The following blog is a shorter version of the article Analysis: Millions of acres of NC wetlands can be developed due to SCOTUS, NC law by Adam Wagner, published in the Raleigh News & Observer on April 1, 2024. To read the full article, click here.
A large portion of North Carolina’s wetlands could lose protections due to the dual impact of a Supreme Court decision and a state law. When North Carolina lawmakers passed a provision in last year’s Farm Act that prevented development only in wetlands protected by the federal government, they couldn’t answer a key question: How many acres of wetlands here would lose protection? For North Carolina, the answers range from bad to worse, with the analysis determining that anywhere between 14% and 100% of the state’s non-coastal wetlands could be open to development. Those wetlands cover 490,000 to 3.6 million acres, many of them in the low-lying coastal plain. The wide range of risk in the analysis is due to ongoing litigation about what constitutes a federally protected wetland, said Adam Gold, an EDF manager for climate resilient coasts and wetlands in North Carolina and Virginia “The Supreme Court used really unclear language and this leaves the door wide open for potential interpretations.”
The timing of the North Carolina bill’s passage was just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett V. EPA decision, a rollback of federal wetlands protections. The decision narrowed which wetlands the federal Clean Water Act protects to those continuously “adjoining” streams, oceans, rivers and lakes in the U.S. The N.C. Home Builders Association was a key force behind last year’s rule change in North Carolina, arguing that the change was introduced to prevent state environmental officials from regulating some isolated wetlands no longer protected by federal rules. North Carolina has other state and local rules that will protect many wetlands that could lose federal protections, Chris Millis, the Home Builders Association’s director of regulatory affairs, told The News & Observer. He pointed to riparian buffer rules, vegetated areas near streams; watershed protection overlays that limit development and require stormwater controls in areas that are important to drinking water supplies; and floodplain protections that curb development in flood-prone areas. Millis also pointed to a March 2024 memo from Assistant Secretary of the Army Michael Connor to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers directing the agency to continue including wetlands that are no longer federally protected due to the Court’s decision in Corps mitigation projects. That means that even though a wetland might no longer be federally protected from development, the Corps could restrict development there. Citing reduced protections for some North Carolina wetlands, Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the 2023 Farm Act, but legislators overrode Cooper’s veto.
Wetlands are a key point of regulatory conflict, with businesses and developers arguing that protections are applied too broadly, stymieing building projects that should move forward with ease. Environmental groups say wetlands are key to a clean environment because they filter pollutants out of water and protect against flooding. An acre of wetlands can hold between a million and 1.5 million gallons of water, according to the EPA. That’s particularly important in isolated wetlands found in the Piedmont or North Carolina mountains, Gold said. By retaining water, he said, those wetlands reduce the amount of floodwater flowing downstream, helping everyone in the stream or river basin below. “The wetlands that are most at risk after this decision are the ones that are most critical for flood storage because they are towards the headwaters of watersheds,” Gold said.
Another concern environmental lawyers have about the Farm Act is that it goes further to roll back protections than previous rollbacks, which were primarily focused on permitting the filling in of certain wetlands for development activity. Those wetlands are now no longer protected by state rules limiting the discharge of pollutants into water. With the new information in hand, environmental advocates hope to start making the case for additional wetlands protections when lawmakers return for the short session next month. David Kelly, EDF’s North Carolina president, wrote in an email that lawmakers either have to find a way to convince developers to avoid the losses of wetlands or significantly ramp up funding for wetlands conservation and restoration. “We believe it’s important that science helps inform the policy discussion on wetland conservation in North Carolina and beyond, with the consequences of the Sackett decision providing a clear example of the kind broad ambiguity and uncertainty that can result when policy making is not rooted firmly in science,” Kelly wrote. “We stand ready; if there are any areas of environmental concern that are affected, we’re open-minded and we’re not trying to develop in areas that are truly wetlands,” Millis said.
The following blog post is a summary of the Saving the Wetlands article by Shenti Menon that appeared in the Environmental Defense Fund’s Volume 55, Number 1 Winter 2024 edition of Solutions magazine.
Photo courtesy of Getty Images
Louisiana’s coastline is a marvel, a dynamic landscape shaped by the mighty Mississippi River, but it’s also one of the fastest-disappearing places on Earth. Over the years, human interventions like levees and dams have disrupted the natural flow of sediment, causing the wetlands that act as a buffer against storms and floods to erode at an alarming rate. Since the 1930s, an area equivalent to the size of Delaware has vanished from Louisiana’s wetlands, leaving communities vulnerable to the increasing threats of climate change. Enter the ambitious project championed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and partners: the restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands using the power of the Mississippi River itself. This groundbreaking endeavor, part of Louisiana’s $50 billion plan to bolster coastal resilience, seeks to counteract land loss by allowing the river to flow freely and replenish the disappearing wetlands.
The Mississippi River, flowing over 2,000 miles through the heart of America, carries with it rich sediment that has historically nourished Louisiana’s coastal ecosystems. However, human efforts to control the river’s course have disrupted this natural process, leading to the rapid disappearance of land. Levees and other structures built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage navigation and flood protection have inadvertently starved the wetlands of sediment, exacerbating the effects of subsidence and sea-level rise.
Represented in yellow, the Mid-Barataria sediment diversion will replenish the dying wetlands.
The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project represents a paradigm shift in how we approach coastal restoration. Instead of fighting against the river’s natural processes, Louisiana is embracing them. Engineers will create a 2-mile-long channel to reconnect the river with the vanishing wetlands of Barataria Bay, allowing sediment-rich water to flow in and rebuild land. This approach mimics the natural diversions that occur when the Mississippi finds weak spots in its banks, carving new paths to the sea and depositing sediment along the way. Already, natural diversions like Neptune Pass in Plaquemines Parish have demonstrated the potential of sediment to create new land. Satellite images show muddy sediment flowing into coastal waters, where it accumulates and forms the foundation for new wetlands. With the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, this process will be accelerated, restoring 20–40 square miles of wetlands over the next 50 years.
But the project isn’t without its challenges and controversies. Some stakeholders, particularly in the fishing industry, are concerned about the potential impact on their livelihoods. The diversion of freshwater into saltwater habitats could disrupt ecosystems and alter the distribution of fish and shellfish. However, proponents argue that the long-term benefits of coastal restoration far outweigh these concerns. By protecting and enhancing the natural environment, the project aims to safeguard not only vulnerable communities but also the rich biodiversity of Louisiana’s coast. Moreover, the project is not just about restoring land; it’s also about supporting the communities that rely on these ecosystems for their survival. Louisiana has allocated significant funds to mitigate the impact of the diversion on fisheries and other industries. Investments in new gear, oyster cultivation, and flood mitigation measures demonstrate a commitment to balancing environmental restoration with economic prosperity.
In addition to large-scale infrastructure projects, innovative initiatives are emerging to address the interconnected challenges of climate change and agriculture. Programs like the Regenerative Agriculture Financing Program, developed by EDF and Farmers Business Network, reward farmers for adopting climate-smart practices that reduce emissions and build soil health. By incentivizing sustainable farming methods, these programs not only mitigate climate change but also improve the resilience of agricultural systems. Louisiana’s coastal restoration efforts serve as a model for proactive adaptation to environmental challenges. By harnessing the power of nature and investing in community resilience, we can protect our precious coastal landscapes for generations to come. The challenges ahead are immense, but with collaboration and innovation, we can ensure a brighter future for Louisiana’s coast and its people.
