
Army Corps Engin., Waterways Exp. Stn., Wetlands Res. Prog. Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-9, Washington,
DC. 79pp.

Wardrop, D. H., and R. P. Brooks. 1998. The occurrence and impact of sedimentation in central
Pennsylvania wetlands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51:119-130.

29

-------
July 1, 2001

Wetland Restoration: Landscape Considerations for Design and Function
Jennifer Newton and Carl Hershner
Center for Coastal Resources Management
Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Wetland restoration is a noble endeavor, an "act of human creativity" as Barbara Bedford
says in her 1999 Wetlands contribution. Recent work suggests, however, that the caliber of our
creations would be greatly improved if we were to undertake several steps to further our "artistic"
abilities

• Thinking big - Considering the larger scale while designing at the project level is crucial to
successful restoration. Many of the commentaries on how wetland restoration projects fail,
point to the lack of recognition of the wetland within its larger landscape context as the
reason (e.g., Brinson, 1993; Zedler, 1997; Bedford, 1999). Most scientists would agree that
the appropriate scale at which to think is the watershed. Recognition of large scale
hydrologic processes, for example, can be critical to successful restoration of wetland
conditions.

• Balancing components - Just as there are general rules of visual harmony, so there are
some generally defined ecological considerations that should be taken into account if wetland
construction is to function fully in the landscape. The relationship between wetlands and
surrounding landuses is defined as much by proportion and pattern as it is by area and type.

• Planning for sustainability - Accounting for the certain and probable changes that will occur
through time is basic to long term success. There are fundamental factors restorers must
consider in both what restoration efforts are possible, and which will remain stable given the
climate, hydrology and geology of the restoration site and it's landscape setting.

• Learning from nature - There is much to be learned from the body of wetlands that are
already in the landscape, even those that are degraded. Current thinking on this suggests
the use of reference wetlands to guide restoration projects, for three reasons: 1. Information
gained from observing reference wetlands can help in the planning of restoration efforts to
help decrease the likelihood of failure. 2. Comparing restoration wetlands to reference
wetlands can help illuminate whether or not a wetland is "functional." 3. In the case that a
restored wetland is not functioning to the standard of reference wetlands, comparison can
help suggest further alterations that need to be made to the restored site(Whigham, 1999)

Restoration Objectives

If the effort is to restore loss of function, one must be able to categorize both patterns of
loss and degradation within the watershed to assess what functions need to be replaced. An
important question is whether to replace functions lost in a specific project, or functions lost
historically in the watershed (Zedler 1997). Another alternative is to attempt restoration of some
"most needed function" within the current context of the watershed.

Additionally, the scale of project planning depends on whether the objective is mitigation
for a degradation of a wetland or degradation of the surrounding landscape. Degradation in the
form of fragmentation, creation of "hostile" surrounding landuse, toxic or nutrient influxes, exotic
invasions, loss of connectivity with other wetlands or critical landuse types all will necessitate
different planning scopes

Design Guidance

Restoration projects need to include landscape considerations that determine how a
wetland will function and constrain a wetland's ability to be a self-sustaining. These
considerations must include the climactic and geologic settings that mediate both hydrology and
mineral/nutrient concentrations found at the site. These in turn influence the wetland's ability to
perform target functions. When undertaking restoration efforts, function often follows form.

-------
July 1, 2001

There are two models currently in use that provide a framework for designing wetland
restorations according to these considerations: the hydrogeomorphic model and the
hydrogeologic model. Use of these models, may be considered more appropriate for guiding
restoration than the ubiquitous NWI Cowardin classification, that was originally created for the
purpose of identifying habitat types.

