Wetland Science

[Cedars]

but I gaurantee you the Dept. of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife Service do! All it would have taken was a call to DNR to let them know about the presence of the turtles and they would have slapped a cease and desist order on the project so fast it would have made heads spin.

 

I wonder if the commissioners realized that it is a pretty grave offense to intentionally kill threatened and endangered species, including jail time and very hefty fines.

One neighbor did call the DNR about this issue and 1. they are threatened, not endangered which doesnt protect them as much. 2. The DNR had been out over the land surrounding the stream and had issued its recommendation on the project (hence the 13 acre farm spot as one unit). If the farmhouse had not been existing, it would have changed things but the DNR could not force the developer to tear down this home and barn.

 

The people at the DNR were not aware of the existance of the turtles, but that is a hole in the system where they did not ask surrounding peoples of the existance of these creatures of concern. There is a very real possibility that the farmer who sold the property had no idea there was this special animal, he was like in his mid 70s (a turtle is a turtle). There is also not a motivation for someone to admit to holding such creatures on their property due to the restrictions they may be subjected to (and the associated loss of capitol gains).

 

What it boiled down to is the DNR had issued an environmental impact and imposed restrictions based on what they knew at the time and I assume, based on what I know of how the system operates after having worked for the state for a number of years, they wouldnt go back and recind their orders because of potential litigation (getting sued by the developer and associated bad press, policital blowback, etc).

[Cedars]

In the news...

American Scientist Online - Banking on Mitigation

 

I have several issues with this article, but I'd like to hear some other takes on the subject before I dissect the article.

 

Its hard for me to believe that the net loss is only 60,000 acres in the entire usa, annually.

 

"None provided habitat for either wood frogs or spotted salamanders, which the report called indicative of successful sites, and all were dominated by just a few species of frogs."

 

This is a huge problem as I see it. Not only do the above creatures suffer, there are plenty more attached. Its a known problem for many of the parks which were set aside along wetlands/shorelines and no additional highlands were attached to the same lands. It inhibits diversity greatly as most of the animals which use the wetland areas, have other needs beyond the watery spots. You wouldnt believe the carnage that occurs when the Mississippi rises and drives the wildlife out of the Fort Snelling WR area and into the surrounding cities.

 

Boundry overlaps are a problem too, as successful species dominate and negate the base wildlife population as the surrounding shelterlands are developed. Racoons are one type that spring to mind as an example of ability to excell at a cost to other creatures. Then there is the problem of the domestic animals (cats) hunting these lands with their additional predations.

 

There are orgs out there which do a pretty good job of restoration and understanding the broader picture. Ducks Unlimited has done some outstanding projects as has Pheasants Forever. Now their motivation is to create prime hunting conditions, but a side effect of their efforts is a balanced wetland/brooding area which provides habitat for a number of species we often forget about. One of my favorite birding areas works with DU and the variety of species which thrive in this WMA is asounding.

 

Welcome to Crex Meadows

 

Crex is noted on the Audubon Hot Birding sites in N. America.

 

The unanswered question I have after reading the article is how the bank is managed. For example, do the banked wetlands from Hennepin county (minneapolis sits on that one) or Ramsey county (st. paul) get re-applied elsewhere in the state of MN and counted as a banked wetland? It would seem to negate the net loss if the bank can move the wetland 100 miles away into an area that is undeveloped but surrounded by existing wetlands, when both these counties surround major riverways and should have more wetland set asides to keep runoff from entering the Mississippi and carried southwards towards the gulf.

[freeztar]

Its hard for me to believe that the net loss is only 60,000 acres in the entire usa, annually.

 

That is probably a conservative figure which doesn't take into account natural losses, such as what happened in Loiusiana after Katrina.

 

"None provided habitat for either wood frogs or spotted salamanders, which the report called indicative of successful sites, and all were dominated by just a few species of frogs."