The restoration of the Penobscot River is an unprecedented and innovative effort to remove two dams and build a state-of-the-art fish bypass around a third. As a result, thousands of miles of habitat along the Penobscot and its tributaries have been re-opened for 12 native species of sea-run fish. Because of this tremendous project, a multitude of benefits are being realized by biological and human communities in and along the river including skyrocketing fish runs, renewed historic recreational opportunities, and restored connections throughout the watershed.
The seeds of the project were sown in 1999 when PPL-Maine (formerly Pennsylvania Power and Light) purchased a series of dams in Maine. PPL approached the Penobscot Indian Nation who brought in several conservation organizations in hopes of creating a more cooperative and creative model for the dam relicensing process. Discussions with those groups led to a remarkable announcement four years later calling for removal of the Penobscot’s lowermost dams while maintaining hydropower production by increasing power generation at other dams elsewhere.
Partners for Restoration
The 2004 agreement outlining the dam removal process was signed by an unprecedented array of partners that came together to form The Penobscot River Restoration Trust, a nonprofit organization that worked with a variety of state and federal agencies to implement the restoration project. This partnership includes the Penobscot Indian Nation, American Rivers, Atlantic Salmon Federation, Maine Audubon, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Trout Unlimited, the Department of Interior, the State of Maine, and PPL-Maine. The Nature Conservancy joined as a full partner in 2006.
An Ambitious Path
In the first phase of the project, the Penobscot River Restoration Trust purchased the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland dams in December 2010. With support from NOAA and funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and about half in private funds, phase 2 started in June 2012 with the removal of the Great Works Dam. Removal of Veazie Dam was completed in 2013 and a natural river channel that bypasses the Howland Dam was opened in late 2015. These efforts, along with a new fish lift installed by Brookfield Energy at the Milford Dam, thousands of miles of spawning habitat re-connected the main stem of the river to native fish for the first time in nearly 200 years.
Researchers and conservationists around the world consider this project a prototype for other river restoration efforts, so it is important to fully understand and study the impacts of dam removal and bypass on life in and around the river including the people whose lives revolve around it. That’s why Conservancy staff are taking the lead as the Trust’s science team, charged with organizing and conducting research and monitoring efforts for the project to better understand the ecological impacts of this work.
A Model for Others to Follow
The Penobscot River Restoration Project resolved longstanding disagreements over how best to restore native sea-run fish and their habitat while balancing the need for hydropower production. It stands as a model of cooperation, innovation, and hard work for the benefit of nature and people.
We’re Not Done Yet
Work continues in the headwaters, removing barriers where roads meet tributary rivers and streams while improving those crossings so they better stand up to increasing flooding from big storms. Thanks to partners and supporters, more habitat is opening to fish and more people are seeing the benefits.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/0nu0v8oyLqA?rel=0&start=0&modestbranding=1&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=1 Butch Phillips (3:45) On restoring the Penobscot River
The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization (tax identification number 53-0242652) under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Donations are tax-deductible as allowed by law. Global sites represent either regional branches of The Nature Conservancy or local affiliates of The Nature Conservancy that are separate entities. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Some of you might remember the 1992 movie, Medicine Man, starring Sean Connery, where he conducts research into a “cure for cancer” derived from native flowers. The science of medicines derived from plants and other natural sources is not just the stuff of Hollywood movie studios, though. Numerous medical treatments have been known for hundreds of years and have been used by indigenous peoples to treat everything from hives to headaches and much more.
Many common wetland plants have known medicinal properties. Here are just a few of the many species you may encounter and what they could do for you in a pinch. Some are so helpful that companies have produced commercial products based on the active ingredients found in these plants.
While the following plants are all relatively safe, it needs to be pointed out that this list is provided for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as safe for all, and that you should consult your doctor before attempting any of these remedies on your own.
Willow bark extract is very similar in its analgesic action to quinine; the active ingredient is salicin which forms salicylic acid which is found in a number of herbal remedies used throughout the world, some dating as far back as the Stone Age. The willow first became known to Native Americans, who were in need of a fever-reducing agent and used willow bark tea as a remedy. The bark is anodyne, anti-inflammatory, antiperiodic, antiseptic, astringent, diaphoretic, diuretic, febrifuge, hypnotic, sedative, tonic. It has been used in the treatment of gonorrhea, ovarian pains and nocturnal emissions. It is taken internally in the treatment of rheumatism, arthritis, gout, inflammatory stages of auto-immune diseases, diarrhea, dysentery, feverish illnesses, neuralgia and headache. The bark can be used as a poultice on cuts, wounds, sprains, bruises, swellings etc.
Stinging Nettle – Urtica Dioica L. EMP – FACU
t3.gstatic.com
Urtica dioica, often known as common nettle, burn nettle, stinging nettle or nettle leaf, or just a nettle or stinger, is an herbaceous perennial flowering plant in the family Urticaceae.
Nettles are a highly revered, nutritious spring green, eaten steamed or in soups and stir-fries. The sting disappears when the leaves are cooked or dried. The greens and tea of nettles are high in minerals, vitamins, and chlorophyll, namely Vitamin A and C and calcium, potassium, magnesium, and iron. The leaves and seeds are used medicinally in teas and foods for allergies, arthritis, and as a kidney tonic. Russians are using the leaves in alcohol for cholecystitis (inflammation or the gall bladder) and hepatitis.
Spotted Joe-Pye Weed – Eutrochium maculatum L. EMP – FACW
W.D. Bransford @ Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Native Americans used the tea made from the whole plant of as a diuretic for dropsy, painful urination, gout, kidney infections, and rheumatism. The root tea was once used for fevers, colds, chills, sore womb after childbirth, diarrhea, liver and kidney ailments, and a wash for rheumatism. Its name was derived from “Joe Pye”, a 19th century Caucasian who used the root to induce sweating in typhus fever.
Common St. John’s Wort – Hypericum perforatum L. EMP – FAC
Jim Stasz @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS
Fresh flowers used in tea, tincture, or olive oil, was once a popular domestic medicine for treatment of external ulcers, wounds (especially those with severed nerve tissue), sores, cuts, bruises, etc. The tea is a folk remedy for bladder ailments, depression, dysentery, diarrhea, and worms. Contains the biologically active compounds choline, pectin, rutin, sitosterol, hypericin, and pseudohypericin. Recent studies (1988) have found that hypericin and pseudohypericin have potent anti-retroviral activity, without serious side effects. They are also being researched as an AIDS treatment.
Warning: Taken internally or externally, hypericin may cause photodermatitis (skin burns) on sensitive persons exposed to light.
Yellow marsh marigold – Caltha palustris L. EMP – OBL
www.wildflower.org
Marsh marigold roots were used by Native Americans to treat colds and sores, to induce vomiting, to protect against love charms, and as an aid in childbirth. A tea made from its leaves was also believed to relieve constipation.
Ojibwas mixed tea with maple sugar to make a cough syrup that was popular with colonists; this syrup was used as a folk antidote to snake venom. The plant contains anemonin and protoanemonin – both have marginal antitumor activity.
Warning: Sniffing bruised stems induced sneezing. Intoxicationhas resulted from the use of the raw leaves in salads or usingthe raw flower buds as substitutes for capers. Do not confusewith American White or False Hellebore, which is toxic. Whileparts of the plant are used medicinally, handling the plant can cause skin irritation, and uncooked parts are toxic tohuman consumption. This is due to irritant yellow oil calledprotoanemonin.
False daisy – Eclipta prostata L. EMP – FAC
False daisy is native to parts of North America where it has been collected in Massachusetts, and recently in Connecticut. False daisy is used in Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine against liver disease and to restore hair growth. The leaves contain nicotine which acts as an insecticide. It has been used in herbal medicine worldwide. In some parts of this country, it is considered a weed, and, in some areas, it is considered an endangered species.
Cardinal Flower – Lobelia cardinalis L. EMP – FAC
Thomas G. Barnes @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS
Native Americans used the root tea for stomachaches, syphilis, typhoid, worms, and an ingredient of “love potions”. Leaf tea was used for colds, croup, nosebleeds, fevers, headaches, and rheumatism. This plant was considered a substitute for Indian-tobacco, Lobelia inflata L., but with weaker effects; it was rarely used.
Warning: Potentially toxic; degree of toxicity unknown.
Purple Loosestrife – Lythrum salicaria L. EMP – FACW
Tea made from whole flowering plant (fresh or dried) is a European folk remedy for diarrhea, intestinal problems, and dysentery; gargle for sore throats; douche for leucorrhea, and as a cleansing wash for wounds and treatment of bacterial infections.
They also use it for swelling and as a drying agent. Women use it for menstrual problems.
Jewelweed – Impatiens capensisEMP – FACW
Thomas G. Barnes @ USDA-NRCS PLANT
Jewelweed has a long history of use in Native American medicine. When applied topically, sap from the stem and leaves is said to relieve itching and pain from a variety of ailments, including hives, poison ivy, stinging nettle, and other skin sores and irritations. The sap has also been shown to have anti-fungal properties and can be used to treat athlete’s foot. Thomas G. Barnes @ USDA-NRCS PLANT
Crushed leaves or mucilaginous stem juice that is harvested before flowering can be applied on recent poison-ivy rash. A 1957 study found it effective, in 2-3 days, in treating 108 of 115 patients. Some people swear by the leaf tea as a poison-ivy rash preventative; others rub on the frozen tea, in the form of ice cubes, as a remedy. The poultice is also a folk remedy for bruises, burns, cuts, eczema, insect bites, sores, sprains, warts, and ringworm.
Jack in the Pulpit – Arisaema triphyllum L.EMP – FAC
Jeff McMillian @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database
Native Americans used the dried, aged root for colds and dry coughs, and to build blood. Externally, the root was poulticed for rheumatism, scrofulous sores, boils, abscesses, and ringworm. Dried root tea was used as an expectorant, diaphoretic, and purgative, and for asthma, bronchitis, colds, cough, laryngitis, and headaches. Externally, for rheumatism, boils, and swelling from snakebites. The Chinese used related species to treat snakebites.
Warning: Intensely irritating. Calcium oxalate crystals found in whole fresh herb.
Herb of grace/Water Hyssop –Bacopa monnieri L. EMP – OBL
Hyssop has astringent, emmenagogue (stimulating menstrual flow), relaxant, diuretic, and wound-healing properties. It stimulates mucus production, and is helpful in soothing sore throats, and coughs. It has also been known to help against asthma. Because it also relaxes muscle, it is helpful in aiding digestive problems. Its antibacterial properties make hyssop a good vermifuge (expels intestinal parasites). Hyssop essential oil has medicinal properties, but has also been linked to epileptic seizures, and should be taken with precaution.
Boneset leaf tea was once used to induce sweating in fevers, flu, and colds; also used for malaria, rheumatism, muscular pains, spasms, pneumonia, pleurisy, gout, etc. Leaves were poulticed onto tumors. West German research suggests nonspecific immune system-stimulating properties, perhaps vindicating historical use in flu epidemics.
Warning: Emetic and laxative in large doses. May contain controversial and potentially liver-harming pyrrolizidine alkaloids.
Coastal wetlands provide invaluable ecological and economic services for our coastal communities. To keep pace with sea level rise, these habitats need space to migrate upland. This may present a challenge in some highly urbanized areas. A recent study that calculated open and developed land near wetlands along the Southeastern coast of the United States sheds light on the fate of coastal wetlands at a regional scale, and provides context for improved coastal resilience efforts.
Borchert, Sinéad M., et al. “Coastal Wetland Adaptation to Sea Level Rise: Quantifying Potential for Landward Migration and Coastal Squeeze.” Journal of Applied Ecology 1, no. 12 (2018): DOI:10.1111/1365-2664.13169
Approximately 39% of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties, which means that coastal wetlands and nearby communities intimately coexist. A coastal wetland can be defined as an ecosystem that undergoes tidal fluctuations, and includes habitats such as salt marshes, mangrove forests, and salt flats. These habitats provide a wide range of ecosystem services, or benefits to humans, such as flood protection from storm surges, land erosion control, improved water quality, and biodiversity of fish and shellfish species.
However, both development along the coast and anthropogenic climate change have made coastal wetlands particularly vulnerable. Under normal conditions, wetlands can naturally keep pace with changing sea levels. In a process called accretion, plants trap sediment, which increases the elevation of the wetland’s surface. However, due to climate change, higher rates of sea level rise are projected to “drown” many coastal wetland ecosystems. This means that sea levels could rise faster than a wetland’s natural accretion rate. For this reason, the retreat of these habitats upland into higher elevations is recognized as a way for tidal saline wetlands to survive in response to sea level rise. Available, undeveloped land in higher elevations is needed for migration to occur. This can prove difficult in urbanized areas along the coast.
In a recent paper published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, researchers from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) quantified areas along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. where wetland retreat could and could not occur due to development. Using land elevation and tidal data, they determined current coastal wetland boundaries and then calculated the amount of upland area that would potentially become wetlands by the year 2100 under three different future sea level rise scenarios (specifically, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 meters). They completed this assessment for 39 different estuaries, from Texas to southwestern Florida.
To assess differences in land use, researcher Sinéad Borchert and her team first used the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory data to identify coastal wetland habitat. Next, they classified areas of urban development within the projected wetland migration zones using two different datasets: an urban growth model called SLEUTH (Slope, Land use, Excluded, Urban, Transportation, and Hillshade) and the USGS’s National Land Cover Database. Using both habitat and elevation data provides a more accurate prediction of flooding zones at a regional level. Modeling such a comprehensive dataset has rarely been done in the past.
This study reinforces the idea that topography and coastal development dictate the fate of coastal wetland habitat. The results show that low-sloping coastal areas of Louisiana and southern Florida have the highest potential for landward wetland migration. However, wetlands will have to retreat over a larger area to reach higher elevations in these locations.
