WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review WDNR Summary and Recommendations

December 2007, revised May 2008 Joanne Kline, Ron Grasshoff, Jon Simonsen

Scope
An inventory of wetlands and their condition is the basis for future program improvements to meet State and national wetland goals. Over the past several years, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Water Division has initiated major improvements in tracking wetlands both naturally occurring wetlands and wetlands restored through voluntary conservation efforts and WDNRs wetland permitting program. The WDNR Wetland Team, on the recommendation of WDNRs Environmental Analysis staff, requested a summary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Program so that wetlands affected by WisDOT could be included in the Departments effort. This report summarizes the WisDOT program based on data available for the period 19902005 and recommends possible improvements. These recommendations have been passed on to the WDNR Environmental Analysis Management Team, which will recommend an implementation plan.

Overview
The Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share responsibility for wetland protection under the Federal Clean Water Act. That responsibility includes ensuring that wetland loss meets State wetland water quality standards and that unavoidable wetland loss is mitigated through wetland compensation according to joint guidelines established by these agencies. Transportation improvements account for substantial wetland loss in Wisconsin. Between 1990 and 2005, highway, airport, and other WisDOT administered projects resulted in approximately 175 acres of wetland loss per year. In comparison, combined residential, commercial, and agricultural development projects since 2002 resulted in approximately 70 acres of wetland loss per year. Since 1990, the WisDOT/WDNR Cooperative Agreement has included an attachment that outlines the process and expectations regarding the compensation for unavoidable wetland loss from transportation projects. Since 1993, WisDOT, WDNR, and federal agencies1 have

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration
1

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

followed the WisDOT Wetland Mitigation Banking Technical Guidelines2 (Guidelines) for a compensatory wetland mitigation program to be administered by WisDOT. Since 1990, approximately 3600 acres of wetland compensation has occurred to mitigate the loss of 2629 acres. State and national wetland program goals have changed over the years as understanding of wetlands and wetland compensatory mitigation has increased. A report from The National Research Council Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses3, for example, led the Corps and EPA to develop a Mitigation Action Plan, which is the foundation of the 2008 Federal Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule. In 2006, WDNRs Office of Energy and Environmental Analysis suggested a review of the WisDOT program to identify gaps in the data and to recommend program improvements consistent with the concepts in the Mitigation Action Plan. This Review has three components: data in the WisDOT wetland database between 1990 and 2005; WDNR files for selected wetland compensation sites; and field reviews of selected wetland compensation sites. The findings led to three general conclusions: WisDOT tracks wetland loss, but not wetland gain. WisDOT tracks the loss of wetland acres and wetland plant community type. WisDOT does not track the plant community type, quality, or function of wetland compensation acres. While WisDOT is responsible for much wetland compensation, compensation sites are not always monitored and the number of wetland compensation acres is not well documented. The program focuses on short-term rather than long-term goals. WisDOT generally complies with the Guidelines fundamental criterion to establish wetland acres, and to a lesser extent complies with requirements regarding monitoring, maintenance, and ownership. WisDOT generally also complies with federal permit conditions to establish wetland acres, but the conditions lack performance standards related to wetland condition. Accounting only by wetland acres discriminates against wetland type and function. The location of WisDOT compensation sites has been driven by opportunistic and economic considerations, not by wetland functional replacement. The result is an imbalance between wetland loss and gain by location, type, and function. This imbalance is particularly disadvantageous to wetland types that are increasingly uncommon, to wetland functions that rely on wetland type and landscape position, and in general to more urban watersheds where land values are higher.

This document describes the methods and results that led to these conclusions and suggests recommended actions for both WDNR and WisDOT to improve the program.

The Guidelines were revised in 1997 and again in 2002. National Research Council (US) Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
2 3

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

Purpose of the Review

To identify gaps in the mitigation program that are obstacles to meeting State and Federal wetland program goals and to make recommendations to address them, we developed the following review objectives: Determine how well available data tracks wetland loss and gain to allow analysis and evaluation using current assessment methods. Determine trends in wetland compensation acres, type, function, location, and quality. Evaluate the effectiveness of practices in wetland compensation site selection, development, monitoring, management, and long-term ownership in meeting wetland program goals. Assess the current condition of selected mitigation sites. Promote interagency cooperation to improve meeting the intent of the WisDOT program.

