Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKING: SUMMARY CHART (continued)Study Location Description Results: Permit Success Results: Ecological Success Notes: WildlifeDeWeeseand Gould(1994) -- FromAmbrose(2000)Fennessy et al.(2004)Gallihugh andRogner (1998)– From NRC(2001)Johnson et al.(2000)San FranciscoBay RegionOhioChicago,IllinoisWashingtonA qualitative review of permit complianceand ecological success on a permit compliancescale of 0-10 (10 indicating fullcompliance) and a ecological value ratingof 0 -10 (10 indicating among the bestexamples of habitat type in the area) of30 projects in San Francisco Bay Region.Study of structure and function of 9 naturaland 10 mitigation sites in Ohio.Only 3 projects reviewed were 100percent compliant, 6 were 85-99 percentcompliant, 6 were 75-84 percent compliant,12 were 45-74 percent compliant,1 was 1-14 percent compliant, 2 were0 percent compliant. Also, 599 acres ofmitigation were required for 415 acres ofimpacts, but only 537.2 acres were actuallycreated. Some of the projects mayhave been compliant, but there were stillquestions about the long-term sustainabilityof the site.Of the 29 sites evaluated only 1 (3 percent)was rated to have very high value,13 judged average or slightly above orbelow average, 6 well below average,2 judged to have no value. Ecologicalsuccess was correlated with permit compliance(so sites with higher ecologicalsuccess had higher permit compliance).The mitigation was not replacing in kindhabitat values.Mitigation wetlands were generallydryer. Natural wetlands had faster ratesof decomposition, higher IBI scores (vegetationcommunity composition and speciesrichness), biomass production, soilnutrient concentrations, and plant litterconcentrations, and different hydrologicalpatterns than mitigation wetlands. Therewere major differences in invertebratenumbers of taxa, abundance of tolerantand specialist species, and communitymetrics. Amphibian communities alsodiffered. The conclusion is that mitigationis creating a new subclass of wetlands onthe landscapeEvaluate 61 permits for 128 projects. 17 percent of proposed wetland vegetationhad been established, 22 percenthad established vegetation other thanthat had been proposed. 52 percent ofwetlands had excessive or unplannedopen water, 9 percent had insufficienthydrology. The wetland area lost was 117hectares, and 144 hectares was mitigated(but 29 hectares were not established,and 99 hectares had insufficient hydrology).Evaluated 45 projects for permit compliance.Overall, 13 projects (29 percent) werein full compliance. Forty-two projects(93 percent) were implemented, andof those, 23 projects (55 percent) wereimplemented to plan. Thirty-four projectshad performance standards that could beevaluated, and of those, 12 projects (35percent) were meeting all performancestandards assessable by this study.Wildlife data were collected foreach site, and wildlife habitat andusage performance standardswere encountered in permit files(these were generally vague anddifficult to assess). The studyincludes a list of all the performancestandards encountered.106 Environmental Law Institute
APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKING: SUMMARY CHART (continued)Study Location Description Results: Permit Success Results: Ecological Success Notes: WildlifeJohnson et al.(2002)Josselyn et al.(1993) – FromAmbrose(2000)Mack andMicacchion(2006)McEnespy andHymanson(1997) -- FromAmbrose(2000)WashingtonCaliforniaOhioCaliforniaEvaluated 24 mitigation projects todetermine the success of the projectsfrom an ecological perspective. Criteriaincluded established required acreage,attained performance standards, fulfilledgoals, contribution of mitigation toperformance of functions, comparisonof type and scale of functions betweenmitigation and natural sites.Evaluated restoration projects underCalifornia State Coastal Conservancy’sProgram.Evaluation of 12 Ohio wetlands mitigationbanks based on biological, biogeochemical,and hydrological monitoringtechniques. Assessed nearly 400 hectares.Criteria for success = maximizing areasdefined as “wetland”, minimizing areas ofopen water, having hydroperiods whichmimic hydroperiods of natural wetlands,maximizing cover of perennial nativehydrophytes, minimizing cover of invasiveplant species, VIBI scores of 40 - 60.Reviewed compliance with CaliforniaCoastal Commission Permits.50 percent met 90-100 percent of thepermit conditions, 4 met fewer than 32percent of permit conditions.Phase II found that of 24 mitigationprojects studied 13 percent were fullysuccessful, 33 percent were moderatelysuccessful, 33 percent were minimallysuccessful, 21 percent were not successful.65 percent of total acreage lostwas replaced by creating or restoringwetlands resulting in a net loss of 24.18acres, but 2/3 of total acreage of mitigationthat was established was enhancement.71 percent of private mitigationprojects were successful, while 35 percentof public mitigation projects were judgedsuccessful. In total, 79 percent of mitigationwere at least somewhat successful,63 percent at least partially compensatedfor permitted wetland losses. 