Hvdroaeoloaic Model - Identifies factors that determine what kind of wetland can be restored and
maintained at a given site. The approach views entire landscapes in terms of underlying
geologic formations and overlying soil types. These parameters combined with topographic
features, and coupled with evapotranspiration rates, will affect how water from precipitation
moves through a landscape (Winter 1988). The three main factors used for assessment are: 1)
regional climate, which drives precipitation and evapotranspiration rates; 2) hydrologic setting in
terms of flows of surface and ground water; and 3)geologic characteristics of the site and
surrounding area (Bedford, 1999). These, in turn, determine the biological and functional diversity
of wetlands in the landscape. Vegetation and subsequent faunal assemblages are seen as
outcomes of the long-term interaction of climate and landscape - "If you build it (properly), they
will come". (There is some research on use of seedbanks as a mechanism for enhancing
predictability and speed of outcomes (e.g., DeBerry and Perry 2000, Whigham 1999)). One of
the benefits of the hydrogeologic system of classification is that biogeochemical processes and
nutrient retention behavior are better predicted by hydrogeological parameters than by typical
vegetation classifications of wetlands (Hill and Devito1997 in Bedford 1999; Lent et al. 1997).

A corollary to this approach, however, is that one must consider the system as a whole. The
underlying assumption is that changes made in the hydrology of one area will affect the
hydrology in others. In practice this involves not only looking at alterations such as dams,
levees, channelization and groundwater withdrawal, but also considering the effect of the
restoration project on hydrologically linked areas (Winter 1988)

Hydrogeomorphic Model (HGM) - The basic premise of this approach is classification of wetlands
according to their biogeochemical processes and functioning. While also primarily landscape
based, HGM places greater emphasis on the wetland itself than the hydrogeologic model does.
HGM employs greater definition of hydrodynamics, establishing both the strength and direction of
water movements in and through a wetland. The purpose is identification of a wetland's ability to
transport sediments, nutrients and other substances within, as well as to and from the site
(Bedford, 1999). The utility of using this system to guide restoration efforts is the focus on
wetland function, which is frequently the objective of restoration. HGM classifies wetlands in
terms of three components: geomorphic setting, water source, and hydrodynamics. The six main
classes of wetlands for HGM models are riverine, depressional, slope, flats, estuarine fringe and
lacustrine fringe. Wetland functions such as nutrient cycling, groundwater recharge and
biodiversity are defined for each class based on position of the wetland within the landscape, the
primary source of water to the wetland and the direction of water movement within the site
(Whigham 1999; Rheinhardt et al. 1997)

HGM Reference Sites - Given the complex nature of ecological systems, HGM relies on
reference sites to established observable parameters correlated to wetland functions. Reference
sites can be compared with restoration projects to assess functional ability and stability of
restored sites (Zedler 1997). Sites with similar hydrogeomorphic settings can be compared, using
reference sites chosen for high levels of sustainable functioning, to set standards for both
restoration planning and monitoring (Brinson and Reinhardt 1996). There is an increasing body
of literature on the use of reference sites and templates for wetland restoration projects (e.g.
Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996; Rheinhardt et al. 1997; Rheinhardt et al. 1999; Bedford 1999).

-------
July 1, 2001

Consideration of Landuse Pattern

Ideally, a descriptive and predictive model of ecosystem dynamics could illuminate key
areas within a watershed critical to maintaining system integrity and areas most suitable for
wetland restoration efforts. While modeling capabilities are not yet so precise, work on many
topics such as landscape ecology, patch dynamics, metapoputation dynamics, and impact
assessments can help in identification of key areas and patterns within landscapes which need to
be restored to promote ecosystem integrity.

One key factor emerging from these studies is the landscape scale at which effects of
wetland loss or creation are realized. Much concern has been raised that the current site by site
approach to wetland permitting allows piecemeal destruction of wetland systems across
landscapes. Narrowly focused impact reviews do not consider potential cumulative effects at
scales beyond project boundaries. These effects are often not explainable by simple addition of
individual project impacts (Hemond and Benoit 1988). Cumulative effects need to be assessed in
terms of number, type, and areal extent of losses, and should include consideration of wetland
placement within a watershed.

Dahl (1991) cites "ponds" as the only wetland type increasing in US. Bedford (1999)
notes that the type of freshwater emergent wetlands most commonly created, the cattail marsh
(Typha spp.), is also the type that typically evolves in degraded wetlands. The consequence of
this trend is skewing the resultant mix of wetlands in the landscape towards one predominant
type. Moreover, this type is often constructed in areas where such wetlands would not occur
naturally. This results in the issue of "no net loss" of acreage not resulting in an equivalent "no
net loss" of function. The wetland types most affected by this conversion through mitigation are
isolated and headwater wetlands.

