1. Creating Successful Freshwater Wetlands
Ynes S. Arocho
BIO 690: Qualifying Exam
M.S. Environmental Science
http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html

2. Overview
Wetland Loss
Ecosystem Services
Wetland Policy
Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Banks
Wetland Function
Wetland Plant Development
Wetland Soil Development
Salvaged Soils
Reference Wetlands
Restoration Costs
Urban Wetlands
West Creek Reservation
Conclusions

3. Wetland Loss

56% of US wetlands
(Dahl, 1991)

90% of Ohio wetlands
(Dahl, 1991)

Over half the world’s
wetlands are lost or
severely degraded (Yallop
and O’Connell, 2000)
Source:http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/wetstatus.pdf

4. Wetland Policy

Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act

Compensatory
mitigation

“No Net Loss”

Regulation has three
levels:

Avoidance

Minimization

Compensation
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00333.x/full

5. Wetland Mitigation

Four options

Establish a new site

Restore a previously
exiting site

Enhance function of
an existing site

Preserve an existing
site

Mitigation ratio

Type and size of
wetland destroyed
determines type and
size of created
wetland required.

Required ≠ Actual

6. National Research Council Study, 2001

Purpose: evaluate
wetland mitigation
practice.

Plant species
composition = 10 or
more yrs to stabilize

Soil development = 3-
30 yrs to stabilize

Plant assemblages
do not replace
function

Recommendation:

Both plant community
structure and wetland
function should be
considered during
mitigation.

Resulting wetland
should be self-
sustaining
− Wetland hydrology

7. Mitigated Wetlands in Ohio

Kettlewell,2005

101 mitigation sites

425.3 acres impacted

697.8 acres required

496.8 acres actual
(71.2% of required)

Mitigation ratio 1.17:1

1.17 acre created / 1
acre destroyed http://www.ohiodnr.com/Home/wild_resourcessubhomepage/Researcha
ndSurveys/WildlifePopulationStatusLandingPage/WoodDuck/tabid/1933
4/Default.aspx

8. Compliance Performance Standards

Vary among permits

Vary among similar
wetland types

Some too stringent or
too modest

Difficult to determine
success or failure

Examples: minimum
# native plants,
survival of # woody
species
http://andreawilliamsministries.com/what-does-success-really-mean-
anyways/success-and-failure-road-sign-with-dramatic-clouds-and-sky/

9. Mitigated Wetlands in Illinois

Matthews and
Endress, 2008

76 mitigation sites

113.6 hectares
proposed

31.7 hectares deficit

Applied performance
standards

8 failed all goals

45 met some goals

23 met all goals
Matthews and Endress, 2008

10. Mitigation Banks

Large wetland area

Sell mitigation credits
(hectares of
wetlands) to parties
required to mitigate.

2005 estimates:

363 active banks

75 sold out banks

169 proposed banks

78% are for-profit
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/DIVISIONS/TRANSSYSDEV/ENVI
RONMENT/ECOLOGICAL_RESOURCES_PERMITS/MITIGA
TIONINVENTORY/Pages/default.aspx
ODOT Mitigation
Inventory

11. Wetland Function

Federal standards
measure vegetation for 5
yrs.

Do not measure:

Biotic integrity

Nutrient cycling

Trophic dynamics

Hydrology

Soils

Fauna

Microbial characteristics

Recommendation:
Mitsch and Wilson, 1996 and
Zedler, 2004

Require longer
monitoring periods

Plant characteristics
alone are not
adequate
measurements of
wetland function

12. Wetland Plant Development

Mitsch et al. 2005

Planted vs. unplanted

Vegetation cover vs.
plant diversity

Pulsing experiment:

Planted wetland: plant
cover from 73% to
62%.

Unplanted wetland:
plant cover from 74%
to 38%.
Mitsch et al., 2005

13. Wetland Soil Development

Mitsch et al. 2005

Prior to creation: no
hydric wetland soils

2 yrs later:

78% of samples
(0-8 cm)

24% of samples
(9-16 cm)

10 yrs later: 94% of
samples in both layers.
Supports NRC, 2001
Mitsch et al., 2005

14. Salvaged Soils

McKinstry and
Anderson, 2005

Soil from donor wetland
used to create new
wetland

Increased plant
composition compared
to control group

Combination of
salvaged soils and
plantings?
http://www.pacificexc.com/projects/main.php?g2_itemId=468

15. Reference Wetlands

Campbell et al., 2002

Compared soils and
plants

Soil chroma, defines
soils; low = wetland; high
= upland

Higher in created sites

Plant species richness
lower in created sites.

Higher percent of upland
plant species in created
sites.

Stolt et. al., 2000

Compared wetland
topography

Created sites: 40-60%
less elevation change
across area

Created sites: very little
microrelief

Provides habitat variety
thus increasing
biodiversity

16. Restoration Costs

Gutrich and Hitzhusen, 2004

Ecological-economic
computer simulation model

Functional indicators: plant
species richness, hydric soils
and native plants

Prediction: 7-44 yrs to reach
functional equivalency

Prediction: $5190-$309,108
lag cost above private cost

Recommendations:
1) Require a bond equal to
estimated benefits provided
by wetland – high restoration
cost with low lag cost vs. low
restoration cost with high lag
cost
2) Delay issuance of drainage
permit until functional
equivalence is achieved in
replacement – no lag costs
3) Use wetland banks –
functional equivalency already
established

17. Urban Wetlands

Obstacles: hydrology,
habitat, infrastructure,
pests and people

Goal: rehabilitation not
restoration to their original
condition

Difficult to evaluate
success: criteria must
reflect ecology of wetland
with reality of urban
context.
Source:http://www.biohabitats.com/ndg_newsite/newsletter/2010spring/article.urbecrest.php

18. Urban Wetland Assessment

Correct use of
reference wetland

Undisturbed site

Degraded sites

Success: restored site
more similar to
undisturbed reference
site without similar
response in the
degraded control site.

Grayson, et al., 1999 http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?
qu=grades#mt:0

19. Maximize Benefits of Restorations
1) Involve the public
2) Community-based
initiatives
3) Facilitator (stakeholder
representative)
4) Environmental education
5) Small-scale demos
6) Evaluate progress
(questionnaires)
Casagrande, 1997
Source: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/
Source: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/

20. West Creek Reservation

West Creek Preservation
Committee (citizen goup)

Part of Cleveland
Metroparks System

Parma, Seven Hills,
Brooklyn Heights and
Independence

Highly urbanized area

Tributary to Cuyahoga
River
http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html

21. West Creek Wetlands

Old municipal landfill

Created and planted
in 2002

Wetland design (step-
down wetlands)

Plant surveys –
increased range

Usage: recreational,
educational and
habitat for animals.
Source: www.maps.google.com
Photo by: Ynes Arocho

22. Aug 2002
http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html
Aug 2004http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html
May 2002Photo by: Ynes Arocho

23. Conclusions

Progress so far:

Replace function

Salvage soils

Plantings

Hydrology

Mitigation banks

Ecosystem
services

Ideas for the future:

Reevaluate policy

Standardize
permit
requirements

Encourage use of
mitigations banks

Further research
on function

Further explore
valuing services