 

This is a huge problem as I see it. Not only do the above creatures suffer, there are plenty more attached. Its a known problem for many of the parks which were set aside along wetlands/shoreline goes and no additional highlands were attached to the same lands. It inhibits diversity greatly as most of the animals which use the wetland areas, have other needs beyond the watery spots. You wouldnt believe the carnage that occurs when the Mississippi rises and drives the wildlife out of the Fort Snelling WR area and into the surrounding cities.

 

This really is a huge problem. People think that if they create an isolated wetland surrounded by urban environment, then they have done good. What they really have done is created an urban catchment pond. The upland aspect of wetlands is rarely considered, which is just sorry science considering that most inabitants in and around wetlands are either amphibious or otherwise migratory.

 

There are orgs out there which do a pretty good job of restoration and understanding the broader picture. Ducks Unlimited has done some outstanding projects as has Pheasants Forever. Now their motivation is to create prime hunting conditions, but a side effect of their efforts is a balanced wetland/brooding area which provides habitat for a number of species we often forget about. One of my favorite birding areas works with DU and the variety of species which thrive in this WMA is asounding.

 

Welcome to Crex Meadows

 

Crex is noted on the Audubon Hot Birding sites in N. America.

 

Yes, ducks unlimited is a good organization. The nature conservancy is also a really good organization that usually thinks things through pretty well before taking action.

 

The unanswered question I have after reading the article is how the bank is managed. For example, do the banked wetlands from Hennepin county (minneapolis sits on that one) or Ramsey county (st. paul) get re-applied elsewhere in the state of MN and counted as a banked wetland? It would seem to negate the net loss if the bank can move the wetland 100 miles away into an area that is undeveloped but surrounded by existing wetlands, when both these counties surround major riverways and should have more wetland set asides to keep runoff from entering the Mississippi and carried southwards towards the gulf.

 

Good question! The corps has a term for it called "in-kind mitigation" which means that credits must be purchased from a mitigation bank in the same watershed in order to prevent what you talked about. Unfortunately credits are not always available for that watershed. In this case you have to choose a bank in an adjacent watershed and usually pay A LOT more for each credit. This is an incentive for purchasers to exhaust all of their local options before looking outside their project's watershed. If there are no credits in adjacent watersheds, then you may purchase from what is known as "in-lieu fee" banking. With in-lieu fee banking, you purchase credits from a statewide bank that is a catchall for areas with little or no mitigation credits. In order to purchase from an in-lieu fee bank, you must thoroughly demonstrate to the corps that you have exhausted all of your options and only then will they allow in-lieu banking. It's not a perfect system, but it does encourage credit purchasers to give back to the watershed their project is helping to destroy.

[Cedars]

That is probably a conservative figure which doesn't take into account natural losses, such as what happened in Loiusiana after Katrina.

 

I think its a conservative figure without adding in natural losses. :)

 

Good question! The corps has a term for it called "in-kind mitigation" which means that credits must be purchased from a mitigation bank in the same watershed in order to prevent what you talked about. Unfortunately credits are not always available for that watershed. In this case you have to choose a bank in an adjacent watershed and usually pay A LOT more for each credit. This is an incentive for purchasers to exhaust all of their local options before looking outside their project's watershed. If there are no credits in adjacent watersheds, then you may purchase from what is known as "in-lieu fee" banking. With in-lieu fee banking, you purchase credits from a statewide bank that is a catchall for areas with little or no mitigation credits. In order to purchase from an in-lieu fee bank, you must thoroughly demonstrate to the corps that you have exhausted all of your options and only then will they allow in-lieu banking. It's not a perfect system, but it does encourage credit purchasers to give back to the watershed their project is helping to destroy.

 

I need some clarification here. The examples I used include the Mississippi watershed and the St. Croix river watersheds, both of which are large rivers in MN and converge right on the edge of the heavily populated area of this state, with its associated loss of wetlands as development increases. Ramsey county is primarily located in the Mississippi watershed ( I am not sure about the NE corner of that county and if it is St. Croix watershed). How does this work when Ramsey county cannot replace a development, and upstream the Mississippi runs thru Hennepin county *with even less potenital replacement area*, but to the east of Ramsey county, the st. croix watershed (washington county) exists as does Dakota county, (n.border= Mississippi River and Minnesota river convergence). Dakota county has 3 major rivers along its borders, and the merging of the Minnesota River and the St. Croix river into the Mississippi all within approx 20 miles.

Map with counties marked:

MCBS status map - Division of Ecological Services: Minnesota DNR

 

What I am asking I is, what is the limitations/parameters for how far a "loss" can be relocated from its loss point/watershed?

 

*for those reading this thread, the twin cities metro area was originally a wetland of the proportions of the Louisiana bayous.

[freeztar]

I need some clarification here. The examples I used include the Mississippi watershed and the St. Croix river watersheds, both of which are large rivers in MN and converge right on the edge of the heavily populated area of this state, with its associated loss of wetlands as development increases. Ramsey county is primarily located in the Mississippi watershed ( I am not sure about the NE corner of that county and if it is St. Croix watershed). How does this work when Ramsey county cannot replace a development, and upstream the Mississippi runs thru Hennepin county *with even less potenital replacement area*, but to the east of Ramsey county, the st. croix watershed (washington county) exists as does Dakota county, (n.border= Mississippi River and Minnesota river convergence). Dakota county has 3 major rivers along its borders, and the merging of the Minnesota River and the St. Croix river into the Mississippi all within approx 20 miles.

Map with counties marked:

MCBS status map - Division of Ecological Services: Minnesota DNR

 

What I am asking I is, what is the limitations/parameters for how far a "loss" can be relocated from its loss point/watershed?

 

*for those reading this thread, the twin cities metro area was originally a wetland of the proportions of the Louisiana bayous.

 

There are no specific limitations/parameters besides federal compliance such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or The Endangered Species Act. The Corps is given authority by district.

St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

From the "permit" section of that site I found the following under the July release, Final Action LOP-05-MN, section 3:

Mitigation sequencing (avoidance, minimization and compensation) is required for projects authorized by a LOP under Section 404. The threshold for requiring compensation varies by county depending on the percentage of wetland lost since the time of pre-settlement land surveys. The Corps may deviate from these general guideline on a case-by-case basis when it determines that it is appropriate to do so.

http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/regulatory/special%20notices/2005000825LOP05mn.pdf

 

I'd say this is good news as they are taking into account the massive loss of wetlands as you pointed out in your last post, last sentence.

 

And there's this:

Key elements of the draft policy include a standard ratio of 1:0:1.0 for compensation that is in-place, in-kind and in-advance. Basically, these terms mean compensation that is the same type of wetland, in the same subwatershed as the impacted wetland and is established in advance of those impacts (e.g., banking credits). The compensation ratio would increase in increments for each factor that is not met.

 

The district�s policy proposes special consideration for counties in northeast and northcentral Minnesota. These counties have fewer options for compensatory mitigation than the rest of Minnesota. Smaller ratios, smaller incremental increases, expanded bank service areas, more flexibility, etc., are proposed.

The district has worked closely with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and Interagency Wetlands Group to develop a memorandum of understanding on mitigation policies to resolve differences between the Corps Section 10/404 mitigation requirements and those of the State�s Wetland Conservation Act. A solution to 9 out of 10 issues has been reached.

 

A public notice of the District�s mitigation policy for Minnesota is planned to be released in March 2007.

http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=1245

 

So it seems like Minnesota has a stricter system in place than in Georgia as they require sub-watershed banking. My big problem is with regulatory inspections (lack thereof). I wonder how much regulatory enforcement happens in Minnesota. It is close to zero here from what I've seen.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/GAO05898.pdf

 

But to get at the heart of your question, mitigation banking complies with the laws of supply and demand. If there are multiple banks (with available credits) set up within the watershed of the project, then the net loss should be zero, ideally, within that watershed. If there are no banks set up in that watershed (or no credits available), then it is impossible to provide zero net-loss for projects in that watershed. To that end, establishing a mitigation bank is becoming a very profitable way for a landowner to turn unused marshes into money, and is increasingly sought by huge project-generators such as the Dept. of Transportation. In Georgia, the DOT has purchased many tracts of privately owned land to use as mitigation banks for their projects. It is a smart practice and seems to be gaining acceptance in other states.