Elements of the Review

In June 2006 representatives from WDNR, WisDOT, Corps, EPA, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed questions to address each review objective. We then modified the questions to make the best use of available data and resources and planned three components to the review: WisDOTs wetland database, WDNR files for selected wetland compensation sites, and Current conditions at selected wetland compensation sites.

WisDOTs Wetland Database (WMBAS)

WisDOTs wetland database, the WisDOT Mitigation Banking Accounting System or WMBAS, was the only data source that proved useful. Data from the Corps database was not available. Data from WDNRs database is incomplete. WMBAS is a relational (Microsoft Access) database maintained by WisDOT that tracks wetland acres lost by wetland community type, county, and WisDOT Project ID number. It also tracks the acres, and generally the location, of wetland compensation sites. WisDOT assigns sites to one of three types Bank Sites, which are generally large parcels that provide wetland compensation for projects statewide; Consolidation Sites, which provide compensation for a specific set of regional projects; and On/Near Sites, which are generally smaller and associated with a single project.

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

Findings from the WMBAS Review For the period 1990 to 2005, WMBAS accounts for 2629 acres of wetland loss or an average of 175 acres of wetland loss per year. During the same period, WMBAS accounts for 3586 acres of compensatory mitigation. Our review of WMBAS data for 2100 projects from 1991 through 2005 showed the following: 75% of projects involve less than 0.5 acres of wetland loss (Figure 1). The Guidelines recommend compensation at or near where the wetland loss occurs. However, for small projects this is not always feasible and so the Guidelines allow compensation to occur at a Bank or Consolidation Site. This occurred for most projects with less than 1 acre of wetland loss, and therefore most wetland debits and compensation acres occur at bank sites (Figure 2).
Wetland Loss per Project
2000

Wetland Debit by Site Type

Number of Projects or Wetland Acres
1800 1346
1200 1621

1569

Number of Projects

1500 1000 500

Number of Projects Wetland Debit Acres

608

600 180 0 Bank Sites

400
157

147
0 <=0.5 <=1.0

266

54
<=5.0 <=10

66 >10

Acres
Source: WisDOT Report to WDNR, September 2006, for Districts 1 - 8, 1991 through 2005

Consolidation Sites

'On or Near' Sites

Source: WisDOT Report to WDNR, for Districts 1 - 8, 1990 through 2004

Fig. 1. Distribution of the number of projects by the area of wetland loss.

Fig. 2. Distribution of the number of projects and the area of wetland loss by the type of wetland compensation site.

85% of wetland loss occurs in either dry-

end wetland types, such as wet or

sedge meadows, or in wooded wetland types, such as swamps, floodplain forests or shrub carrs (Figure 3). While WMBAS does not track wetland compensation by wetland community type, staff report that compensation generally results in shallow and deep marsh habitat and rarely in wooded, wet meadow, or sedge meadow wetland types. This corresponds to an imbalance in wetland functions. For example, an isolated marsh community type cannot
1500

Wetland Loss by Plant Community Type

1302 1016

1000

Acres

500 181 45 0 184

Wet or Sedge Meadow

Deep & Shallow Marsh

Wooded Wetland

Bog

Unknown

Plant Community Type

Source: WisDOT Report to WDNR, September 2006, for Districts 1 - 8, 1991 through 2005

Fig. 3. Distribution of wetland acres lost by plant community type.

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

replace ecological functions unique to floodplain forests. On a county basis there is uneven distribution between the location of wetland loss and wetland compensation. Counties with Bank Sites generally have a positive wetland balance, while counties without them have a negative balance (Figure 4).

Fig. 4. Net wetland gain by county and the location of WisDOT Bank Sites and WDNR Watersheds.

While WMBAS data does not allow analysis by watershed, it suggests that the imbalance applies to watersheds as well. Large potential wetland restoration sites, favored for Bank Sites, tend to occur in agricultural watersheds. Tracking only by County, and not by watershed, may obscure important trends. Dane County, for example, has a positive wetland balance due to Bank Sites; however, most wetland loss in Dane County occurred in a different watershed than that where the Bank Sites occur. WisDOT does not have adequate staff to manage the database and assure quality control. Over the past year, WisDOT has corrected many errors, but the staffing issue remains. WisDOT Bureau of Environment and Equity Services (BEES) does not have senior environmental or data management support staff to administer the

