Advertisement

No Net Loss Case Study: Structural and Functional Equivalence of Mitigation Wetlands

  • M. Siobhan Fennessy
  • Abby Rokosch Dresser
Reference work entry

Abstract

Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act require that wetlands in the United States must be created or restored as “replacement” or “mitigation” wetlands in order to compensate for wetland areas that are lost due to development. This is in order to meet the US policy mandating a “no net loss” of wetland extent or function by balancing the need for economic development with wetland preservation. A question related to this policy is whether or not mitigation wetlands are structurally and functionally equivalent, to those they are designed to replace. In other words, is wetland mitigation a fair trade? The uncertainty in whether mitigation wetlands can succeed in replacing natural sites has led them to be called a “large-scale ecological experiment.”

Keywords

Clean Water Act United States Replacement wetlands Mitigation Wetland loss No net loss Economic development Wetland preservation Structurally equivalent Functionally equivalent 

References

  1. Bedford BL. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecol Appl. 1996;6:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishel-Machung L, Brooks RP, Yates SS, Hoover KL. Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland creation projects in Pennyslvania. Wetlands. 1996;16:532–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinson MM. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. Report number: Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. 1993.Google Scholar
  4. Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl. 1996;6:69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown SC, Bedford BL. Restoration of wetland vegetation with transplanted wetland soil: an experimental study. Wetlands. 1997;17:424–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgin S. “Mitigation banks” for wetland conservation: a major success or an unmitigated disaster. Wetlands Ecol Manage. 2010;18:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronk JK, Fennessy MS. Wetland plants: biology and ecology. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fennessy MS, Gernes M, Mack J, Heller-Wardrop D. Using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report number: EPA 843-B-00-0002j. 2002.Google Scholar
  9. Fennessy MS, Mack JJ, Rokosch A, Knapp F, Micacchion M. Biogeochemical and hydrological investigations of natural and mitigation wetlands. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Ecology Unit, Division of Surface Water, Columbus. Report number: Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2004-5. 2004.Google Scholar
  10. Mack JJ, Micacchion M. Vegetation Indices of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) for wetlands and development and calibration of the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5.0. Columbus: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. Matthews JW, Endress AG. Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environ Manag. 2008;4:130–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. Wetlands. 4th ed. New York: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comin FA, Yockteng R. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biology. 2012;10(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Research Council. Compensating for wetland losses under the clean water act. 1st ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  15. Shaffer PW, Ernst TL. Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater emergent/open water wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Wetlands. 1999;19:505–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stauffer AL, Brooks RP. Plant and soil responses to salvaged marsh surface and organic matter amendments at a created wetland in central Pennsylvania. Wetlands. 1997;17:90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stefanik KC, Mitsch WJ. Structural and functional vegetation development in created and restored wetland mitigation banks of different ages. Ecol Eng. 2012;39:104–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stolt MH, Genthner MH, Daniels WL, Groover VA, Nagle S, Harling KC. Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands. 2000;20:671–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zedler JB. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecol Appl. 1996;6:33–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyKenyon CollegeGambierUSA
  2. 2.BiologistDucks UnlimitedBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations