Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States

  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wetland mitigation banking is the practice of creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving large, off-site wetlands to compensate for authorized impacts to natural wetlands. By 2002, there were 219 active mitigation banks in the United States, encompassing 50,000 hectares in 29 states. This study is the first systematic analysis of the ecological quality of these ecosystems; the objective is to determine if mitigation banks are successfully supporting native wetland vegetation and if success differs by mitigation method (created, restored, or enhanced), geomorphic class, age, or area. I obtained monitoring reports from 45 randomly selected mitigation bank wetlands in 21 states to evaluate three measures of ecological status: the prevalence of wetland vegetation, the pervasiveness of non-native species, and plant species richness. Sites range from less than one ha to over 560 ha and include 17 created wetlands, 19 restored wetlands, and 9 enhanced wetlands. Prevalence Index scores (PI; 1.0 for obligate wetland vegetation to 5.0 for upland vegetation) do not differ by wetland area but are significantly lower in created wetlands and significantly decrease from one- and two-year-old created wetlands (PI=2.37±0.15; mean±SE) to those five to seven years old (PI=1.96±0.12). Created and restored wetlands support 12.4 and 12.2 species per 10 m2 respectively, nearly four times more than the 3.2 species in 10m2 of enhanced wetland. This is in part attributable to a greater incidence of non-native species in created and restored wetlands. The vegetative cover in created mitigation bank wetlands is 18.9±2.8 percent non-native-statistically similar to that of restored (17.6±2.9) but significantly greater than that of enhanced systems (8.7±2.7). Within mitigation methods, there are clear differences among geomorphic and vegetation classes. Depressional systems with a single vegetation class support highly hydrophytic, highly non-native communities with low species richness, while restored and enhanced riverine systems have a greater prevalence of native species. For mitigation bank wetlands in this study, the prevalence of wetland vegetation, the representation of native species, and the plant community homogeneity increase with age, indicating a period of self-organization and a potential trend toward vegetative equivalence with natural wetlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Albrecht, V., and M. Wenzel. 1996. Two perspectives on mitigation banking: a view from the private sector. p. 77–87. In L. L. Marsh, D. R. Porter, and D. A. Salvesen (eds.) Mitigation Banking Theory and Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, A. O. and J. J. Feddema. 1996. Wetland loss and substitution by the section 404 permit program in southern California, USA. Environmental Management 20:263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, S. M. 1997. Comparison between restored and reference sedge meadows in south-central Wisconsin. Wetlands 17:518–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornette, G., C. Amoros, and N. Lamourous. 1998. Aquatic plant diversity in riverine wetlands: the role of connectivity. Freshwater Biology 39:267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaux, A. and F. Serefiddin. 1999. Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model of regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environmental Management 24:327–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4.

  • Brinson, M. M., A. E. Lugo, and S. Brown. 1981. Primary productivity, decomposition, and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12:123–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. H. and C. L. Lant. 1999. The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Environmental Management 23:333–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. C. and P. L. M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, C. A. and D. Shafer. 2002. Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986–1999. Environmental Management 30:508–515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, R. K. and J. A. Coddington. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Biological Sciences 345:101–118.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, E. F. and E. D. McCoy. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. The American Naturalist 113: 791–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronk, J. K. and M. S. Fennessy. 2001. Wetland Plants: Biology and Ecology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 1993. Wetland mitigation banking. An Environmental Law Institute Report, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2002. Banks and fees: the status of off-site wetland mitigation in the United States, Washington, DC, USA.

  • Erwin, K. L. 1991. An evaluation of wetland mitigation in the South Florida Water Management District, Vol. I. Final report to South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of mitigation banks. 1995. 60 Federal Register 228, 58605–58614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy, S. and J. Roehrs. 1997. A functional assessment of mitigation wetlands in Ohio: comparisons with natural systems. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Waters, Columbus, OH, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1996. The vegetation of restored and natural prairie wetlands. Ecological Applications 6:102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallihugh, J. L. and J. D. Rogner. 1998. Wetland mitigation and 404 permit compliance study, Vol. I. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region III, Burlington, IL, USA, and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, IL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula, and P. W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19:477–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kartesz, J. T. and C. A. Meacham. 1999. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy, P. A. 2000. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge Studies in Ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusler, J. A. and M. E. Kentula (eds.) 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: the Status of the science. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malakoff, D. 1998. Restored wetlands flunk real-world test. Science 280:371–372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McElfish, J. M. Jr. and S. Nichols. 1996. Structure and experience of wetland mitigation banks. p. 15–36. In L. L. Marsh, D. R. Porter, and D. A. Salvesen (eds.) Mitigation Banking: Theory and Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, L. L. and J. Young. 1996. The practice of mitigation banking. p. 184–215. In L. L. Marsh, D. R. Porter, and D. A. Salvesen (eds.) Mitigation Banking Theory and Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. E. 1981. Species-area slopes and coefficients: a caution on their interpretation. The American Naturalist 118:823–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W. J. and R. F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and selfdesign. Ecological Applications 6:77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. L. and T. H. Roberts. 2003. Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA. Wetlands 23:65–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, C., A. Ekblad, M. Dynesius, S. Backe, M. Garfjell, B. Carlberg, S. Hellqvist, and R. Jansson. 1994. A comparison of species richness and traits of riparian plants between a main river channel and its tributaries. Journal of Ecology 82:281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum, H. T. 1989. Ecological engineering and self-organiation. p. 79–101. In W. J. Mitsch and S. E. Jorgensen (eds.) Ecological Engineering: an Introduction to Ecotechnology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. W. 1990. The estimation of species richness by extrapolation. Ecology 71:1195–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P. B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: 1988 national summary. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Biological Report 88(24).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, J. A. and E. L. Warne. 1993. Development of vegetation in small created wetlands in southeastern Wisconsin. Wetlands 13: 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reppert, R. 1992. National wetland mitigation banking study: wetlands mitigation banking concepts. Institute for Water Resources, Water Resources Support Center, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb, J. T. 2002. Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. 1993. Wetlands trading is a loser’s game, say ecologists. Science 260:1890–1892.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J. W. 1996. Wetland mitigation banking and watershed planning. p. 159–183. In L. L. Marsh, D. R. Porter, and D. A. Salvesen (eds.) Mitigation Banking Theory and Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch, R. 2000. Size does matter: the value of small isolated wetlands. National Wetlands Newsletter 22:5–6, 13–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabman, L., K. Stephenson, and P. Scodari. 1998. Wetland credit sales as a strategy for no-net-loss: the limitations of regulatory conditions. Wetlands 18:471–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, C. 1988. Mitigation banking. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA. Biological Report 88(41).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E. D. 1999. Mitigation banking: challenges and lessons learned. Bulletin of the Society of Wetland Scientists 16:18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E. D., F. Tabatabai, and R. F. Ambrose. 2000. Wetland mitigation banking: a framework for crediting and debiting. Environmental Management 26:233–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabatabai, F. and R. Brumbaugh. 1998. National wetland mitigation banking study: the early mitigation banks, a follow-up review. Water Resources Support Center, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA, USA. Institute for Water Resources Report 98-WMB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugland, K. I., J. S. Gray, and K. E. Ellingsen. 2003. The speciesaccumulation curve and estimation of species richness. Journal of Animal Ecology 72:888–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wentworth, T. R., G. P. Johnson, and R. L. Kologiski. 1988. Designation of wetlands by weighted averages of vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin 24:389–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whigham, D. F. 1999. Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment. The Science of the Total Environment 240:31–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. F. and W. J. Mitsch. 1996. Functional assessment of five wetlands constructed to mitigate wetland loss in Ohio, USA. Wetlands 16:436–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J. B. 1996. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: and introduction to the forum. Ecological Applications 6:33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J. B. 1997. Restoring tidal wetlands: a scientific view. National Wetlands Newsletter 19:8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J. B. and J. C. Callaway. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7:69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McPhail Center for Environmental Studies, Denison University, 43023, Granville, Ohio, USA

    Douglas J. Spieles

Authors
  1. Douglas J. Spieles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spieles, D.J. Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25, 51–63 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0051:VDICRA]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0051:VDICRA]2.0.CO;2

Key Words

Search

Navigation