[Cedars]

Basically, these terms mean compensation that is the same type of wetland, in the same subwatershed as the impacted wetland and is established in advance of those impacts (e.g., banking credits).

 

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, the watershed is broken down into the smaller watersheds for my example (such as battle creek; ramsey county and its source, battle creek lake; washington county) in terms of wetland replacement rather than being able to bounce around the counties entire Mississippi watershed for re-creating/banking the wetland.

 

But this is the loophole used

The Corps may deviate from these general guideline on a case-by-case basis when it determines that it is appropriate to do so.

 

 

To that end, establishing a mitigation bank is becoming a very profitable way for a landowner to turn unused marshes into money, and is increasingly sought by huge project-generators such as the Dept. of Transportation.

 

Is this a side aspect of the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) and RIM-Reserve (Reinvest in MN) type programs that the state uses to create this wetland bank for their projects?

 

One fact sheet related to above programs:

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

 

and, as a follow-up to this question:

 

Does this imply that when the state of MN creates a park, scientific area, WMA, etc, the wetland acreage within the boundry is potentially counted within the banking system of that particular sub-watershed or county (for their road development banks), and is this possibly where developers go to purchace units when they want to fill in a small wetland but dont want to replace it within that plot?

[freeztar]

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, the watershed is broken down into the smaller watersheds for my example (such as battle creek; ramsey county and its source, battle creek lake; washington county) in terms of wetland replacement rather than being able to bounce around the counties entire Mississippi watershed for re-creating/banking the wetland.

 

Here's a link to how the watersheds are broken up in MN:

EPA: Surf Your Watershed > Minnesota

 

I'm not sure how they are broken down into"sub-watersheds".

 

Is this a side aspect of the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) and RIM-Reserve (Reinvest in MN) type programs that the state uses to create this wetland bank for their projects?

 

One fact sheet related to above programs:

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

 

It appears that this is the equivalent to our state mitigation (in-lieu fee) landtrust bank.

Georgia Environmental Policy Institute | Welcome

 

and, as a follow-up to this question:

 

Does this imply that when the state of MN creates a park, scientific area, WMA, etc, the wetland acreage within the boundry is potentially counted within the banking system of that particular sub-watershed or county (for their road development banks), and is this possibly where developers go to purchace units when they want to fill in a small wetland but dont want to replace it within that plot?

 

No, a mitigation bank must follow certain procedures set in place by the USACoE. A restrictive covenant is usually put in place to restrict the land from any other use. They do this so people don't create a wetland bank and then turn it into a duck hunting property. This way the land is truly reserved as wetlands only and the goal of 1:1 wetland compensation is maintained.

[Cedars]

heres a few links to identify watersheds and associated documented issues regarding water quaility (stuff they find in it).

 

This one was easy to use to find my local watersheds:

 

State TMDL Lists

 

This one gave some really good detail once you located an area via zip code:

EPA > Water > Regional and State Links

 

Playing around a bit with zooms and checkboxes, here is a map of my favorite birding area. The big lake in the center is called Phantom lake.

 

EnviroMapper for Water

[Cedars]

I did find a MN wetland banking fact sheet (sheesh, they have a Board of Everything Here!):

 

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Wetland Banking Fact Sheet

 

Depending on the conditions your trying to set aside or restore, it seems there are a few programs out there that might aid someone.

 

F&WS Document

 

Excavated ponds for wildlife: Minnesota DNR

 

With enough time and effort, one could potentially get any improvements paid for, and possibly return a small profit on these lands, depending on the location.

 

It just doesnt seem (via the MN sites I have been pouring over lately) that much emphasis is put on encouraging people to preserve these areas and the wildlife within as much as development is emphasised.