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

database. Wetland losses and mitigation are tracked in the WisDOT regions without central office oversight4. WisDOT Southeast Region and WDNR Northern Region are the only ones with staff dedicated mainly to wetland issues. In other regions substantial staff time is devoted to other environmental concerns. WMBAS, like WDNRs and the Corps databases, tracks wetland loss by county, number of acres, and wetland community type. It tracks wetland compensation by county and number of acres, but not by wetland community type. WMBAS does not track either wetland loss or wetland compensation by wetland function or by WDNR watershed. WMBAS has no spatial component other than tabular Township Range and Section values for Banks and for some Consolidation Sites. The location of remaining compensation sites may be available in regional WisDOT or WDNR files, but they are not readily accessible. A few of the five WisDOT Regions and the five WDNR Regions keep an informal geospatial database, but none of these databases link to WMBAS and there is no statewide data standard. Only WisDOT has direct access to WMBAS. WisDOT provides a summary annual report to WDNR and USCOE. WisDOT will provide custom reports to other agencies by request and as time allows, however custom reports are difficult to obtain since WisDOT lacks staff to manage WMBAS. Without access to WMBAS it takes considerable time to analyze its data beyond what the annual reports provide. One needs to enter data from the paper reports into electronic files, before one can begin analysis to answer specific questions. We used this method to prepare Figures 1-4 above.

WDNR Review of Selected Files

We developed a survey form (Appendix A) for the file review. The purpose of the form was to standardize reviews that regional WDNR staff would conduct independently. Survey questions covered basic site information, agency involvement, permitting requirements, monitoring, management, invasive species, and ownership. We then asked staff in each WDNR Region to select a sample of site files they agreed to review using the survey form. We asked staff to use three criteria in their site selection: first, to include Bank Sites, Consolidation Sites and On or Near Sites; secondly, to include, based on their judgment, sites that were typical of their geographic area and not necessarily the best, the worst, or the unusual; finally, to include sites constructed between about 1995 and 2001. By confining reviews to this period, we purposely selected sites that were designed and built after both agencies had some experience with the wetland compensation process, and that also had sufficient history to supply data on the entire process, from initial
4

John Jackson, pers. comm.

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

planning through the end of the monitoring period. Staff availability limited the number of sites reviewed in each Region. Using the criteria above, staff surveyed files for 44 sites covering about 1800 acres, or nearly 50% of all WMBAS wetland compensation acres as in Table1. Table 1. Total numbers of Bank, Consolidation and On/Near Sites constructed and included in this Review. Site Type Bank Sites Consolidation Sites On or Near Sites #Sites Reviewed Total #Sites5 #Acres Included Total #Acres 13 12 19 34 37 186 ~ 1250 ~ 416 ~ 143 ~ 2000 ~ 600 ~1000

The completed survey forms are available from WDNRs Environmental Analysis Section. A spreadsheet that summarizes the survey responses is also available, along with a data dictionary that explains how each field relates to the survey questions. Findings from WDNR File Reviews A comparison of WMBAS data and the file reviews shows that wetland compensation acres are not well documented. For most sites, the number of wetland compensation acres in WMBAS is the same number estimated in the site design plan and not based on a wetland delineation at the end of the site monitoring period. The magnitude of the uncertainty in wetland compensation acres is not known and cannot be determined from current data. Figures 5a and 5b summarize results for documented agency actions during the development of wetland compensation sites. In each chart, the first set of bars shows the number of Bank (13), Consolidation (12) and On/Near (19) Sites that WDNR staff reviewed. The rest of the bars in each chart indicate the number of positive responses for each action listed. The responses are based on what is documented in the WDNR file, or in some cases supplemented by regional WisDOT staff, and may not completely represent what actually occurred. Figure 5a includes actions during the planning phase, prior to final permitting and construction. Figure 5b includes actions in the permitting and post-construction phase. The following are based on the review results and staff comments after the reviews were completed:

John Jackson, pers. comm.

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

Figure 5a. Pre-construction agency involvement based on WDNR files.

Documented Post-Construction Activity

DNR Files Reviewed Specific 404/401 Permit Requirements DNR Finds Reporting Requirements Met DNR Finds Report Quality "Good" Sites Have a Management Plan Management Has Occurred Monitoring is Linked to Management DNR Concurrence on Final Report COE Concurrence on Final Report WisDOT Planned Long Term Owner WisDOT Plans to Transfer Ownership
1 4 8

12 10 10
11

13 19

12

5 5 5 5 1 3

9 6 9
10 11

13

Bank Sites Consolidation Sites On or Near Sites

4 13 5 9

Number of Sites by Type

Figure 5b. Permitting and post-construction agency involvement based on WDNR files.