Water Quality Nutrients and toxics can enter wetlands from either adjacent upland areas or
flooding by adjacent bodies of water such as rivers or streams. Brinson (1993) calls the former
riparian transport, and the latter overbank transport, with riparian transport responsible for most of
the nutrient removal and sediment deposition that occurs in wetlands. Since riparian transport is
more common the further upstream a wetland is, wetlands in the upper drainage systems are
believed to have the greatest impact on water quality. A 1 hectare loss in a lower order stream
can have more detrimental effect than the same loss in a higher order stream (Whigham et al.
1988, Brinson 1993).

Palustrine wetlands have been found to be major sinks for nitrogen, phosphorus and
other potential water pollutants (Whigham et al. 1988, Brinson 1988). Phillips et al (1993) found
that nitrate concentrations in both ground and surface water are inversely related to the extent of
forested wetlands.

Wetlands in riparian areas are particularly valuable as filters of waterborne pollutants
transported from adjacent intensively managed landscapes. Isolated wetlands (without an inlet or
outlet for water flow) exist in extreme headwater positions with little catchment area or opportunity
to interact with upland runoff. This setting results in typically low pollutant loadings. Brinson
(1988) suggests isolated wetlands should therefore be considered important to production of
good quality water and protected from development that could cause them to lose nutrients to
downstream areas.

Saturated wetlands may be particularly efficient at improving the quality of the water
passing through them, as maximum exchange between the water and plant roots can occur,
resulting in maximum retention of toxicants or nutrients (Hemond and Benoit 1988).

Finally, while fringe wetlands such as tidal marshes may not have great impact on water
quality, their value as habitat for fish and wildlife calls for management of upstream wetlands to
maintain water quality and protect them from inflows of pollutants (Brinson 1988).

Cumulative impacts are an important consideration in assessment of the water quality
functions of wetlands in a landscape. Loss of a wetland not only eliminates the functions that
wetland had performed, it places greater burdens on the functional capacity of the remaining

-------
July 1, 2001

wetlands within a drainage system. Filling or draining of a wetland changes it from an area of
accretion to an area of erosion, allowing nutrients and toxicants which had been sequestered
overtime to rapidly re-enter the system (Brinson 1988). As a consequence, the impacts of
wetland alteration or destruction go beyond the wetland itself, and may include increased levels
of toxicants and nutrients entering the downstream system. Finally, alterations in surrounding
land-use can also affect the water balance and the amount of pollutants entering a wetland
(Pearson 1994). This can result in a change in efficiency or sustainability of an otherwise
undisturbed wetland, and should be considered in efforts to maintain wetland water quality
functions.

Habitat Theories of biodiversity point to preservation of large, pristine tracts of land as the ideal
to maintain high levels of species diversity (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Diamond 1975). As a
result, some researchers espouse building larger wetland tracts to both support species diversity
and to reinforce resistance to natural and man-made perturbations (Zedler 1997). However, what
may be an isolated fragment of habitat for some species, may provide an important aspect of
landscape heterogeneity for more wide-ranging species (Harris 1988). In the southeastern U.S.,
small isolated wetlands are critical breeding sites for many species of amphibians and can be
important nesting and feeding sites for waders and shorebirds (Bradshaw 1991). Canvasbacks
(Aythya valisineria), whose populations on their wintering ground in Chesapeake Bay are one-fifth
what they were 40 years ago, actually prefer to nest in small, semi-permanent wetlands, in stands
of cattail, bulrush orwhitetop grass (Haramis 1991). Another Chesapeake Bay inhabitant, the
wood duck (Aix sponsa), depends upon bottomland hardwood forests, shrub swamps, and
flooded shrub fringes of forests along small watercourses for breeding (Haramis 1991). Wetland
tracts as small as 0.1 acres may, depending on type and location, have significant value in terms
of productivity, detritus availability, and habitat (Silberhorn et al. 1974). Many small tracts,
including those with low species diversity, can harbor rare species or be one of the last remaining
examples of a particular habitat type (Shafer 1995). In James City County, Virginia, Skiffe's
Creek and Graylin Woods both provide sites where very rare species of plants exist in wetland
habitats as small as 5 and 7 acres (Clark 1993). Such fragments can be cores for habitat
restoration. Individuals from these sites can be introduced to other suitable habitats, or cultivated
to increase population levels. An important additional consideration is that wetlands may be
complete even at small sizes: that is, they are not necessarily fragments of larger wetlands that
have been lost or isolated by development. Weakley and Schafale (1994) point out that most of
the wetlands found in the Southern Blue Ridge are small (<10 ha), and many are too small to be
recognized or mapped on NWI maps with a scale of 1:24,000. Yet these wetlands have great
species and community diversity and provide habitat for many rare as well as common plants and
animals.