Urban development in these low-sloping, low-lying areas, such as in Miami, poses the greatest threat to coastal wetlands when sea levels rise. Instead of encouraging wetland growth, we can instead expect areas of high urbanization areas to promote increasing infrastructure development like concrete walls to combat sea level rise. This will result in shoreline “hardening”, or a greater disconnect between coastal wetlands and their upland environment, and ultimately wetland loss.
With the threat of rising sea levels, the need for communication between ecologists, economists, and town planners in coastal communities is more important than ever. This study offers a finer look at areas in the southeastern U.S. that can provide adequate space for coastal wetlands to keep up with sea level rise. It also highlights areas where development will stand in the way of wetland migration – or in other words, potential areas of future wetland loss. Identifying these regions can better direct conservation efforts to places of high priority.
Developing along the coast comes at a great cost in the long term. Losing coastal wetlands means losing ecosystems that protect us from storms, clean our water, and provide habitat for marine species that fishing industries heavily rely on. The results from this study can facilitate more informed and detailed management plans that promote the preservation of coastal wetland migration areas, and ultimately the invaluable ecosystem services that wetlands provide for coastal communities.
I recently had the chance to speak at The Economist‘s sustainability conference, and I asked how many people in the audience spend time in our national parks. Hands shot up everywhere. Then I asked them to keep their hands up if they enjoy visiting parks on Labor Day weekend. Hands disappeared, heads shook no, and people chuckled.
So many of us want to get outside and enjoy nature, but we don’t want to wait in traffic for hours trying to get into a park. Demand for the national parks exceeds supply and, as the Sierra Club’s former executive director Carl Pope pointed out to me, Labor Day weekend traffic jams at our parks illustrate this perfectly. People across the rainbow of humanity that is America really want to visit the country’s wild places.
Historically, protecting natural spaces and establishing parks has been job number one for the Sierra Club. In 1890, John Muir led the movement to protect 750,000 acres in the Sierra Nevada as Yosemite National Park. Two years later, the Sierra Club was born. From our role in the creation and protection of parks like Grand Canyon and Grand Teton to our contribution to the passage of the Wilderness Act, which has protected 112 million acres of public land from reckless development, the Sierra Club has been—and will always be—an influential advocate for natural spaces.
Now we must double the number of parks in this country. And I don’t just mean the 425 National Park Service sites but also other federally managed places and state and local parks too. We want to ensure that every person, no matter where they live, can explore and enjoy our natural spaces.
This work goes far beyond the causes of conservation and access to the outdoors. We created parks to save souls (“places to play in and pray in,” as Muir wrote). Today we need them to preserve our collective future.
To avoid irreparable harm to the planet, we need to reduce climate-killing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dramatically and quickly. Beyond ending our addiction to fossil fuels, one of the best nature-based ways to do this is to preserve natural spaces—especially where mature and old-growth trees act as carbon sponges.
Our national goal is to protect 30 percent of US lands and waters by 2030 to slow climate decay and biodiversity loss. Right now, only about 12 percent is protected. We must safeguard more land in the next seven years than we have in the past 100.
The benefits go beyond preserving wildlife habitats and providing more clean air and water. We can measure them in dollars.
The National Park Service says that for every dollar Congress invests in national parks, $10 is returned to the economy. And communities where we establish public lands as parks will be more resilient to the extreme weather that accompanies climate decline.
As we save more natural spaces, we must discard practices that have too often left out Indigenous communities. Since long before this was a country, Indigenous people have stewarded the landscapes they have called home. Co-management agreements like the one for Bear Ears National Monument recognize that Native knowledge is essential to the long-term protection of our lands and waters (see “Unraveling Manifest Destiny“).
As I write this, the Sierra Club is training state leaders across the country to accelerate the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act. When President Biden signed it one year ago, the massive investment in growing America’s economy in such a visionary way earned him comparisons to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Leading our nation in doubling the size of protected lands would earn him comparisons to another Roosevelt. The Sierra Club’s job at this moment is the same as it was for our founder: to make the case in a way that can neither be ignored nor denied.
Ben Jealous is the executive director of the Sierra Club. | Photo by Ian Martin
In 2011, Batson-Cook, assisted by Scott Bridge Co., was chosen to build the world’s longest urban whitewater course in Columbus, Ga., through the Chattahoochee River Restoration project. The project both enhanced the river’s local environment and created a state-of-the-art whitewater facility.
Photo courtesy Batson-Cook Co
The Columbus, Ga., project won the top award in the water and environmental project category.
Contractors hired divers to survey the river and help determine its “true” channel, which helped builders determine where underwater structures, such as boulders, should be placed in order to achieve the designer’s intent for both the river’s natural bank restoration as well as the whitewater course. The project team’s biggest challenge was removing two dams that were more than 100 years old—the Eagle & Phenix Dam and the City Mills Dam—that were built in the late 1800s to provide power to the now-abandoned textile mills located along the river. To take out the structures, crews drilled holes down through the top of the dams and placed dynamite topped with crushed gravel and then more dynamite. Once blasted, the team used heavy equipment to manually dismantle the rest of the structure. Also, the project team recontoured the river bed to create whitewater courses; changed the contour of the river’s flow for the whitewater rapids; and constructed a habitat pool for fish and wildlife.
The breaching of the 130-year-old Eagle and Phenix Dam, removal of the City Mills Dam, and formation of natural habitat pools, construction of a boat launch, viewing terrace, and pedestrian bridge unleashed the potential of the river and community, dramatically improving the local downtown experience, providing new economic opportunities, attracting new residents and businesses, and boosting tourism. Dozens of new in-river features provide over two miles of world class whitewater kayaking and rafting. Numerous bank improvements allow for better tourist access and observation areas. In addition, the project created habitat for the endangered Shoal Spider Lilly and native Shoal Bass, an important game fish only found in the southeastern U.S.
The Chattahoochie River Conservancy played a large part in reclaiming this magnificent river.
“The dams built along the Chattahoochee River have done immense damage to the ecosystem. By removing the dams no longer serving a purpose to the community, we are able to restore sections of the river to a state that closely resembles pre-dam habitat. These restored sections may be small (3-10 miles) but are immensely valuable in the fight to restore the Chattahoochee River. In impounded areas where dam removal is not an option, we partner with the Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Power, and the US Army Corps of Engineers to improve the habitat within the reservoirs and reduce the impacts of invasive species.“
All told, the Chattahoochee River Restoration project helped restore this once highly-disturbed river back to its natural and unrestricted flow and transformed it into a thing of beauty for the community that will also be attracting numerous visitors and recreationists.
At first, the dead floated downstream a few at a time. Then they came by the hundreds, and then the thousands.
For mile after mile, the Klamath River was filled with tens of thousands of dead salmon. As Annelia Hillman paddled a canoe with a friend one September day 21 years ago, her heart sank when she saw the carcasses floating past. She and other members of the Yurok Tribe say they will never forget the stench of death.
“It’s like seeing your family perish in front of you,” Hillman said. “I would compare it to a massacre, really, in terms of the emotions and the trauma that it has caused for us.”
