Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wetland Compensation and Landscape Change in a Rapidly Urbanizing Context

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While there are regulatory requirements that regulators should assess the impact of landscape-scale changes on the success of US Clean Water Act wetland compensatory mitigation sites, these requirements are poorly specified and very little work has been done to characterize how landscape change impacts CWA compensation sites. We created a rapid assessment method with both site-based and landscape-scale components, and used it to assess a population of wetland compensation sites in suburban St. Paul, Minnesota in 1997. We resampled the sites in 2010. The watersheds of these 22 compensation sites are characterized by rapid urbanization, the increase in impervious surfaces, and the loss of agriculture. This has resulted in extreme hydrographs at compensation sites and a fragmenting landscape context of more and smaller undeveloped patches. The ecosystem services provided by these compensation sites in 2010 are not significantly different than in 1997, indicating resilience in the face of landscape change, but not showing a trajectory of improvement. Reference sites were established for each ecosystem service, but two reference sites declined dramatically; results point to the importance of understanding ongoing landscape change even at benchmark sites. Compensation sites are typically located in rapidly changing and fragmenting landscapes, and understanding the relationship between landscape and compensation site will be important to ensuring appropriate compensation for impacts regulated by the Clean Water Act.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Population data acquired online with the US Census Bureau on July 25, 2014 at www.census.gov/data.

  2. Authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by Emmons & Olivier Resources in providing access to the XPSWMM watershed model used to estimate storage efficiencies for 1997.

  3. Quotations are taken from interview with hydrologist for City of Woodbury, February 21, 2012.

  4. Hydrologist, City of Woodbury, personal communication, February 21, 2012.

References

  • Amezaga JM, Santamaría L, Green AJ (2002) Biotic wetland connectivity—supporting a new approach for wetland policy. Acta Oecologica 23(3):213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ammann AP (1991) Method for the comparative evaluation of nontidal wetlands in new hampshire. New Hampshire Department of Natural Resources, Concord, NH

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RJ, Rentsch JS, Grafton WM, Kordek WS (2005) A comparison of plant communities in mitigation and reference wetlands in the mid-Appalachians. Wetlands 25:130–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr Engineering (2005) A detailed assessment of phosphorus sources to Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Barr Engineering, Inc, Minneapolis, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford BL (1996) The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecol Appl 6(1):57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford BL (1999) Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and Southern Canada. Wetlands 19(4):775–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell SS et al. (1997) Linking restoration and landscape ecology. Restor Ecol 5(4):318–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BenDor T et al. (2009) Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program. Ecol Appl 19(8):2078–2092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM (1995) The HGM approach explained. Natl Wetl Newsl 17:7–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R (1996) The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl 6(1):69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody SD et al. (2008) A spatio-temporal analysis of Section 404 wetland permitting in Texas and Florida: thirteen years of impact along the coast. Wetlands 28(1):107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA, Campbell DA (2005) Are we purveyors of wetland homogeneity? A model of degradation and restoration to improve wetland mitigation performance. Ecol Eng 24:331–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brudvig LA (2011) The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go? Am J Bot 98:549–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cammen LM (1976) Macroinvertebrate colonization of Spartina marshes artificially established on dredge spoil. Estuar Coast Mar Sci 4:357–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman BR, Howard RJ (1984) Habitat suitability index models: great egret. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.78. 23 pp.

  • City of Woodbury Community Development Department (1997) City of Woodbury: facts. Pamphlet on file with author. Woodbury CDD, Woodbury, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Clewell AF, Aronson J (2013) Ecological restoration: principles, values and structure of an emerging profession, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius S (1997) Staff, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Personal communication. Minneapolis, Minnesota

  • Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (2006) Draft environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact, and regulatory analysis for proposed compensatory mitigation regulation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC

  • Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2008) Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources Fed Register 73:19594–19705

  • Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2015) Clean water rule: definition of “Waters of the United States”; final rule Fed Register 80(124):37054–37127

  • Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, Washington, DC

  • Detenbeck NE et al. (1996) Temporal and spatial variability in water quality of wetlands in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN metropolitan area: Implications for monitoring strategies and designs. Environ Monit Assess 40:11–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Evaluating wetlands within an urban context. Ecol Eng 15:253–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons BH (1997) Professional Engineer. Personal Communication. Lake Elmo, Minnesota