Loss of wetlands not only has an effect on total wetland habitat available, it changes the
ecosystem dynamics across the landscape in which they are found. Theories of metapopulation
dynamics (Levins 1970, Hanski and Gilpin 1991) may be applied to populations of animals or
plants that are isolated in patches of habitat. These patches are, in effect, islands of habitat
surrounded by areas inhospitable either due to human development or unsuitable habitat type.
The theory argues that while local populations may go extinct, having multiple sources, on other
"islands", can serve to rescue, or recolonize the area. It may be argued that since wetlands are
often isolated from one another, species making use of these areas are already dispersing some
distance between habitats, exhibiting the migration facet of metapopulation theory. This ability of
individuals or propagules to move between multiple tracts can protect a population against
demographic accidents, genetic erosion, localized environmental change, natural catastrophes
and human disturbance (Shafer 1995). While each species will probably have a different
maximum dispersal distance (Pickett and Thompson 1978), elimination of small wetlands in the
landscape may destroy critical "stepping stones", limiting the ability of species to move between
suitable larger wetlands. Species richness of amphibians has been negatively correlated with
wetland isolation and road density of the intervening landscape (Lehtinen et al.1999). Semlitsch
and Bodie (1998) noted the potential effects of loss of small wetlands on amphibian
metapopulations, based solely on dispersal distances. Their results demonstrated that loss of
small wetlands may decrease the chance of local population rescue and result in loss of diversity

-------
July 1, 2001

in the regional amphibian fauna. Some areas, such as riparian forests, may act as habitat to
some species, and provide a corridor linking habitats for others (Simberloff and Cox 1987,
Pearson 1994). Other species, including such highly mobile organismas such as shorebirds,
wading birds and waterfowl, need suites of wetland sites within the landscape to accommodate
both their within and among season habitat requirements (Haig et al., 1998)

Gibbs (1993) created a simplified spatial model to simulate the loss of all <10 acre
palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetlands in a 600 km2 area of Maine. The
purpose was to determine the effects of such a loss on metapopulation dynamics of salamanders,
newts, frogs, turtles, small birds, and small mammals. He observed elevated extinction risks for
turtles, small birds, and small mammals, suggesting that "the presence of small wetlands may be
critical for the persistence of certain wetland taxa, particularly those with low population growth
rates and low densities."

While most scientists and managers would agree with the concept that to be truly saved,
species and habitat must be saved in replicate, current understanding points to the need to
consider interaction dynamics between wetlands and other nearby non-wetland habitat as well.
Many wetland plant and animal populations depend on aspects of habitats in the surrounding
landscapes. Without these complementary habitats, populations can collapse (Pearson 1994,
Semlitsch 1998). The presence of wetlands as ecotones in a landscape can also affect plant and
animal distributions and diversity in surrounding areas (Risser 1995, Trettin et al. 1994).
Management of entire drainage basins, including protection of buffer zones around wetlands, is
necessary to increase the viability of some species in wetlands (Semlitsch 1998, Shafer 1995,
Holland 1993, Harris 1988). Improved water quality that can result from these buffer zones may
be as important for wildlife as maintenance of habitat diversity. This connectivity to upland areas
highlights the need for restoration efforts to eliminate barriers impeding the flow of water and
movement of animals into and out of the site (Zedler 1997, Winter 1988).

