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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Masten, who was the tribe’s chairperson during the devastating fish kill of 2002, was ecstatic when federal regulators signed off on plans to demolish the dams.

“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.”

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.

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?”

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.”

---

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.

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.

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

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.

Brian van der Brug

Brian van der Brug has been a staff photojournalist at the Los Angeles Times since 1997.

Albert Brave Tiger Lee

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.

Article by Rebecca L. Kihslinger

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.

Waterfowl and waterbirds are integral parts of wetland ecosystems. Ducks, geese and other migratory birds deliver more valuable benefits to our environment and to us than we realize.

By Lauren Rae May 22, 2020

As dedicated conservationists, we’re committed to ensuring that waterfowl have the habitats they need to thrive. But what have they done for us, lately? Turns out, it’s a whole lot.

---

Many of us get unspeakable joy from being near a local wetland at sunset as flocks of birds return from an evening of feeding. Others treasure the family tradition of setting up a blind in the marsh on a brisk autumn morning.

After decades of successful conservation work spanning North America, waterfowl populations are strong, bringing with them endless opportunities for us to enjoy their beauty and bounty.

But there’s more to appreciate about our feathered friends than you may realize. As ambassadors for the ducks, we feel compelled to highlight some of the lesser known and unique services they provide. Allow us to sing (quack and honk) their praises.

Waterfowl help biodiversity with wetland-to-wetland delivery

Waterfowl and waterbirds are integral parts of wetland ecosystems. They’re large-bodied and often airborne, which makes them relatively easy to observe. And they’re mobile; travelling far distances and stopping at multiple wetland sites along the way. Every time they splash down at these migratory pit stops, they leave something behind, like an avian Amazon delivery driver.

Last year, DUC restored more than 50,000 acres (20,200 hectares) of wetlands. When waterfowl visit these newly restored habitats, they can establish biodiversity by introducing plant, invertebrate, amphibian and fish species from other sites. Frog eggs might get transported from pond to pond if they are stuck on a goose’s foot, for example. Insect larvae that survive in a duck’s intestinal tract might get deposited in a wetland far from where it was ingested.

This wetland-to-wetland delivery method works for established ecosystems, too. In the face of climate change, dispersal by waterbirds can help a species shift its range. As conditions get warmer, waterfowl can help other species expand northward to climates where they can continue to be successful. It also helps keep a species’ gene pool diverse, making it easier for the species to avoid inbreeding and adapt to changing environments. Having many types of genes gives species a stronger toolkit for facing adversity. Either way, dispersal by waterbirds can benefit individual species and enhance biodiversity in wetlands.

How birds help with pest problems and invasive species

Introduced or invasive species often raise a red flag—and rightfully so. They wreak havoc on natural ecosystems and have major economic consequences. Although they could potentially spread undesirable species to new areas, waterfowl can be of help here, too. For instance, diving ducks like scaup feed on invasive zebra mussels and can decrease their abundance. The same holds true for plant pests. Ducks that winter in flooded rice fields eat the seeds of weeds, giving the farmer a leg-up the following growing season. Ducklings, too, can make a dent in pest populations. They eat a lot of larvae that would otherwise become pesky, biting mosquitoes.

Security detail provided by Canada geese

Canada geese are notorious for protecting their nests and goslings during the breeding season. This aggression can benefit other birds nesting nearby, keeping predators—and people—at a safe distance, which helps survival of young birds regardless of their species.

Waterfowl help ecosystems and the economy

Anyone that has a hard time appreciating the many ways waterfowl help ecosystems should know that they contribute financially, too. With all that hunters invest in waterfowling, a single duck is worth $26 in the Canadian economy (not to mention that northern communities have traditionally subsisted on waterfowl harvest and it continues to be a cornerstone of many cultures). And in Iceland, one of the last remaining locations where down from non-domesticated ducks is harvested, eider feathers bring $40 million to retail markets.

The ripple effect of conservation

It’s comforting to know that, whatever our reasons for conserving wetlands, our work on behalf of the ducks supports hundreds of other species, including ourselves.