Annelia Hillman, a traditional food coordinator for the Yurok Tribe, picks vegetables in a community garden on the Klamath River. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
The grief drove Hillman, then 27, to begin protesting to demand change. The mass fish kill of 2002, estimated at up to 70,000 salmon, became a defining event for a generation of young Native activists — a moment that showed the river ecosystem was gravely ill, and badly in need of rescuing.
Water diversions for agriculture had dramatically shrunk river flows. And the Klamath’s hydroelectric dams, which had long blocked salmon from reaching their spawning areas, had degraded the water quality, contributing to toxic algae blooms and disease outbreaks among the fish.
At first, when Indigenous leaders demanded that dams be removed, their chances of success seemed remote at best. But after more than two decades of persistent efforts, including protests at company shareholder meetings,demonstrations on the river and complicated negotiations, the four dams along the California-Oregon border have finally started to be dismantled. One small dam has already been removed, and three more are slated to come down next year.
Chinook salmon swim at the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery below the dam on the Klamath River. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
For members of the Yurok, Karuk and other tribes who have been immersed in the struggle for much of their lives, the undamming of the Klamath represents an opportunity to heal the ecosystem and help fish populations recover by opening up hundreds of miles of spawning habitat. They say the coming changes hold promise for them to strengthen their ancestral connection to the river and keep their fishing traditions alive.
“This river is our lifeline. It’s our mother. It’s what feeds us. It’s the foundation to our people, for our culture,” Hillman said. “Seeing the restoration of our river, our fisheries, I think is going to uplift us all.”
Work on the dam removal project began in June. The smallest dam, Copco No. 2, was torn down by crews using heavy machinery. The other three dams are set to be dismantled next year, starting with a drawdown of the reservoirs in January.
“The scale of this is enormous,” said Mark Bransom, CEO of the nonprofit Klamath River Renewal Corp., which is overseeing dam removal and river restoration efforts. “This is the largest dam removal project ever undertaken in the United States, and perhaps even the world.”
The $450-million budget includes about $200 million from ratepayers of PacifiCorp, who have been paying a surcharge for the project. The Portland-based utility — part of billionaire Warren Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway — agreed to remove the aging dams after determining it would be less expensive than trying to bring them up to current environmental standards.
The dams were used purely for power generation, not to store water for cities or farms.
“The reason that these dams are coming down is that they’ve reached the end of their useful life,” Bransom said. “The power generated from these dams is really a trivial amount of power, something on the order of 2% of the electric utility that previously owned the dams.”
An additional $250 million came through Proposition 1, a bond measure passed by California voters in 2014 that included money for removing barriers blocking fish on rivers.
A tunnel, left, at Iron Gate Dam, where modifications are underway. The tunnel will be used to drain the lake early next year. (Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times
Crews hired by the contractor Kiewet Corp. have been working on roads and bridges to prepare for the army of excavators and dump trucks.
“We have thousands of tons of concrete and steel that make up these dams that we have to remove,” Bransom said. “We’ll probably end up with 400 to 500 workers at the peak of the work.”
During a visit in August, Bransom stood on a rocky bluff overlooking Iron Gate Dam, where crews were working on a water drainage tunnel.
There won’t be major dam-wrecking explosions, he said, but workers plan to blast open some dam tunnels to move out tons of accumulated sediment from the reservoirs. As the water is drained, crews working on boats will also spray fire hoses to wash away muddy silt and send it downstream.
In addition to tearing down the dams, the project involves restoring about 2,200 acres of reservoir bottom to a natural state.
A Klamath River Renewal Corp. biologist takes water samples. (Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times
In recent years, workers have collected nearly 1 billion seeds from native plants along the Klamath and sent seeds to farms to be planted and harvested. That has produced nearly 13 billion seeds — 26 tons in all — which will be planted once the reservoirs are drained.
The aim is for native vegetation to regrow across the watershed while fish begin to access 420 miles of spawning habitat in the river and its tributaries.
“Nature knows what it wants to do. So what we’re really trying to do here is work with Mother Nature to create conditions that will allow for river healing and for restoration of balance here,” Bransom said. “We can offer a light touch to help nudge things in the right direction.”
Fed by Cascade Range snowmelt, the Klamath River takes shape among lakes and marshes along the California-Oregon border and winds through steep mountainous terrain before ending its journey among redwood forests on the Pacific Coast.
For the Yurok, the fight to remove dams is the latest in a series of struggles over the river’s management and the preservation of their way of life.
Susan Masten, a leading advocate for tearing down the dams, recalls a time in 1978 that the Yurok call the “Salmon Wars,” when federal agents descended on the reservation to enforce a ban on fishing.
Just five years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had affirmed the tribe’s fishing rights in a landmark case involving Masten’s uncle, Raymond Mattz. But federal officials had ordered a halt to tribal fishing on the Klamath even as other fishing continued along the coast.
A man rides past an “Undam the Klamath” mural on the Orleans Market in Orleans. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
The Yurok, who sought to defend their fishing rights and tribal sovereignty, faced off with officers in riot gear holding billy clubs and M-16 rifles. Many residents feared for their lives, Masten said.
Masten recalled seeing officers drag a woman away by her hair as tribe members protested on a riverbank. Another time, she said, agents twisted her grandfather’s arm behind his back.
The tensions eventually subsided when the marshals left, and the Yurok successfully asserted their rights to continue fishing. But they saw other threats in the declining fish populations — and the four hydroelectric dams that were built without tribal consent between 1912 and the 1960s.
Former Yurok tribal chairperson Susan Masten stands on a boat on the Klamath River. (Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)
“I really didn’t think that I would see dam removal in my lifetime,” Masten said.
Masten, who is 71, spoke while drifting across the estuary in a motorboat near the river’s mouth. As the surf crashed against a barrier of sand, pelicans, cormorants and ospreys soared over the dark water.
“Everything that’s around here is connected to this river,” Masten said. “And so for us to ensure the future for our children, we need to ensure that this river is here and that it’s healthy, and that the ecosystem is healthy, because it’s the heartbeat of our people. It’s the lifeway of our people.”
Masten lives in her ancestral village of Rek-woi, or Requa, in a home on a bluff overlooking the river’s mouth. Once the dams come down, she said, she expects to see the fish thrive and the entire ecosystem flourish.
“The river has a way to heal itself, and it can heal itself very quickly if it’s allowed to do so,” Masten said. “I’m excited that my grandchildren will be able to benefit from it.”
Yurok tribal attorney Amy Bowers Cordalis, a leader of the Indigenous conservation group Ridges to Riffles, stands beside the boat ramp in the village of Requa near the mouth of the Klamath River. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
Masten’s niece, Amy Bowers Cordalis, is a lawyer for the tribe who focuses on the Klamath River and was involved in negotiating agreements involving California, Oregon and PacifiCorps to enable dam removal.
“We kept pushing and pushing,” Bowers Cordalis said. “We all came together and figured out a way to remove dams.”
She stood by a boat ramp that in August typically would be bustling with families hauling out their nets and fish. But the ramp was mostly deserted.
The tribe’s leaders took the rare step of canceling subsistence fishing this year to protect the dwindling salmon population, a decision that mirrored the shutdown of commercial fishing along the coast.
Several years ago, Bowers Cordalis also worked on the Yurok Tribe’s declaration of the river as a legal “person” under tribal law, a step intended to provide greater protections.