21 percentmet performance standards.All evaluated functions were improvedat 36 percent of sites, 48 percent of sitesat least one function was not approved,1 site failed in all functions evaluated.59 percent effective at achieving goals,45 percent effective at producing habitatbenefits, 5 percent ineffective. The majorityof sites did not produce a self-sustainingecosystem.Of bank area assessed, about 25 percentwas not wetland. Of the wetland acreage25 percent was poor, 58 percent was fair,18 percent was good quality using vegetationdata compared to ecoregionallycalibrated scores from natural referencewetlands. For amphibian communities,amphibian community composition andquality was significantly lower at banksthan natural forest, shrub, or emergentwetlands. Pond-breed salamanders andforest dependent frog species were nearlyabsent from banks. Of banks surveyed 3were mostly successful, 5 were successfulin some areas but failed others, 4 mostlyfailed.6 of the 23 projects reviewed were givenAs (the highest grade), 6 were givenBs, 6 were given Cs, 4 Ds, and one siteearned an F.55 percent of sites had a moderatecontribution to wildlife functions.Enhancement sites had minimalcontribution to wildlife function.The study concludes that mitigationsites did not do a great job atcontributing to wildlife functions.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 107
Page 3:
Design of U.S. HabitatBanking Syste
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYExecutive SummaryA
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYbanks or habitat b
Page 11 and 12:
IntroductionIntroductionAvariety of
Page 13 and 14:
WETLAND AND CONSERVATION BANKING IN
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
State Wildlife Action Plans3. State
Page 29 and 30:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSshed). C
Page 31 and 32:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSPlans th
Page 33 and 34:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSFuture i
Page 35 and 36:
A DETAILED LOOK AT WETLAND AND CONS
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62: A DETAILED LOOK AT WETLAND AND CONS
Page 63 and 64: A DETAILED LOOK AT WETLAND AND CONS
Page 65 and 66: ConclusionsConclusionsThis report c
Page 67 and 68: CONCLUSIONSsuch as habitat conserva
Page 69 and 70: CONCLUSIONSthe state Attorney Gener
Page 71 and 72: CONCLUSIONSGeneral RecommendationsF
Page 73: AppendicesA. Federal Wetland Compen
Page 76 and 77: APPENDIX AProjects for Aquatic Reso
Page 78 and 79: APPENDIX Aland mitigation banks, um
Page 80 and 81: APPENDIX BMemphis District, U.S. Ar
Page 82 and 83: APPENDIX BJacksonville District, U.
Page 84 and 85: Appendix CAppendix CState Wetland M
Page 86 and 87: APPENDIX CState Statute(s) Regulati
Page 88 and 89: Appendix DAppendix DState Conservat
Page 90 and 91: APPENDIX Emitigation banking and ha
Page 92 and 93: APPENDIX EDelaware (Phase IV)Delawa
Page 94 and 95: APPENDIX Estaff intend to make the
Page 96 and 97: APPENDIX EMitigation banking regula
Page 98 and 99: APPENDIX EMississippi (Phase IV)The
Page 100 and 101: APPENDIX ENew Mexico (Phase III)The
Page 102 and 103: APPENDIX Eand mitigation banking. 1
Page 104 and 105: APPENDIX EVirginia (Phase III)Virgi
Page 106 and 107: APPENDIX Egation bank may be used t
Page 108 and 109: APPENDIX FGeorgiaGeorgia Department
Page 110 and 111: Appendix GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 114 and 115: APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 116 and 117: APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 118 and 119: APPENDIX GErwin, K.L. 1991. An Eval
Page 120 and 121: APPENDIX GPorej, D. 2004. Faunal As
Page 122 and 123: Appendix HAppendix HBibliography of
Page 124 and 125: APPENDIX HEcosystem Marketplace, Sp
Page 126: APPENDIX ILegal and Financial Mecha
show all

Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?