The San Francisco Bay Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB CRWQCB) and the San Francisco District of the US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACOE) are looking for an expeditious means to determine whether regulated wetland projects produce ecologically valuable systems and remain in compliance with their permits (i.e. fulfill their legal requirements) until project completion. A study was therefore undertaken in which 20 compensatory wetland mitigation projects in the San Francisco Bay Region were reviewed and assessed for both permit compliance and habitat function, and this was done using a rapid assessment method adapted for this purpose. Thus, in addition to determining compliance and function, a further goal of this study was to test the efficacy of the assessment method, which, if useful, could be applied not only to mitigation projects, but also to restoration projects and natural wetland systems. Survey results suggest that most projects permitted 5 or more years ago are in compliance with their permit conditions and are realizing their intended habitat functions. The larger restoration sites or those situated between existing wetland sites tend to be more successful and offer more benefits to wildlife than the smaller isolated ones. These results are consistent with regulatory experience suggesting that economies of scale could be realized both with (1) large scale regional wetland restoration sites, through which efforts are combined to control invasive species and share costs, and (2) coordinated efforts by regulatory agencies to track project information and to monitor the increasing number and size of mitigation and restoration sites. In regard to the assessment methods, we find that their value lies in providing a consistent protocol for evaluations, but that the ultimate assessment will rely heavily on professional judgment, regulatory experience, and the garnering of pre-assessment information.
[1]
R. Grossinger,et al.
Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals
,
1999
.
[2]
Josh N. Collins,et al.
DRAFT California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 2.0 : User's Manual and Scoring Forms
,
2003
.
[3]
Philip B. Williams,et al.
Physical Evolution of Restored Breached Levee Salt Marshes in the San Francisco Bay Estuary
,
2002
.
[4]
R. Ambrose,et al.
The US Clean Water Act and Habitat Replacement: Evaluation of Mitigation Sites in Orange County, California, USA
,
2002,
Environmental management.
[5]
Margaret S. Race,et al.
Fixing Compensatory Mitigation: What Will it Take?
,
1996
.
[6]
Mary E. Kentula,et al.
Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA
,
1992
.
[7]
John M. Randall,et al.
Invasive plants of California's wildlands
,
2001
.
[8]
S. Fennessy.
Review of Rapid Methods for Assessing Wetland Condition
,
2004
.
[9]
Michael T. Barbour,et al.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers
,
1989
.
[10]
J. Boyd.
Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act
,
2002
.
[11]
Mary E. Kentula,et al.
Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science.
,
1990
.
[12]
Melvin J. Dubnick.
Army Corps of Engineers
,
1998
.