One key problem, she said, is that the dams have allowed nutrient-filled agricultural runoff to fester in lakes, feeding algae blooms. When the river isn’t safe for bathing, it prevents the tribe’s members from carrying out ceremonies that involve entering the water.
An idle canoe sits on the shore at a fishing camp along the Klamath River. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
Tearing down the dams is a first step in “a new era of healing,” Bowers Cordalis said. She said she hopes to eventually get back the flourishing river with abundant fish that her great grandmother saw a century ago.
From the river behind her, a salmon flew into the air, its scales shimmering, and landed in the water with a plop. Then another salmon jumped.
“A big run just went through!” a man called out from a boat.
Bowers Cordalis said it was encouraging to see that some salmon, even with their population so low, were making it upstream to spawn.
“We have so much hope that this river will restore itself,” Bowers Cordalis said. “Dam removal is just the beginning. Dam removal is the end of colonization of this river.”
Not everyone is happy to see the dams go. In some areas, the removal project has generated heated opposition.
In the community of Copco Lake, some residents live in waterfront homes with boats and docks. Their homes will be left high and dry when the reservoir is drained.
Alan Marcillet, a resident who enjoys kayaking, said most people in the community aren’t looking forward to the disruptive changes.
“It’s just going to be a mud pit,” Marcillet said. “The community will just die. I would think of the hundred people that live up here, perhaps half of them won’t return.”
Two of his neighbors, German and Jeanne Diaz, bought their retirement home overlooking the lake more than two decades ago. Now, their view is about to change dramatically, and they say they’re concerned about whether the mud that’s exposed at the bottom of the reservoir will turn to dust and pollute the air.
“What is it going to do to the community?” German Diaz said. “Are we going to be going through sandstorms for a while?”
Copco Lake resident Geneve Spanauss Harder looks over Western Outdoor News tabloids from the 1970’s at her home. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
The Klamath River Renewal Corp. has been accepting claims from landowners to pay for damages linked to dam removal. But Diaz said he doesn’t plan to apply for that money.
“We’ve already seen property values drop,” Diaz said. “What can we do?”
Other residents said they see the reservoir as beneficial because it attracts wildlife and serves as a water supply for firefighting helicopters.
Geneve Spannaus Harder, an 80-year-old resident whose great grandfather once owned an apple orchard on lands now submerged by the reservoir, said she and many others strongly oppose draining the lake.
“It’s just going to change the whole scenario of the community,” she said. “I don’t think we know what we’re going to get.”
Because of a closed salmon fishing season, none was available at this year’s Yurok Salmon Festival in Klamath. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
This August, when the Yurok Tribe held its annual Klamath Salmon Festival, no salmon was served. Instead, there were tri-tip sandwiches and frybread, and the parade featured a skit about dam removal with participants holding large paper cutouts of fish.
At one stand, people were asked to write a few words on cards about their hopes for the Klamath River’s future. The cards were hung on strings. One read: “I wish for the salmon to recover and run free forever!”
Nearby, T-shirts were being sold with an illustration depicting the undamming. It features a young woman, her eyes covered with ceremonial bluejay feathers, balancing two baskets like the scales of justice as water breaks through a dam and surges into the river.
Young men compete in a Yurok Tribe stick game tournament during the Yurok Salmon Festival. (Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)
The artist, 23-year-old Tori McConnell, said the young woman represents both the people and the river in a state of transition. The tears running down her cheeks are like her prayers, McConnell said, “overflowing into the baskets of justice.”
McConnell, a Yurok Tribe member who is this year’s Miss Indian World, said she is hopeful.
“There’s a lot of work to be done to restore the salmon population,” McConnell said. “But I hope we will see that happen in our lifetime.”
Populations of chinook and coho salmon, as well as other fish, have declined more than 90% in the Klamath over the past century, said Barry McCovey Jr., the Yurok Tribe’s fisheries director.
The dams have been a big factor, he said, and “we have our eyes on righting that wrong.”
But fish populations have also been ravaged by other factors, including gold mining that scarred the watershed, and decades of logging that left denuded areas, releasing fish-harming sediment into the river.
Additionally, fire suppression in forests over the last century and the lack of traditional burning by Indigenous people has left forests primed for catastrophic wildfires, unleashing tainted runoff that becomes “poison to the ecosystem,” McCovey said. “You combine all that together, and then you layer on top of that climate change,” he said.
The Klamath’s water is heavily used to serve agriculture, irrigating crops such as onions and hay. The Yurok Tribe is suing the federal government over decisions that they argue don’t provide the minimum flows required for fish, including threatened coho salmon.
Yurok tribe fisheries biologist Barry McCovey at the mouth of the Klamath River. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
The removal of dams is a pivotal milestone and it comes at a critical time for struggling salmon populations, McCovey said, but recovery isn’t going to happen in a couple of years. “We have to accept that these things take time,” McCovey said.
“I don’t think in my lifetime I’ll ever see a fully recovered Klamath River ecosystem,” he said. “And maybe no one will ever see that. But the goal is to move closer to that.”
McCovey said restoring balance to the ecosystem will take generations, and he is prepared to continue working toward that goal.
In the meantime, he and others have been talking about what they will do once all the dams are gone.
McCovey said he hopes to take a rafting trip, traveling for miles with the current as the river flows freely once again.
Ian James is a reporter who focuses on water in California and the West. Before joining the Los Angeles Times in 2021, he was an environment reporter at the Arizona Republic and the Desert Sun. He previously worked for the Associated Press as a correspondent in the Caribbean and as bureau chief in Venezuela. He is originally from California.
Albert Brave Tiger Lee is a Southern California native, son of Korean immigrants, a father and a staff videographer at the Los Angeles Times. His work spans various mediums of visual story telling and has been in recognized for various disciplines including a National Emmy Award for News and Documentary, RFK Journalism Award, Picture of the Year International, Best of Photojournalism and the Columbia Dart Award.
Louisiana’s Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion Will Create Up to 27 Square Miles of New Land
NEW ORLEANS —The State of Louisiana’s ground-breaking for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the largest single ecosystem restoration project in U.S. history and a monumental milestone decades in the making, will help reconnect the Mississippi River to its surrounding wetlands. The National Wildlife Federation has worked for decades to advance large-scale sediment diversions as the most effective way to rebuild the Mississippi River Delta, creating vital habitat for wildlife and a crucial buffer for coastal communities against increasing threats from storm surge.
Louisiana loses a football field of land every hour and has lost nearly 2,000 square miles in the last century — about the size of the state of Delaware.
To address its land loss crisis, the state has a comprehensive plan to build and sustain coastal wetlands. The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, which will mimic natural land-building processes, is a cornerstone of that plan, and is predicted to restore up to 27 square miles (17,000 acres) of wetlands in the Barataria Basin and is designed to work with other restoration projects in the outfall area, creating the potential for enhancing hundreds of acres of restored wetlands in total.