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

WDNR appears to be more active throughout the planning phase than the Corps. Both agencies however appear to be less active once a site is designed, when monitoring and management plans are developed. Only two site plans included measurable objectives or performance standards. Permit conditions for only five sites reflected the minimum requirements (Level A) of the Guidelines. Most Bank and Consolidation Sites, but not On/Near Sites, complied with permit conditions. While most sites had specific permit requirements, they were typically for monitoring to evaluate sites for jurisdictional wetland criteria, rather than requirements to meet the minimum standards in the Guidelines or specific requirements for measuring success. Extensive monitoring for floristic and hydrologic data occurred at many sites. Staff reported that this level of detail generally was not needed. Staff suggested that less detailed monitoring is often adequate to document where wetland vegetation and hydrologic criteria are met and to make management decisions. Monitoring data related to other wetland functions is generally absent. Wildlife data, if it is collected at all, consists of incidental observations made during floristic surveys and water level monitoring, rather than through efforts designed to obtain valid information on target species or groups. Similarly monitoring reports typically identify water quality improvement as a wetland function, but include no evidence to support this. While most Bank and Consolidation Sites had a Management Plan, and management activity occurred, that activity was opportunistic and not guided by previous monitoring reports or performance standards. No management was intended or occurred at about 75% of On/Near Sites. Obstacles to management include lack of consistent funding by WisDOT, lack of an effective way to transfer available funds from WisDOT to WDNR to accomplish management activity, the lack of incentives from permit requirements, and the difficulty of effective invasive species control. The Guidelines require that WisDOT prepare a final report for each site that includes wetland delineation and an analysis of the information collected from project initiation through the final season. The files typically do not document that either WDNR or the Corps have concurred with these final reports at the end of the monitoring period. Note that 6 of the 44 sites were constructed after 2001, and so had not reached the end of their monitoring period by the time of the file review. This means the Concurrence on Final Report numbers in Figure 5b should be compared to 38 sites, rather than 44, the total number of files reviewed.

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

Identification of a sites long-term owner is generally made in the site planning stage. On/Near Sites, which often occur in highway right-of-ways, usually remain in WisDOT ownership. Whenever possible, the larger Bank and Consolidation Sites are planned for transfer to WDNR or another owner that can provide long-term legal protection and financial assurance for management. There is no routine process to accomplish transfers of ownership and most transfers planned have not occurred. Figure 6 shows the extent of major invasive species in terms of the number of reviewed compensation sites based on the opinion of WDNR staff. Invasive species cover data is not available from a current database or from individual files. Reed canary grass is the major invasive plant species and occurs at a Moderate or Severe level at 16 of the 24 Bank and Consolidation Sites we reviewed. Giant Reed Grass also occurs at a Moderate level at one Bank Site.

Degree of Invasive Plant Species Cover at 44 Wetland Compensation Sites

25

Number of Sites

20 15 10 5 0

Purple Loosestrife Hybrid Cattail Reed Canary Grass

None

Minimal Moderate Severe

Unknown

Figure 6. Extent of Invasive Plant Species

With the exception of purple loosestrife, WisDOT and the resource agencies have no documented and agreed upon expectations for control of invasive species Finally, although the Guidelines require specific file documentation, wetland mitigation files among WDNR staff and regions are inconsistent in organization, content, and availability.

Field Tour of Selected Sites

During 2007 we conducted field visits to 17 sites in all WDNR regions to obtain a snap shot of projects across geographic regions and to validate the file review results. The file data and information from staff contributed to these qualitative assessments. Appendix B lists each site with a brief assessment. Findings from the Field Tour Current site conditions are consistent with staff file review data on the extent of invasive species and identified management issues. Sites in the same region were typically similar in design strategy and level of management. WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

10

Most sites fit into the landscape with respect to surrounding land uses. Except for a few younger sites, where introduced vegetation was a major component of the design, floristic quality was generally low (Mean C < 3, Floristic Quality Index < 20). Where plant species diversity was greater, a few species including invasive ones accounted for most of the vegetative cover. Except for sites dominated by reed canary grass, sites had medium to high wildlife functional values for a broad range of species. Sites open to the public appeared to receive intensive use.