Implementation of Adaptive Management

While current understanding of cumulative impacts, matrix interactions between
wetlands, and upland-wetland linkages remains far from complete, there is certainly enough
knowledge currently to guide wetland restoration efforts. One of the most important aspects of
successful wetlands restoration, however, is recognition of limitations in technical understanding
and acceptance of the need to sustain its evolution. This translates to a consistent and
meaningful commitment to monitoring of restoration efforts. It also implies a continuing focus on
integration of new findings, all to facilitate achievement of the "no net loss" goal.

-------
July 1, 2001

Literature Cited

Bedford, B. L. 1999. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: Links to wetland
restoration in the United States and Canada. Wetlands 19:775-788

Bradshaw, J. 1991. A technique for the functional assessment of nontidal
wetlands in the coastal plain of Virginia. Special Report No. 315. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Brinson, M. M. 1988. Strategies for assessing the cumulative effects of wetland
alteration on water quality. Environmental Management 12:655-662.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along
environmental gradients. Wetlands 13:65-74.

Clark, K.H. 1993. Conservation planning for the natural areas of the lower
peninsula of Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report# 93-94. Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage.

193pp.

Dahl, T.E., C. E. Johnson, and W. E. Frayer. 1991. Status and trends of
wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid 1970's to mid-1980's. U. S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.

DeBerry , D. A., and J. E. Perry. 2000 Wetland seed banks: Research in Natural
and Created Wetlands. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Wetlands Program
Techical Report, Summer 2000. (No. 00-4).

Diamond, J. M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic
studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7:129-146.

Gibbs, J. P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local
populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13:25-31.

Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland connectivity
in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12(4)749-758.

Hanski, I. and M. E. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and
conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:3-16.

Haramis, G.M. 1991. Wood Duck and Canvasback. In: Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.

Solomons, Maryland. Pp15:1-11 and 17:1-10.

Harris, Larry D. 1988. The nature of cumulative impacts on biotic diversity of
wetland vertebrates. Environmental Management 12:675-693.

Hemond, H. F.and J. Benoit. 1988. Cumulative impacts on water quality
functions of wetlands. Environmental Management 12:639-653.

Holland, M. M. 1993. Management of land/inland water ecotones: needs for
regional approaches to achieve sustainable ecological systems.

Hydrobiologia 251: 331-340.

Jenkins, R. E. 1989. Long-term conservation and preserve complexes. Nature
Conservancy. Jan/Feb 1989: 5-12.

Johnston, C.A. 1994. Cumulative impacts to wetlands. Wetlands 14(1): 49-55.

Johnston, C. A., N. E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi. 1990. The cumulative effect
of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity. A landscape approach.

Biogeochemistry 10:105-141.

Lee, L.C. and J.G. Gosselink. 1988. Cumulative impacts on wetlands: Linking

scientific assessments and regulatory alternatives. Environmental Management 12(5): 591-602.

Lehtinen, R. M., S. M. Galatowitsch, and J.R. Tester. 1999. Consequences of
habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands
19 (1): 1-12.

Lent, R. M., P. K. Weiskel, F. P. Lyford, D. S. Armstrong. 1997. Hydrologic
indices for nontidal wetlands. Wetlands 17(1):19-30.

Levins, R. 1970. Extinction. In M. Gerstenhaber (Ed.), Some mathematical
problems in biology. Pages 77-107. American Mathematical Society,

Providence, Rl, USA.

MacArthur, R. H. and E. O. Wlson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography.

Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.

35

-------
July 1, 2001

Omernik, J. M. 1976. The influence of land use on stream nutrient levels. EPA Report 600/3 -

Pearson, S.M. 1994. Landscape-level processes and wetland conservation in the
southern Appalachian mountains. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 77: 321-332.

Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural

watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65 (5): 1466 - 1475.

Phillips, K. 1990. Where have all the frogs and toads gone? Bioscience 40(6)

422-424

Phillips, P.J., J. M. Denver, R. J. Shedlock, P.A. Hamilton. 1993. Effect of
forested wetlands on nitrate concentrations in ground water and surface water
on the Delmarva peninsula. Wetlands 13(2)75-83

Pickett, S. T. A. and J. N. Thompson. 1978. Patch Dynamics and the design of
nature reserves. Biol. Conserv. 13: 27-37.

Preston, S. D, and J. W. Brakebill. 1999. Application of spatially referenced
regression modeling for the evaluation of total nitrogen loading in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report
99-4054.

Rheinhardt, R. D., M.M. Brinson, P.M. Farley. 1997 Applying wetland reference
data to functional assessment, mitigation and restoration. Wetlands 17(2):195-
215.

Rheinhardt, R. D., M. C. Rheinhardt, M. M. Brinson, K. E. Faser, Jr. 1999.

Application of Reference Data for assessing and restoring headwater
ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 7(3):241-251.

Risser, P. G. 1995. The status of the science examining ecotones. Bioscience
45:318-325.

Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-
breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology 12 (5): 1113-1119.

Semlitsch, R. D. and J. R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands
expendable? Conservation Biology 12(5) 1129-1133

Shafer, C. L. 1995. Values and shortcomings of small reserves. Bioscience
45:80-88.

Silberhorn, G. M., G. M. Dawes, and T. A. Barnard, Jr. 1974. Coastal wetlands
of Virginia. VIMS (Virginia Institute of Marine Science) Interim Report No. 3.

Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation
corridors. Conservation Biology 1:63-71.

Trettin, C. C., W. M. Aust, M. M. Davis, A. S. Weakley, and J. Wsniewski. 1994.

Wetlands of the interior southeastern United States: conference summary
statement. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 77: 19-205.

Weakley, A.S. and M. P. Schafale. 1994. Non-alluvial wetlands of the southern
blue ridge - diversity in a threatened ecosystem. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.

77: 359-383.

Whigham, D. F. 1999. Ecological issues related to wetland preservation,
restoration, creation and assessment. The Science of the Total Environment
240(1-3):31-40.

Whigham, D. F., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts of freshwater
wetlands on water quality: a landscape perspective. Environmental
Management 12:663- 671.

Wnter, T. C. 1988. A Conceptual framework for assessing cumulative impacts on
the hydrology of nontidal wetlands. Environmental Management. 12(5):605-
620.

Zedler, J. B. 1996. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the
forum. Ecological Applications 6(1):33-37.

36

-------
July 1, 2001

Appendix 3:

Interesting Ideas from Existing Wetland Restoration

Programs

37

-------
July 1, 2001

In Maryland...

A registry of Approved Nontidal Wetland Mitigation Sites

Maryland has developed a registry in the form of a GIS map showing sites technically suitable for
establishing wetlands and a listing of landowners open to the prospect of allowing mitigation on
their land. Applicants for which onsite mitigation is not practicable nor desirable can contact
landowners on the registry about using their land for mitigation. The pre-approval by the
Department of the Environment (MDE) of these sites eliminates the need for time consuming
additional site searches in appropriate watersheds, allows for design to begin, and in some cases
for construction to be completed. Maryland's mandate of "no net loss" of nontidal wetlands is
more readily achieved with the use of the registry.

In Virginia...

Partnership for Fish and Wildlife

The Partnership for Fish and Wildlife program through the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
is a national effort supported by federal and state agencies, private landowners and non-
governmental organizations (NGO) to restore wetlands and other vital habitats on private land.
Virginia has benefited greatly from the program and has restored 5,000 acres in the past 11
years. Virginia's 12 partners have contributed to the program's success in a number of ways.
The USFWS provides funding, design, and technical assistance. State agencies encourage
landowner participation in the program through advertisement and directed solicitation. NGO's
like American Forester, The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, and others provide
70% of the funding the USFWS uses to administer the program. Landowners not only allow
restoration on their land but they also pay 5-10% of the restoration costs in in-kind services.

