Creating Successful Freshwater WetlandsYnes S. ArochoBIO 690: Qualifying ExamM.S. Environmental Sciencehttp://www.westcree...
OverviewWetland LossEcosystem ServicesWetland PolicyWetland MitigationMitigation BanksWetland FunctionWetland Plant Develo...
Wetland Loss56% of US wetlands(Dahl, 1991)90% of Ohio wetlands(Dahl, 1991)Over half the world’swetlands are lost orseve...
Wetland PolicySection 404 of theClean Water ActCompensatorymitigation“No Net Loss”Regulation has threelevels:Avoidanc...
Wetland MitigationFour optionsEstablish a new siteRestore a previouslyexiting siteEnhance function ofan existing site...
National Research Council Study, 2001Purpose: evaluatewetland mitigationpractice.Plant speciescomposition = 10 ormore yr...
Mitigated Wetlands in OhioKettlewell,2005101 mitigation sites425.3 acres impacted697.8 acres required496.8 acres actu...
Compliance Performance StandardsVary among permitsVary among similarwetland typesSome too stringent ortoo modestDiffic...
Mitigated Wetlands in IllinoisMatthews andEndress, 200876 mitigation sites113.6 hectaresproposed31.7 hectares deficit...
Mitigation BanksLarge wetland areaSell mitigation credits(hectares ofwetlands) to partiesrequired to mitigate.2005 esti...
Wetland FunctionFederal standardsmeasure vegetation for 5yrs.Do not measure:Biotic integrityNutrient cyclingTrophic d...
Wetland Plant DevelopmentMitsch et al. 2005Planted vs. unplantedVegetation cover vs.plant diversityPulsing experiment:...
Wetland Soil DevelopmentMitsch et al. 2005Prior to creation: nohydric wetland soils2 yrs later:78% of samples(0-8 cm)...
Salvaged SoilsMcKinstry andAnderson, 2005Soil from donor wetlandused to create newwetlandIncreased plantcomposition com...
Reference WetlandsCampbell et al., 2002Compared soils andplantsSoil chroma, definessoils; low = wetland; high= uplandH...
Restoration CostsGutrich and Hitzhusen, 2004Ecological-economiccomputer simulation modelFunctional indicators: plantspe...
Urban WetlandsObstacles: hydrology,habitat, infrastructure,pests and peopleGoal: rehabilitation notrestoration to their ...
Urban Wetland AssessmentCorrect use ofreference wetlandUndisturbed siteDegraded sitesSuccess: restored sitemore simila...
Maximize Benefits of Restorations1) Involve the public2) Community-basedinitiatives3) Facilitator (stakeholderrepresentati...
West Creek ReservationWest Creek PreservationCommittee (citizen goup)Part of ClevelandMetroparks SystemParma, Seven Hil...
West Creek WetlandsOld municipal landfillCreated and plantedin 2002Wetland design (step-down wetlands)Plant surveys –i...
Aug 2002http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.htmlAug 2004http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.htmlMay 2002Photo by: Ynes Arocho
ConclusionsProgress so far:Replace functionSalvage soilsPlantingsHydrologyMitigation banksEcosystemservicesIdeas f...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Creating Successful Wetlands

644 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Creating Successful Wetlands