“The monumental Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion is the most important project to restore and expand wetlands in the history of the United States, a remarkable achievement that can help begin to turn the tide on Louisiana’s land loss crisis,” said Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “The landmark project will not only rebuild essential habitat for iconic wildlife species that depend on the Bayou State’s globally-significant coastal resources, it will also provide critical protection for vulnerable coastal communities by enhancing the wetland buffer that reduces the velocity and volume of storm surge. Harnessing the power of the Mississippi River itself to build up its delta — as the system did naturally for thousands of years — is the premier example of how we can work with nature to improve outcomes for both people and wildlife alike to combat escalating climate impacts. We commend the state and federal officials across Louisiana and all those involved in the decades of effort culminating in today’s groundbreaking and urge other regions to draw inspiration from this innovative nature-based solution to create a more resilient future for generations to come. We have no time to lose.”
Editor’s Note: Wetland mitigation accounts for a significant annual investment in habitat restoration and protection, but is it a reliable conservation tool? This article concludes that despite the nationwide goal of “no net loss,” the federal compensatory mitigation program may currently lead to a net loss in wetlands acres and functions.
The nation’s 1989 goal of achieving a “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions has a significant influence on how the regulatory agencies administer §404 of the Clean Water Act and, in particular, the decisions they make about compensatory mitigation for permitted losses. Each year approximately 47,000 acres of wetland mitigation are required under the §404 program (ELI 2007) to compensate for about 21,000 acres of permitted losses (Martin et al. 2006), a potential gain of 26,000 acres annually. Although the amount of compensatory mitigation required provides a significant buffer in meeting the “no net loss” goal, the required compensation must be implemented on the ground and the restored wetlands must successfully replace lost wetland acres and functions in order to achieve the goal.
The success of wetland mitigation projects can be judged on whether a project meets its administrative and ecological performance measures. Administrative performance refers to the degree to which compensatory mitigation projects meet their permit requirements, such as submitting monitoring reports in a timely manner. Ecological performance refers to meeting ecological standards that ultimately result in a compensatory wetland that replaces lost aquatic resource functions.
In 2001, the National Wetlands Newsletter published Count it by Acre or Function: Mitigation Adds Up to Net Loss of Wetlands (Turner et al. 2001), providing further insight to a National Research Council (NRC) report that found that compensatory mitigation failed to achieve the national policy of no net loss of wetlands. This article reviews recent literature to determine whether or not compensatory mitigation projects required by state and federal agencies are meeting administrative and ecological performance measures. Most of the studies evaluated permittee-responsible (also known as project-specific) mitigation projects. However, some more recent evaluations deal more specifically with wetland mitigation banks.
Administrative Performance
Turner and colleagues’ (2001) seminal review of the success of mitigation implementation found that mitigation projects across the country often fail to comply with their permit conditions. Of 19 reviewed studies, 10 found that the majority of evaluated projects were compliant with permit conditions, while 9 studies found that only 4 to 49% of the projects were fully compliant.
More recent studies have similar findings. Of seven studies evaluating the percent of sites meeting 100% of the required permit conditions, four found that the majority of the projects reviewed complied with all permit conditions (Ambrose and Lee 2004—69%; Cole and Shaffer 2002—60%; Minkin and Ladd 2003—67%; Sudol and Ambrose 2002—55%), while three found that only 18 to 46% of projects complied with all permit conditions (Ambrose et al. 2006—46%; Brown and Veneman 2001—43%; MDEQ 2001—18%). Ambrose and colleagues (2006) found that, on average, permitees met 73% of permit conditions. A 2002 study of compensatory mitigation in New Jersey found that on average mitigation projects met only 48% of their design requirements and permit specifications (Balzano et al. 2002). Monitoring, submission, and long-term maintenance requirements seem to be the criteria that most often go unmet, while vegetation criteria are more frequently achieved (Ambrose et al. 2006, Ambrose and Lee 2004).
A lack of monitoring and oversight of mitigation projects may contribute to low success rates. Cole and Shafer (2002) found that fewer than 10% of permit files reviewed in their Pennsylvania study contained required monitoring reports. In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ oversight of compensatory mitigation in a representative sample of Corps districts. The GAO found that the districts performed limited oversight to determine the status of required compensatory mitigation (GAO 2005). The districts did, however, provide somewhat more oversight for mitigation conducted by mitigation banks and in-lieu fee mitigation than for permittee-responsible mitigation. For the 60 mitigation banks that were required to submit monitoring reports, 70% of the files showed that the Corps had received at least one monitoring report. The percentage of the mitigation bank files with evidence that the Corps conducted an inspection ranged from 13 to 78%.
Ecological Performance
Studies of the ecological performance of compensatory mitigation have shown that compensatory wetland projects fail to replace lost wetland acres and functions even more often than they fail in their administrative performance. In fact, permit compliance has been shown to be a poor indicator of whether or not mitigation projects are adequately replacing the appropriate habitat types and ecological functions of wetlands.
Replacing Acres
Several studies have questioned the success of wetland compensatory mitigation in replacing lost wetland acreage. In its comprehensive national study on compensatory mitigation, the NRC re- ported that between 70 to 76% of mitigation required in permits is actually implemented (NRC 2001). A review of mitigation sites in Michigan found that only 29% of the permits implemented the required amount of mitigation (MDEQ 2001). A study in California found that 46% of sites met acreage requirements (Ambrose and Lee 2004). Several other studies have had similar results, suggesting that the §404 program is failing to compensate for lost wetland acres (Balzano et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2002).
Replacing Functions
In addition to not meeting acreage requirements, mitigation wetlands often do not replace the functions and types of wetlands destroyed due to permitted impacts. Turner and colleagues (2001) found that an average of only 21% of mitigation sites met various tests of ecological equivalency to lost wetlands. Two recent studies compared mitigation sites to impact sites. One found that only 17% of the sites evaluated successfully replaced lost functions (Minkin and Ladd 2003). The other study determined that 29% of the sites were successful in this regard (Ambrose and Lee 2004). The former study also found that 50% of the mitigation sites evaluated were actually non-jurisdictional riparian and upland habitat. Four studies comparing mitigation sites to reference wetlands found that fewer than 50% of the sites evaluated were considered ecologically successful (Ambrose et al. 2006—19%; Johnson et al. 2002—46%; MDEQ 2001—22%; Sudol and Ambrose 2002—16%). Ambrose and colleagues’ statewide study of 143 permit files in California found that 27% of the constructed mitigation did not even meet the jurisdictional definition of a wetland (Ambrose et al. 2006).
Compensatory mitigation as required under §404 may also result in a shift in wetland type. For example, a study of 31 mitigation sites in Indiana found failure rates of 71% for forested mitigation sites, 87% for wet meadow areas, and 42% for shrub areas, but only 17% of the shallow emergent areas and 4% of open water areas were failures (Robb 2001). These results indicate that mitigation may be resulting in the replacement of forested wetland sites with shallow emergent and open water community types. Similar results have been reported in New Jersey, where a study of that state’s mitigation program found that emergent wetlands were the only wetland type that achieved a greater than 1:1 replacement ratio, while forested wetlands were successfully replaced at a ratio 0.01:1 (Balzano et al. 2002). A Pennsylvania study of 23 §404 permits issued from 1986 to 1999 showed that only 45% of the mitigation wetlands were of the same type as the impact sites and that the mitigation had resulted in a shift from wetlands dominated by woody species to less vegetated mitigation wetlands and a replacement of scrub-shrub, emergent, and forested wetlands with open water ponds or uplands (Cole and Shaffer 2002).