The program mobilizes people toward the accomplishment of a common goal - habitat
restoration - but it is not without risk. Landowners, more so that any other partner, are
susceptible to time and circumstance. The USFWS understands this and has met the needs of
the landowner though a 10-year landowner agreement. By signing on as a partner the landowner
has agreed to protect the wetland or other restored habitat for the duration of the contact. In the
event that the landowner is unable to provide that protection, the landowner must notify the
USFWS within 30 days and will be held responsible for some portion of the restorations costs. In
the case of wetlands the USFWS provides the landowner with a five year grace period, after the
terms contract have been fulfilled, before declaring the wetland jurisdictional. By meeting the
needs of the landowner and mobilizing support from the private and public sectors the
Partnership for Fish and Wildlife will continue to be important for the restoration of critical habitats
in Virginia.

In Pennsylvania...

In-Lieu-Fee's and the Wetland Replacement Project

Pennsylvania's Wetland Replacement Project (PWRP) was implemented in 1995 as an
alternative to traditional mitigation. PWRP, is an in-lieu fee program also called the in lieu fee
program, established a where the fund that is jointly administered by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for to provide
fef the creation and restoration of aquatic resources as a means of mitigating unavoidable
impacts under 0.50. Applicants who propose impacts less than .50 acres of wetland and met all
other requirements related to avoidance and minimization for any class of activity under the
permit requirements can contribute to the fund as determined by the reviewing office. The
amount of the contribution ranges from $0 to $7,500.00 depending on the size of the impact.
The in-lieu-fee-program is a very effective way of reducing impacts and for ensuring successful
wetland replacement for small wetland impacts, as the fund cannot be used for impacts over .50
acres.

38

-------
July 1, 2001

Bay-wide through CBF...

Volunteer Restoration

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) uses volunteers and partner agencies to restore
wetlands throughout the watershed. To date CBF has completed 1,650 projects restoring a total
of 5,541 acres of wetlands and 845 miles of riparian buffers. The program is an opportunistic,
voluntary, broad-based program aimed at maximizing restoration accomplishments and building
public awareness.

39

-------
July 1, 2001

Appendix 4:

Workshop Participants List

40

-------
July 1, 2001

Jenn Aiosa
CBF

Merrill Environmental Center
6 Herndon Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-268-8833
jaiosa@savethebay.cbf.org

Matt Airhardt
CBF

Phillip Merrill Environmental Center
6 Herndon Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-268-8816

mairhardt@savethebay.cbf.org

Sydney Amy
CRC

645 Contees Wharf Road
Edgewater, MD 21037
410-798-1283
arny@serc.si.edu

Russell Bellmer
NOAA

1315 East-West Highway
Bldg. SSMC3 Rm. 15317
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
301-713-0174 X186
Russell.Bellmer@noaa.gov

Chet Bigelow
VA DGIF

5806 Mooretown Road
Williamsburg, VA23188
757-253-7072
cbigelow@dgif.state.va.us

David Bleil
MD DNR

Watershed Management Division

580 Taylor Avenue

F-2 CCWS, Tawes State Office Bldg.

Annapolis, MD 21401

410-260-8784

dbleil@dnr.state.md.us

Trevor Clark
US FWS

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-573-4527
trevor_clark@fws.gov

Catherine Clark
CRC

410 Severn Ave., Ste. 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-267-5718
clark.catherine@epa.gov

Denise Clearwater
MDE

2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
410-631-8094

dclearwater@mde.state.md.us

Frank Dawson
MD DNR

Tawes State Office Building, D-2
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-260-8795
fd awso n @d n r. state. md. us

Dave Davis
VA DCR

203 Governor Street, Third Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
804-786-1712
dd avis@d cr. state. va. us

Stuart Demanski
PA DEP

Bureau of Waterways and Wetlands
P.O. Box 8775
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8775
717-772-5976
sdemanksi@state.pa.us

