# Wetland banking?



## Guest (Jun 28, 2007)

I was at a community Q&A meeting last night that the county port commission hosted. They are purchasing the property of an abandoned/burned down mill sight in town. The purpose is to 'clean' the site and make it attractive for businesses and companies to come in and build on the property. About 50% of the property is untouchable in regards to building because of 300 ft. boundaries for wetland areas in the site...and beyond that, other neighboring parcels are currently unbuildable because the soil/substrate has not compacted to suitable building levels.

One thing that was brought up by a couple of the port commissioners was a for-profit company they recently become aware of that specializes in wetland banking. The way I understand it (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that someone can buy an acre parcel of land for building. However, say 1/3 of that acre is wetland and unusable/buildable by the developer. They can then buy an offset or credit of that 1/3 of an acre and fill it in and use it to build on. That 1/3 acre is then added to a currently safe and functioning wetland. 

Here is a link that perhaps explains it better than I can: http://www.criticalhabitats.com/

I'm curious to hear others thoughts/opinions on this? On the surface, it sounds good and logical...but at the same time I'm curious how detrimental it is to the species and populations that have settled into the site-specific location that is going to be filled in and paved over?

Do you think wetland banking hurts or helps amphibian/habitat conservation?


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2007)

Wetland banking is not a good thing. You are taking away from an established system and creating havoc on another or perhaps creating a totally new system with no ecology of its own. Frankly its an invitation for invasive species to invade. There has been lots of criticism on the subject.


----------



## trow (Aug 25, 2005)

Living in florida I have seen many wetland's destroyed even when measure's were taken to try and reduce the impact put upon them which is impossible with wetland's once you start it is pretty much downhill from there.The best and only way to is to stay away from them altogether.I am not sure how it's done up there but here the contracter's remove the muck and then backfill with clay and fill dirt lot's of it. I have also seen these community's that are built on the wetland area's also have massive trouble with flooding and huge problem's with termite's etc. So imo it is a small fix for a huge problem.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

The other problem with wetland banking is that the definitions of wetlands keep changing. Bush senior declared "no net loss of wetlands" as a national policy and then his administration redefined wetland areas to allow development in wetland margins without having the development considered a "loss". Under the current Bush administration, they have redefined wetlands to an absurd level and now golf course and farm ponds are considered suitable mitigation for many wetland projects.

Yet another problem is that spatial arrangement of wetlands can be very critical to the function of regional ecosystems. Destroying an isolated wetland and mitigated by adding on to an existing one is still likely to leave the regional ecosystem with irrepairable damage.

Wetland banking is not creating apples to replace other apples. It is replacing apples with rotten apples or something entirely different.

That said, I do think that wetland banking can have its place. But the rules need to be changed drastically to make sure the mitigation measures more than compensate for the loss in the local ecosystem. I do think there are cases where the mitigated wetland is better than the original wetland that is lost. For example, a small wetland surrounded by a sea of development may already be seriously ecologically impaired and it may make more sense to fill it in and create a better functioning wetland elsewhere. But I think banking also provides excuses for exchanges that are more the equivalent of replacing a golden egg with a turd and calling it even.

BTW, if anyone has read the malaria article in the current Nat. Geo., they will see the statistic that 3 million acres of wetlands were drained in the US to eradicate malaria. That's the equivalent of 3 Yellowstone National Parks full of water.