Several recent studies of bank sites indicate that banks are generally no more successful at replacing lost acres and functions than permittee-responsible mitigation. A 1999 study reported a net loss of 21,000 acres of wetlands due to inclusion of enhancement and preservation as mitigation methods at bank sites (Brown and Lant 1999). A more recent comprehensive review of 12 mitigation bank sites in Ohio found that 25% of the bank areas studied did not meet the definition of wetlands (Mack and Micacchion 2006). Of the actual wetland acreage, 25% was considered in poor condition, 58% was fair, and 18% was good quality in terms of vegetation as compared to natural reference wetlands. The study also found that amphibian community composition and quality was significantly lower at banks than at natural forest, shrub, or emergent wetlands and that pond-breeding salamanders and forest-dependent frogs were virtually absent from the bank sites. Overall, of the banks studied, three were mostly successful, five were successful in some areas and failed in others, and four mostly failed. A recent study from Florida found that of the 29 banks evaluated, 70% fell within the moderate to optimal range of function. Although the baseline conditions of most sites were in the high functional range, most of the projects relied upon enhancement, rather than restoration, as the mitigation method (Reiss et al. 2007).
Mitigation and Wildlife Habitat
Many compensatory mitigation projects do not include wildlife criteria in their design and performance standards (NRC 2001). Only a handful of studies on compensatory mitigation attempt to address the ability of compensatory mitigation to replace wildlife habitat lost through the §404 program. These studies indicate that compensatory mitigation sites are not effectively replacing lost wildlife habitat. One study reported that over half of the mitigation sites evaluated did not adequately compensate for wildlife habitat services lost due to permitted activities (Ambrose and Lee 2004). Only 41% of the studied sites had successfully replaced wildlife habitat and connectivity, while replacement failed at 38% of sites (25 of these sites were considered extreme failures). In Washington state, 55% of the sites surveyed in one study had only a moderate contribution to wildlife functions (Johnson et al. 2002), while in New Jersey the wildlife suitability assessment criteria achieved the lowest score of all the assessment criteria used to evaluate mitigation sites (Balzano et al. 2002). The New Jersey study reported that, on average, mitigation sites provided limited protective cover, adjacent food sources, and nesting habitat for wildlife and that there were moderate human impediments to wildlife use of the sites.
Conclusion
Although wetland mitigation accounts for a significant annual investment in habitat restoration and protection, it has not, to date, proven to be a reliable conservation tool. Despite the nationwide “no net loss” goal, the federal compensatory mitigation program may currently lead to a net loss in wetlands acres and functions. On the high end, Turner and colleagues (2001) estimated that the §404 program may lead to an 80% loss in acres and functions. The success of compensatory mitigation could be enhanced by improving permit conditions and requiring clearly defined performance standards (Ambrose et al. 2006, NRC 2001, Turner et al. 2001). However, there are currently no national guidelines or models for developing ecological performance standards. Permits should clearly define performance standards that are based on ecological criteria such as community structure, soil, hydrology, amphibian communities, and vegetation (Fennessy et al. 2007). Currently, many permits simply require a certain percentage of herbaceous cover as a criterion for accessing the success of mitigation site because it is easily measured and may quickly reach required thresholds. However, percent herbaceous cover may not be a sufficient surrogate for most wetland functions (Cole and Shafer 2002).
Mitigation success may also be improved by making site selection decisions within the context of a watershed approach (NRC 2001). In 2002, the Corps issued guidance in support of the watershed approach, and draft compensatory mitigation regulations issued jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps in 2006 may codify the approach. Under the watershed approach outlined in the proposed mitigation rule, there also may be opportunities for mitigation to support habitat conservation objectives (Bean and Wilkinson 2008). Improved compliance monitoring would also help to ensure the success of mitigation projects. As a recent GAO study indicates, many Corps districts have limited oversight of compensatory mitigation projects (GAO 2005). Increasing post-implementation monitoring and tying required monitoring periods directly to achieving final performance criteria would improve both the administrative and ecological performance of mitigation sites.
References
Ambrose, R.F. and S.F. Lee. 2004. An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board, 1991-2002. California State Water Re- sources Control Board, California.
Ambrose, R.F., J.C. Callaway, and S.F. Lee. 2006. An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Quality Control Board, 1991-2002. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California.
Balzano, S., A. Ertman, L. Brancheau, W. Smejkal, A.S. Greene, M. Kaplan, and D. Fanz. 2002. Creating Indicators of Wetland Status (Quantity and Quality): Freshwater Wetland Mitigation in New Jersey. NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science, Research, & Technology.
Bean, Michael and Jessica Wilkinson. January 2008. Design of U.S. Habitat Bank- ing Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.
Brown, P., and C. Lant. 1999. “The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss.” Environmental Management 23(3): 333-345.
Brown, S.C. and P.L.M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA, Wetlands, 21(4): 508-518.
Cole, C.A. and D. Shaffer. 2002. “Section 404 Wetland Mitigation and Permit Suc- cess Criteria in Pennsylvania, USA.” 1986-1999. Environmental Management 30(4): 508-515.
Environmental Law Institute. 2007. Mitigation of Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Estimating Costs and Identifying Opportunities. Washington, DC
Fennessy, S., A. Rokosch, and J.J. Mack. 2007. Developing Performance Standards for the Assessment of Wetland Mitigation Projects. National Wetlands News- letter. 29(2) 3.
Johnson, P., D.L. Mock, A. McMillan, L. Driscoll, and T. Hruby 2002. Washing- ton State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study. Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Washington State Department of Ecology. February 2002. Publication No. 02-06-009
Mack, J.J and M. Micacchion. 2006. An Ecological Assessment of Ohio Mitigation Banks: Vegetation, Amphibians, Hydrology, and Soils. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2006-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio.
Martin, S., B. Brumbaugh, P. Scodari, and D. Olsen. 2006. Compensatory Miti- gation Practices in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources.Working Paper.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Michigan Wetland Mitiga- tion and Permit Compliance Study. Lansing, MI: Land and Water Management Division.
Minkin, P. and R. Ladd 2003. Success of Corps-Required Mitigation in New Eng- land, USACE New England District
National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act, National Academy of Sciences.
Reiss, K.C., E. Hernandez, M.T. Brown. 2007. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mitigation Banking in Florida: Ecological Success and Compliance with Permit Conditions. Florida Department of Environmental Protection #WM881. EPA Grant #CD 96409404-0.
Robb, J.T. 2001. Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Area Analysis. EPA Grant #CD985482-010-0 Indiana Department of Environmental Management. June 2001
Sudol, M.F., and R.F. Ambrose. 2002. The U.S. Clean Water Act and habitat re- placement: evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County, California, USA. Environmental Management 30: 727-734.
Turner, R.E., A.M. Redmond, J.B. Zedler. 2001. “Count It By Acre of Function— Mitigation Adds Up to Net Loss of Wetlands.” National Wetlands Newsletter 23(6).
U.S. Government Accountability Of ce. 2005. Wetlands Protection: Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring. Washington, DC: GAO. GAO-05- 898.