[freeztar]

I did find a MN wetland banking fact sheet (sheesh, they have a Board of Everything Here!):

That's not just MN.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources / Wetland Banking Fact Sheet

 

That's quite interesting actually. In Georgia it is quite different. A citizen can not just apply for a "deposit" and create wetlands on their own. They would have to at least incorporate themselves as a business, but more typically, a specialized company agrees to perform the restoration upon request of the citizen and then they act as the liaison between the government and the citizen. This is good for a number of reasons. For credits to be sold, the wetland must meet certain criteria; namely hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic plant life. You also must produce scientific data showing the effectiveness of the restoration over a period of years (at least this is how it works for DOT, I assume it is the same for private entities). This is beyond the average citizen's ability, or desire. It can be a hellish day when you have to wade across acres of snake-infested waters measuring groundwells and doing tree counts from sun-up to sun-down!

Now I'm assuming this is different in Minnesota because the fact sheet doesn't mention it, but perhaps they go through that with you when you call and request. What would be interesting is if the gov't actually does the monitoring. That would mean that local tax dollars are being used to help mitigate wetlands.

Another interesting thing this link brings to mind is deficit. I'm quite sure that at any one time, these "banks" have a negative balance. :)

Depending on the conditions your trying to set aside or restore, it seems there are a few programs out there that might aid someone.

 

F&WS Document

 

Excavated ponds for wildlife: Minnesota DNR

 

With enough time and effort, one could potentially get any improvements paid for, and possibly return a small profit on these lands, depending on the location.

 

Quality links. :P

It just doesnt seem (via the MN sites I have been pouring over lately) that much emphasis is put on encouraging people to preserve these areas and the wildlife within as much as development is emphasized.

 

That's an understatement! ;)

In the end, both are important and a balance must be found. To that end, I keep jumping on the preservation/conservation end of the scale. :D

[freeztar]

The Bush administration actually did something good! :shrug:

Conserving Americas Wetlands 2007

[freeztar]

Here's a good article detailing the importance of wetlands. This is a good article for those uninitiated with the subject of wetlands, but also offers something for those with a bit more knowledge.

Walla Walla Union-Bulletin: Local News

 

This article is more technical and deals with wetland protection laws.

The new guidance requires a "fact-specific" analysis to determine whether the Corps has jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries that don't flow year-round, and wetlands that are adjacent or close to those tributaries but are not "relatively permanent."

 

According to an insider EPA newsletter, that agency plans to apply the test by evaluating a given wetlands flow characteristics, hydrology, ecological functions, and whether those wetlands "significantly alter the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream navigable waters."

 

Conservation groups unanimously panned the new regs as confusing. Limiting Corps jurisdiction will make it even harder to meet the stated no-net-loss goal across the country. The new rules constitute a far-reaching reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act with potentially dire consequences for small streams and wetlands, according to organizations like the National Wildlife Federation.

 

But EPA water chief Benjamin Grumbles said the guidance balances the no-net-loss goal with the Supreme Court ruling.

 

According to Inside EPA, Grumbles said, "This inter-agency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent and predictable jurisdictional determinations."

 

But other key EPA wetlands experts said the new rules add a layer of complexity to an already convoluted regulatory scheme.

Summit Daily News for Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper and Frisco Colorado - News

 

The laws regarding wetland protection are a mess right now. The Supreme Court made a ruling in June '06 that attempted to clarify regulatory jurisdiction. Unfortunately it seems to have muddied the waters even more. (pun intended)

[DougF]

freeztar

Anyone interested/involved in this field? I'm an ecologist/consultant working for a large' date=' international engineering firm in Atlanta and am curious if anyone on here has a similar occupation, or at least interest. I mainly survey streams and wetlands on proposed construction sites and write technical memos. In the US, wetland determination has specific guidelines that are administered through the Army Corp of Engineers. How is wetland determination made in your part of the world? What criteria do you use and what is your permitting process, if any?

I'd also be interested in any pictures/info you have on wetlands in your part of the world.

I'm also a plant lover so I'd be interested in any endemic species and special relationships.

