An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Resources Control Board, 1991-2002.

The purpose of this project, which was funded by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), was to evaluate the compliance and wetland condition of compensatory wetland mitigation projects associated with Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications throughout California. This was done by selecting, reviewing and performing field evaluations for 143 permit files distributed across the 12 Water Board regions and sub-regions of the State. For each permit file we assessed the extent to which permittees complied with their mitigation conditions, including acreage requirements, whether the corresponding mitigation efforts resulted in optimal wetland condition, and if the habitat acreages gained through compensatory mitigation adequately replaced those lost through the permitted impacts. We found that permittees are largely following their permit conditions (although one-quarter to onethird of the time these are not met), but the resulting compensatory mitigation projects seldom result in wetlands with optimal condition. Methods Our goal was to evaluate the mitigation actions associated with at least 100 randomly chosen Section 401 permit files issued in California between 1991 and 2002. The permit files were selected using the SWRCB’s permit tracking database, and reviewed through multiple visits to the SWRCB, each of the three Army Corps of Engineers district offices (Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento), and various Regional Boards. Ultimately, 143 permit files were assessed; mitigation projects from 129 permit files were visited for assessment of compliance with permit conditions (including acreage) and wetland condition, and 14 additional files were evaluated for compliance only. Our determinations of Section 401 compliance included consideration of all mitigation conditions specifically outlined in the 401 permit letter, plus any additional conditions found in other agency permits when the 401 permit included explicit or implicit statements requiring that those documents be followed. In addition to the regulatory permits, the mitigation plan, if present, was carefully read to extract the essential compliance elements. Compliance with these conditions was scored using categorical scores, on a scale from 0% (no attempt to comply) to 100% (condition fully met). To evaluate existing wetland condition, we performed the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) at all assessable mitigation sites associated with our permit files. CRAM includes evaluations of the following attributes: buffer and landscape context, hydrology, physical structure and biotic structure. To provide a sound foundation for evaluating mitigation sites in this study, we established categories of wetland condition (optimal, sub-optimal, marginal and poor) based on the results from CRAM evaluations performed at 47 reference sites distributed throughout the state. At each mitigation site we also mapped the border of the mitigation sites using GPS to evaluate acreages and determined the approximate proportions of jurisdictional

[1]  C. Lant,et al.  The Effect of Wetland Mitigation Banking on the Achievement of No-Net-Loss , 1999, Environmental management.

[2]  Charles A. Simenstad,et al.  Functional Equivalency Trajectories of the Restored Gog‐Le‐Hi‐Te Estuarine Wetland , 1996 .

[3]  J. Callaway,et al.  Evaluating the progress of engineered tidal wetlands , 2000 .

[4]  M. Race,et al.  Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the united states based on an analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay , 1985 .

[5]  Lynn Suer,et al.  Wetland ecological and compliance assessments in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USA. , 2005, Journal of environmental management.

[6]  A. Breaux,et al.  Validity of Performance Criteria and a Tentative Model for Regulatory Use in Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Permitting , 1999, Environmental management.

[7]  Margaret S. Race,et al.  Fixing Compensatory Mitigation: What Will it Take? , 1996 .

[8]  J. Lyons,et al.  GRASS VERSUS TREES: MANAGING RIPARIAN AREAS TO BENEFIT STREAMS OF CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA 1 , 2000 .

[9]  J. Gibbons,et al.  Terrestrial habitat: A vital component for herpetofauna of isolated wetlands , 2003, Wetlands.

[10]  Steven Lee,et al.  An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Quality Control Board, 1991-2002. Final Report Appendices (Review Copy) , 2006 .

[11]  C. Simenstad,et al.  Contrasting Functional Performance of Juvenile Salmon Habitat in Recovering Wetlands of the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon, U.S.A. , 2002 .

[12]  J. Boyd.  Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act , 2002 .

[13]  Stephen Brown,et al.  Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA , 2001, Wetlands.

[14]  W. Casey,et al.  Chemical controls on ecology in a coastal wetland , 1986 .

[15]  J. Stevenson,et al.  THE PACE OF ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTED SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA MARSHES , 2003 .

[16]  C. Craft,et al.  Fifteen Years of Vegetation and Soil Development after Brackish‐Water Marsh Creation , 2002 .

[17]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Impacts of section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation on wetlands in California (USA) , 2004, Wetlands Ecology and Management.

[18]  T. Dahl,et al.  Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's , 1990 .

[19]  Mark M. Brinson,et al.  The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and Mitigation , 1996 .

[20]  C. Craft,et al.  TWENTY‐FIVE YEARS OF ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTED SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA (LOISEL) MARSHES , 1999 .

[21]  Joy B. Zedler,et al.  Tracking Wetland Restoration: Do Mitigation Sites Follow Desired Trajectories? , 1999 .

[22]  Johannes J. Feddema,et al.  Wetland loss and substitution by the Section 404 permit program in southern California, USA , 1996 .

[23]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA , 1992 .

[24]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Impacts of section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation of freshwater wetlands in Texas and Arkansas , 1993 .

[25]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  Isolated wetlands and their functions: An ecological perspective , 2003, Wetlands.

[26]  W. M. Lewis,et al.  Wetlands : Characteristics and Boundaries , 1995 .

[27]  W. Niering,et al.  Salt Marsh Restoration in Connecticut: 20 Years of Science and Management , 2002 .

[28]  E. Gilman.  Nationwide permit program: Unknown adverse impacts on the commonwealth of the northern Mariana Islands’ Wetlands , 1998 .

[29]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles , 1999, Wetlands.

[30]  F. Hauer,et al.  The hydrogeomorphic approach to functional assessment of riparian wetlands: evaluating impacts and mitigation on river floodplains in the U.S.A. , 1998 .

[31]  D. Knighton.  Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective , 1998 .

[32]  M. Brinson.  A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands , 1993 .

[33]  Josh N. Collins,et al.  DRAFT California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 2.0 : User's Manual and Scoring Forms , 2003 .

[34]  D. Hawke.  Everyday life in early America , 1988 .