----------



## salvoz (May 10, 2004)

I have worked in wetland creation/mitigation/delineation as a consultant for some years. Naturally, not disturbing any wetlands is best but this is not a realistic position. As was mentioned, wetland banking can be a good concept where the wetland replaced was so highly fragmented and/or degraded that it no longer serves as a useful resource. In those cases, either enlarging an existing wetland, or buying additional, existing wetland for preservations (preferred) in lieu of saving such degraded areas is a better option, particularly if you are mitigating at a 3:1 ratio. Of course, it is best to use banks that contain like types of wetland, so you arent nuking the last remaining types of any one flavor of wetland, but there is only so much you can do as far as an apples to apples comparison. Regarding what constitutes a wetland, well, there are lots of arbitrary determinations made by resource agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers as far as what is a wetland. Often times, the ecology of a wetland is not as important to these agencies as much as the wetland's capacity for flood control or groundwater recharge. I will also say that virtually all of the wetland banking/conservation I have seen in So Cal is primarily concerned with growing wetland vegetation and providing habitat for riparian birds, rather than preserving the aquatic ecology for things like fish and amphibs--the only times you see that type of focused mitigation is where the aquatic species is listed (either state/fed) and statutes and regulations are triggered. Aquatic systems, particularly in the lowland drainages in the arid/semi-arid regions of the populated southwest, are in extremely bad shape.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Thanks for adding to this discussion Salvoz. Since you have been directly involved in these mitigations, you may be able to provide some additional insight. I've only been involved peripherally in such activities as a wildlife biologist. But one thing it appears to me from my experience, is that the system is rather weighted on the side of developers. By this I mean that those proposing the project know how to comply with the letter of the law, and present their proposal to state, county, or city officials in a way that makes the project look like a win-win for willdlife and everyone involved. For example, as a biologist I can easily develop and present a plan that plays up the enormous benefits a project will have for riparian birds and waterfowl, while neglecting to mention that the original wetland provided much better habitat for reptiles and amphibians than the proposed mitigation. More often than not, the review boards for such projects lack the expertise and resources to adequately critique the claims made by the developer's consultants. I would expect the So. Cal. has more watchdogs guarding against such things than in other areas. But have you seen this kind of problem in your work? And if not, where is the oversight review coming from? By that I mean, who pays for the experts to review the plans?


----------



## salvoz (May 10, 2004)

Hi Brent,

I should add that I am no longer a biological consultant but now an attorney. The thought was to use my knowledge and life sci background to pursue enviro law but this changed. Massive debt has forced me to work in the private sector, and, as you might guess, almost all attys working on the private side are aiding development. To avoid this moral dilemma I chose a different area of law entirely (healthcare). 

In response to your question, yes, there is tremendous room for the consultant to package the mitigation plan to appeal to the agencies, developers, and city councils while giving short shrift to the more "obscure" vertebrates, and vice versa. Most of the baseline ecological surveys and assessments for development projects, whether they be funded by the city, county, or a private developer, are completed by consulants that are paid by the very person or entity that wants the development to occur. This room for bias has always frustrated me immensely. But, no matter what is done to shed light on the detrimental effects of various wetland practices by an "objective" consultant, it rarely does much good. For one, the watchdogs, as you put it, are mostly concerned with the glamorous vertebrates--i.e., birds and mammals. A good example is the audubon society, which I have found very helpful but also very nearsighted when it came to other wildlife, such as herps. For example, most wetland creation/enhancement/banking involved impounding water or altering seasonal flows so that is can support greater riparian vegetation--for riparian birds of course. But this also makes habitat for xenopus, sunfish, crayfish, bullhead, bullfrogs, large-mouth bass, etc--which are all very efficient at eradicating and/or outcompeting native herps, particularly since our herps here are all adapted to intermitent/seasonal flows. 

Ultimately, no matter how much a consultant foreshadows such ecological impacts to herps or the aquatic system overall, city councils can override almost any impacts, even "signficant" impacts. Frankly, the city councils and local agencies, even when armed with the facts, dont really care about rare or sensitive amphibians, plants, or other obscure creatures. What happens under the California Enviro Quality Act ("CEQA") is that all signficant impacts must be documented in an EIR. The EIR, which spells out the effect of a development, will also propose mitigation. The City and/or lead agencies will review it, but unless there is some state or federal discretionary permit holding up the project, and/or a listed species that requires involvement by the state/fed resource agencies, the project goes through notwithstanding all of those impacts. And even if there is a listed species involved, the "taking" of these is virtually always authorized so long as some nominal mitigation effort is implemented. You basically need a "jeapordy" opinion on a state/fed-listed animal to effectively remove local control of a project. 

In certain cases dealing with state/fed listed herps, however, I have dealt with some agency staff that were very open to the issues, and very educated on the animals ecology. These tended to be younger staff--the "new" generation, so to speak. In almost each of these, the agency, whether it be state fish and game or FWS, was able to significantly alter a development because that development was contingent upon a wetland alteration, and this was likely to impact a listed species. In those cases, I have seen the agencies work very well with me and other consultants (who were effective at identifying the species and the environmental concern) to put pressure on the developer to "do the right thing." While I am happy with the result of these "collaborations," it really is a type of quasi-extortion. While, ideally, you would hope that local review boards would want to protect all wildlife, in reality, when left to their own devices, most local agencies and city councils will almost always cave in to development and the hopes of more and greater property tax revenue, and there are plenty of consultants that will help them get the project through, and put a pleasant "spin" on it in the process (e.g., characterizing golf courses as good wildlife corridors!).


----------