 

Wetlands are one of the most productive ecosystems in the world and are becoming increasingly important as we witness fresh water diminishing throughout the world.[/Quote']

Hello freeztar,

I live in Central Florida (Leesburg) I'm a Surveyor by profession (25 years), and find myself locating swamps and wetland on more then one occasion, I think I might have a pic or two of me neck deep in some of the more beautiful wetlands of Florida.:ebomb: I'm one of those guys thats locating all of those trees and creating the nice topographic maps.

let me gather some links to local info on Wetland Delineators, and I'll post if you would like. :shrug:

[freeztar]

Hello freeztar,

I live in Central Florida (Leesburg) I'm a Surveyor by profession (25 years), and find myself locating swamps and wetland on more then one occasion, I think I might have a pic or two of me neck deep in some of the more beautiful wetlands of Florida.:ebomb: :eek: I'm one of those guys thats locating all of those trees and creating the nice topographic maps.

let me gather some links to local info on Wetland Delineators, and I'll post if you would like. :shrug:

 

Cool Doug. I work with surveyors quite a bit and I can tell you I'm not envious of their job. You guys have some seriously dirty work at times. Surveyors have told me stories of being confronted by hoardes of cottonmouths while in a boat, and they seem to get more ticks than a wild dog.

Some pics would be cool as I love the wetlands in Florida. Ever seen the movie "Adaptation"?

[DougF]

freeztar

Ever seen the movie "Adaptation"? [/Quote]

No not that one' date=' just watch the trailer though looks good and I'll nave to check it out.

 

This just about covers my thoughts on mitigation.

 

Restoration and mitigation of wetlands - Plant Management in Florida Waters

Mitigation is an umbrella term for attempting to improve or replace one or more wetland features that have been lost. Given the high rate of development that is taking place in the United States today' date=' significant amounts of wetlands are being lost. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act seeks to offset these losses by requiring that any wetlands destroyed by activities such as highway construction, coastal drainage, or commercial development be replaced.

Mitigation is a relatively new practice and most projects are less than twenty years old. A 1991 report by the Department of Environmental Regulation (now the DEP) assessed the effectiveness of mitigation wetlands in Florida. The report was to determine if the new wetlands were functioning properly (ecologically successful) and if they were in compliance with the regulations of the permit. Results ranged from minor problems such as reports not being submitted to major ones such as no mitigation being attempted at sites where wetland loss has occurred. [b']Less than half of the created saltwater wetlands functioned naturally, and in some cases, only 10% of the created freshwater wetlands worked at all.[/b]

 

Attempting to recreate or replace what was lost sounds like a good idea in theory. In reality however, it is difficult to mimic the complex and connected systems that nature created the first time. [/Quote]

 

Now to some of the local links I mentioned, I use these for identifying wetlands some are national (not just Florida) you may or may not already have some of these,

 

The PLANTS Database provides standardized information about the vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, hornworts, and lichens of the U.S. and its territories.

Welcome to the PLANTS Database | USDA PLANTS

 

 

The Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants

ISB: Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants

 

 

National Wetlands Inventory

Providing Wetland Information to the American People

National Wetlands Inventory

 

 

National Hydric Soil List (Database file)

Hydric Soils | NRCS Soils

[DougF]

I found some links that mite help you Identify Grasses. I use this one quite a bit.

 

http://www.turffiles.ncsu.edu/turfid/ItemID.aspx?orderID=GR&orderDesc=Grass

grasses - Introduction

http://ipm.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm

[Cedars]

I knew they were working on this project, now it seems some results are being seen and more pieces are nearing completion.

 

Quotes from the article:

 

"The goal: restore wildlife habitat lost to a half-century of erosion and, in turn, bolstering fishing, waterfowl migration and the overall health of the river’s northern stretches.

 

Officials are considering it as a model for restoration on the Rio Grande as well as the Parana River in Brazil and the Yangtze River in China, Hubbell said.

 

The corps also is building islands in Chesapeake Bay and off Louisiana and Mississippi. "

 

Habitat islands emerge on Mississippi - Environment - MSNBC.com