  1. 1. Creating Successful Freshwater WetlandsYnes S. ArochoBIO 690: Qualifying ExamM.S. Environmental Sciencehttp://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html
  2. 2. OverviewWetland LossEcosystem ServicesWetland PolicyWetland MitigationMitigation BanksWetland FunctionWetland Plant DevelopmentWetland Soil DevelopmentSalvaged SoilsReference WetlandsRestoration CostsUrban WetlandsWest Creek ReservationConclusions
  3. 3. Wetland Loss56% of US wetlands(Dahl, 1991)90% of Ohio wetlands(Dahl, 1991)Over half the world’swetlands are lost orseverely degraded (Yallopand O’Connell, 2000)Source:http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/wetstatus.pdf
  4. 4. Wetland PolicySection 404 of theClean Water ActCompensatorymitigation“No Net Loss”Regulation has threelevels:AvoidanceMinimizationCompensationhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00333.x/full
  5. 5. Wetland MitigationFour optionsEstablish a new siteRestore a previouslyexiting siteEnhance function ofan existing sitePreserve an existingsiteMitigation ratioType and size ofwetland destroyeddetermines type andsize of createdwetland required.Required ≠ Actual
  6. 6. National Research Council Study, 2001Purpose: evaluatewetland mitigationpractice.Plant speciescomposition = 10 ormore yrs to stabilizeSoil development = 3-30 yrs to stabilizePlant assemblagesdo not replacefunctionRecommendation:Both plant communitystructure and wetlandfunction should beconsidered duringmitigation.Resulting wetlandshould be self-sustaining− Wetland hydrology
  7. 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 / 1acre destroyed http://www.ohiodnr.com/Home/wild_resourcessubhomepage/ResearchandSurveys/WildlifePopulationStatusLandingPage/WoodDuck/tabid/19334/Default.aspx
  8. 8. Compliance Performance StandardsVary among permitsVary among similarwetland typesSome too stringent ortoo modestDifficult to determinesuccess or failureExamples: minimum# native plants,survival of # woodyspecieshttp://andreawilliamsministries.com/what-does-success-really-mean-anyways/success-and-failure-road-sign-with-dramatic-clouds-and-sky/
  9. 9. Mitigated Wetlands in IllinoisMatthews andEndress, 200876 mitigation sites113.6 hectaresproposed31.7 hectares deficitApplied performancestandards8 failed all goals45 met some goals23 met all goalsMatthews and Endress, 2008
  10. 10. Mitigation BanksLarge wetland areaSell mitigation credits(hectares ofwetlands) to partiesrequired to mitigate.2005 estimates:363 active banks75 sold out banks169 proposed banks78% are for-profithttp://www.dot.state.oh.us/DIVISIONS/TRANSSYSDEV/ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGICAL_RESOURCES_PERMITS/MITIGATIONINVENTORY/Pages/default.aspxODOT MitigationInventory
  11. 11. Wetland FunctionFederal standardsmeasure vegetation for 5yrs.Do not measure:Biotic integrityNutrient cyclingTrophic dynamicsHydrologySoilsFaunaMicrobial characteristicsRecommendation:Mitsch and Wilson, 1996 andZedler, 2004Require longermonitoring periodsPlant characteristicsalone are notadequatemeasurements ofwetland function
  12. 12. Wetland Plant DevelopmentMitsch et al. 2005Planted vs. unplantedVegetation cover vs.plant diversityPulsing experiment:Planted wetland: plantcover from 73% to62%.Unplanted wetland:plant cover from 74%to 38%.Mitsch et al., 2005
  13. 13. Wetland Soil DevelopmentMitsch et al. 2005Prior to creation: nohydric wetland soils2 yrs later:78% of samples(0-8 cm)24% of samples(9-16 cm)10 yrs later: 94% ofsamples in both layers.Supports NRC, 2001Mitsch et al., 2005
  14. 14. Salvaged SoilsMcKinstry andAnderson, 2005Soil from donor wetlandused to create newwetlandIncreased plantcomposition comparedto control groupCombination ofsalvaged soils andplantings?http://www.pacificexc.com/projects/main.php?g2_itemId=468
  15. 15. Reference WetlandsCampbell et al., 2002Compared soils andplantsSoil chroma, definessoils; low = wetland; high= uplandHigher in created sitesPlant species richnesslower in created sites.Higher percent of uplandplant species in createdsites.Stolt et. al., 2000Compared wetlandtopographyCreated sites: 40-60%less elevation changeacross areaCreated sites: very littlemicroreliefProvides habitat varietythus increasingbiodiversity
  16. 16. Restoration CostsGutrich and Hitzhusen, 2004Ecological-economiccomputer simulation modelFunctional indicators: plantspecies richness, hydric soilsand native plantsPrediction: 7-44 yrs to reachfunctional equivalencyPrediction: $5190-$309,108lag cost above private costRecommendations:1) Require a bond equal toestimated benefits providedby wetland – high restorationcost with low lag cost vs. lowrestoration cost with high lagcost2) Delay issuance of drainagepermit until functionalequivalence is achieved inreplacement – no lag costs3) Use wetland banks –functional equivalency alreadyestablished
  17. 17. Urban WetlandsObstacles: hydrology,habitat, infrastructure,pests and peopleGoal: rehabilitation notrestoration to their originalconditionDifficult to evaluatesuccess: criteria mustreflect ecology of wetlandwith reality of urbancontext.Source:http://www.biohabitats.com/ndg_newsite/newsletter/2010spring/article.urbecrest.php
  18. 18. Urban Wetland AssessmentCorrect use ofreference wetlandUndisturbed siteDegraded sitesSuccess: restored sitemore similar toundisturbed referencesite without similarresponse in thedegraded control site.Grayson, et al., 1999 http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=grades#mt:0
  19. 19. Maximize Benefits of Restorations1) Involve the public2) Community-basedinitiatives3) Facilitator (stakeholderrepresentative)4) Environmental education5) Small-scale demos6) Evaluate progress(questionnaires)Casagrande, 1997Source: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/Source: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/
  20. 20. West Creek ReservationWest Creek PreservationCommittee (citizen goup)Part of ClevelandMetroparks SystemParma, Seven Hills,Brooklyn Heights andIndependenceHighly urbanized areaTributary to CuyahogaRiverhttp://www.westcreek.org/preserve.html
  21. 21. West Creek WetlandsOld municipal landfillCreated and plantedin 2002Wetland design (step-down wetlands)Plant surveys –increased rangeUsage: recreational,educational andhabitat for animals.Source: www.maps.google.comPhoto by: Ynes Arocho
  22. 22. Aug 2002http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.htmlAug 2004http://www.westcreek.org/preserve.htmlMay 2002Photo by: Ynes Arocho
  23. 23. ConclusionsProgress so far:Replace functionSalvage soilsPlantingsHydrologyMitigation banksEcosystemservicesIdeas for the future:Reevaluate policyStandardizepermitrequirementsEncourage use ofmitigations banksFurther researchon functionFurther explorevaluing services

×