Recommended Action Items

To expedite program improvements we divided recommended action items into two groups: those that do not require a review or change to existing policy, and so can be implemented by Environmental Analysis staff at any time; and those that may require policy changes. Recommended action items that do not require review and/or changes to policy: Request the Interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) oversee development and implementation of a database system that: 1. tracks wetland losses as well as gains by wetland community type 2. tracks wetland losses and gains by WDNR watershed and ecological landscape 3. includes a spatial component that allows for geographic analysis 4. is accessible for reporting to WisDOT, WDNR and Corps staff 5. provides adequate data management staff to insure data quality Improve implementation of the current Guidelines for elements that are consistent with the 2008 Federal Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule. Develop a checklist for WDNR staff to ensure consistent documentation of environmental commitments. Improve each compensation site file to include a summary sheet with file contents, the status of the site, and a listing of outstanding actions. Request WDNR, WisDOT, and Corps staff meet regularly to review the status of WisDOT compensations sites with outstanding issues in the respective regions. The meetings should result in agreement on the necessary steps and timelines for all compensation sites. Organize a technical support group with expertise in site selection, planning, monitoring, management, and compliance to assist regional staff. For example, the WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

11

group would develop, in consultation with WisDOT and the Corps, example site objectives and performance standards based on regional ecological conditions, and guidance on monitoring designed to evaluate how well sites meet them. Develop a procedure to insure timely resolution of long-term ownership and stewardship commitments for all compensation sites and incorporate these steps into all new wetland compensation proposals. In consultation with the Corps, introduce monitoring that includes features in addition to vegetation cover and floral diversity, such as those related to wildlife habitat, water quality, and flood storage.

Recommended action items that may lead to changes in policy: MBRT and WDNR, in connection with implementing its wetland strategy, Reversing the Loss, revise the Guidelines for consistency with the 2008 Federal Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule. This includes addressing the increasing imbalance in wetland community types and wetland functions in a landscape context; supporting watershed plans as a major consideration in site location; identifying declining wetland types on a regional basis and setting goals to restore them; and insuring that sites provide priority wetland functions. The technical support group and land managers develop realistic management goals and strategies for control of invasive plant species. Reducing the credit value of wetland compensation acres where vegetation quality is low, as has been proposed, rather than encouraging invasive species control, may not be the best approach. WisDOT make a commitment to active management, from construction though the end of the monitoring period, based on adaptive principles and directed at specific performance objectives. WDNR, WisDOT, and the Corps reexamine the current monitoring guidelines including methods and length of monitoring period so that monitoring enables site assessment and guides subsequent management to meet specific site objectives. WDNR and WisDOT identify opportunities for partnerships at the site selection stage that may lead to improved wetland restorations, methods and long-term management.

12

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007

Many of the recommended action items are not new. Some were proposed by the Corps as early as 19926, the 2001 National Research Council report7 and by several agency memos8.

Conclusions
The extent of compensation for wetland losses through the WisDOT program is substantial. The program has many positive aspects, including examples of quality habitat, valued public recreational lands, and cooperation among dedicated staff. As with any major effort, its evaluation can turn up daunting problems. The solutions here however are feasible ones. Many can be implemented with relatively little effort. Some require additional staff time and resources. All require a commitment from many levels at both agencies with a shared goal of better results on the ground.

Acknowledgements
Many people contributed to planning this review, gathering and analyzing data, interpreting the results and making suggestions. We thank the members of the Project Team and in particular the DNR EA and WisDOT Environmental Unit staff who made time in their busy schedules to assist us. Project Team Leahkena Au, USFWS Cameron Bump, WDNR Cathy Garra, USEPA Region 5 Ron Grasshoff, WDNR Fitchburg John Jackson, WisDOT Madison Joanne Kline, WDNR Milwaukee Tom Mings, USCOE Dave Siebert, WDNR Madison Jon Simonsen, WDNR Rhinelander Tim Smith, USCOE WMBAS & WDNR File Reviews Amanda Cushman, Jim Doperalski, Ron Grasshoff, Shawn Haseleu, Joanne Kline, Maureen Millmann, Al Stranz, Nick Schaff, Jon Simonsen

Eggers, S. D. 1992. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation: Some Problems and Suggestions for Corrective Measures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 64 pp. 7 National Research Council (US) Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. op. cit. 8 For example, Memo from Dave Siebert and Steve Eggers, January 7, 2003, to WisDOT, WDNR and Corps staff for Mitigation Plans; USCOE Regulatory Guidance Letter 3 August 2006.
6

13

WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007