Katia Englehardt

UMCES APL

301 Braddock Road

Frostburg, MD 21532-2307

301-689-7140

engelhardt@al.umces.edu

Thomas J. Filip, III
U.S. Army Engineer District
Baltimore Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
410-962-3670

tom.filip@nab02.usace.army.mil

41

-------
July 1, 2001

Tara Frates

MD Environmental Service
2011 Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-7261
tfrat@menv.com

Mike Fritz
EPA CBPO

410 Severn Ave., Ste. 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-267-5721
fritz.mike@epa.gov

Dick Hammerschlag
USGS

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708
301-497-5555

richard_hammerschlag@usgs.gov

Louise Hanson
MD DNR

Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-260-8774
lhanson@dnr.state.md.us

Carl Hershner
VIMS

College of William and Mary
P.O. Box 1346
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
804-642-7387

carl@sweethall.wetlan.vims.edu

Lee Hill
VA DCR

203 Governor Street, Ste. 206
Richmond, VA 23219
804-786-3998
leehill@dnr.state.va.us

Curtis Hutto
VA DCR

203 Governor Street, Third Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
804-692-0479
cjhutto@dcr.state.va.us

Ann Jennings
CBF

1108 East Main Street, Ste. 1600
Richmond, VA 23219
804-780-1392

ajennings@savethebay.cbf.org
Jamie Keefer

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
6600 York Road, Ste. 100
Baltimore, MD 21212
410-377-6270
jkeefer@acb-online.org

Erika Kehne
MES

2011 Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-7281
ekehn@menv.com

David Knepper

US ACE

803 Front Street

Attn: Regulatory Branch

Norfolk, VA 23510-1096

757-441-7488

david.a.knepper@usace.army.mil

Julie LaBranche
MDE

2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
410-631-6687

jlabranche@mde.state, md.us

Garry Mayer
NOAA

1315 East-West Highway F/HC
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-0174
garry.mayer@noaa.gov

Michael McCoy
MDE

2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
410-631-6681
mmcoy@mde.state, md.us

42

-------
July 1, 2001

Stacey Moulds

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
P.O. Box 1981
Richmond, VA 23218
804-775-0951
moulds.acb@verizon.net

Gwen Neate

MD Environmental Service
2011 Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-7261
gneat@menv.com

Monaca Noble
CRC

410 Severn Avenue, Ste. 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-267-9830
noble.monaca@epa.gov

David Norris
VA DGIF

5806 Mooretown Road
Williamsburg, VA23188
757-253-4180
d norris@dg if .state. va. us

Frank Payer
PA DEP

Bureau of Watershed Management

400 Market Street

10th floor, RCSOB

Harrisburg, PA 17105

717-772-5994

fpayer@pa .state. us

Scott Phillips
USGS

8987 Yellow Brick Road
Baltimore, MD 21237
410-238-1972
swphilli@usgs.gov

Regina Poeske

EPA Region III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-2725

poeske.regina@epa.gov

Jaclin Schweigart
CRC

645 Contees Wharf Road
Edgewater, MD 21037

410-798-1283
schweigart@serc.si.edu

Melissa Jachelski Slatnick
MES

2011 Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-7261
mslat@menv.com

Khervin Smith
PA DEP

Bureau of Watershed Management

400 Market Street

10th floor, RCSOB

Harrisburg, PA 17105

717-772-5972

Khsmith@state.pa.us

Will Smith

U.S. Fish and Wldlife Service
6669 Shore Lane
Gloucester, VA 23061
804-693-6694 X145
willard_smith@fws.gov

Arthur Spingarn

EPA Region III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-2719

spingarn.arthur@epa.gov

William Street
CBF

Phillip Merrill Environmental Center
6 Herndon Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-268-8816

bst re et@sa veth e bay. cbf. o rg
Rich Takacs

NOAA Restoration Center
410 Severn Ave., Ste. 107A
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-267-5672
rich.takacs@noaa.gov

Denise Heller Wardrop

Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center

301 Forest Resources Lab

University Park, PA 16802

814-863-1005

dhwl 10@psu.ed

43

-------