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Frelich LE, Reich PB (1995) Spatial patterns and succession in a Minnesota Southern-Boreal Forest. Ecol Monogr 65(3):325–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch S, Van Der Valk A (1994) Restoring prairie wetlands: an ecological approach. Iowa State University Press, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch SM, van der Valk AG (1996) Characteristics of recently restored wetlands in the prairie pothole region. Wetlands 16(1):75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RC (2000) Money for nothing?: the rise of wetland fee mitigation. Va Environ Law J 19:1–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutrich JJ, Hitzhusen FJ (2004) Assessing the substitutability of mitigation wetlands for natural sites: estimating restoration lag costs of wetland mitigation. Ecol Econ 48:409–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwin SE et al. (1999) Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification of landscape profiles. Wetlands 19(3):477–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highfield WE (2012) Section 404 permitting in coastal texas: a longitudinal analysis of the relationship between peak streamflow and wetland alteration. Environ Manag 49(4):892–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill T, Kulz E, Munoz B, Dorney JR (2013) Compensatory stream and wetland mitigation in North Carolina: an evaluation of regulatory success. Environ Manag 51:1077–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston CA et al. (1990) The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity. A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry 10:105–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston CA (1993) Material fluxes across wetland ecotones in northern landscapes. Ecol Appl 3(3):424–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly NM (2001) Changes to the landscape pattern of coastal North Carolina wetlands under the Clean Water Act, 1984–1992. Landsc Ecol 16(1):3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentula ME (2000) Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecol Eng 15:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentula ME (2007) Foreword: monitoring wetlands at the watershed scale. Wetlands 27(3):412–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentula ME et al. (1992) Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environ Manag 16(1):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettlewell CI, Bouchard V, Porej D, Micacchion M, Mack JJ, White D, Fay L (2008) An assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in the Cuyahoga River Watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands 28(1):57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozich AT, Halvorsen KE (2012) Compliance with wetland mitigation standards in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. Environ Manag 50:97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusler JA, Kentula ME (1990) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee LC et al. (1997) Operational draft guidebook for the hydrogeomorphic assessment of temporary and seasonal prairie pothole wetlands. The National Wetland Training Cooperative, Seattle, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • MBWSR [Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources] (1996) Minnesota routine assessment method for evaluating wetland functions (MinRAM). MBOWSR, St. Paul, MN

  • Mack JJ, Miccachion M (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

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews JW, Endress AG (2010) Rate of succession in restored wetlands and the role of site context. Appl Vegetation Sci 13:346–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller SJ, Pruitt BA, Theiling CH, Fischenich JC, Komlos SB (2012) Reference concepts in ecosystem restoration and environmental benefits analysis (EBA): principles and practices. ERDC Report TN-EMRRP-EBA-12. US Army Corps of Engineers ERDC, Vicksburg, June 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Wilson RF (1996) Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecol Appl 6(1):77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorhead KK (2013) A realistic role for reference in wetland restoration. Ecol Restor 31(4):347–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan KL, Roberts TH (2003) Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA. Wetlands 23:65–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1988) The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of care. HortScience 23(6):973–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1989) Agricultural policy and aesthetic objectives. J Soil Water Conserv 44(5):384–387

  • Naveh Z (1994) From biodiversity to ecodiversity: a landscape‐ecology approach to conservation and restoration. Restor Ecol 2(3):180–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC [National Research Council] (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

  • Olivier C (1997) Professional Engineer. Personal Communication. Lake Elmo, Minnesota

  • Palmer MA, Filoso S (2009) Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325:575–576

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Price EP, Spyreas G, Matthews JW (2019) Wetland compensation and its impacts on β‐diversity. Ecol Appl 29(1):e10827

  • Race MS, Fonseca MS (1996) Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecol Appl 6(1):94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT (2009) Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study. Wetlands 29:907–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson M (1998) “No Net Loss”: The Political Ecology of Wetlands Policy in a Suburban Watershed. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota

  • Robertson M (2008) The entrepreneurial wetland banking experience in Chicago and Minnesota. Natl Wetl Newsl 30(4):14–17. 20

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson M, Galatowitsch SM, Matthews JW (2018) Longitudinal evaluation of vegetation richness and cover at wetland compensation sites: implications for regulatory monitoring under the Clean Water Act. Wetl Ecol Managment 26(6):1089–1105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seneca ED, Broome SW, Woodhouse WW, Cammen LM, Lyon JT (1976) Establishing Spartina alterniflora marsh in North Carolina. Environ Conserv 3:185–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sifneos JC et al. (1992) Effects of Section 404 permitting on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Wetlands 12(1):28–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spieles DJ (2005) Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks in the United States. Wetlands 25:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanik KC, Mitsch WJ (2012) Structural and functional vegetation development in created and restored wetland mitigation banks of different ages. Ecol Eng 39:104–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein ED, Ambrose RF (1998) A rapid impact assessment method for use in a regulatory context. Wetlands 18(3):379–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streever B (1999) An international perspective on wetland rehabilitation. Springer Science & Business Media. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

  • Tiner RW (1984) Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, Newton Corner, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bosch K, Matthews JW (2017) An assessment of long-term compliance with performance standards in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environ Manag 59:546–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verboom J, Metz JAJ, Meelis E (1993) Metapopulation models for impact assessment of fragmentation. In:Vos CC, Opdam P eds. Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh R (1997) Carlos avery wildlife refuge staff. Personal Communication. Minneapolis, Minnesota

  • Weller M (1990) Waterfowl management techniques for wetland enhancement, restoration and creation useful in mitigation procedures. In: Kusler JA, Kentula MEeds Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • White TA, Blair CL, MacDonald KB (1992) Wetland replacement: the art and science of renewing damaged ecosystems. Renew Resour J 9(4):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisheu IC, Keddy PA (1992) Competition and centrifugal organization of plant communities: theory and tests. J Vegetation Sci 3(2):147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (1996) Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecol Appl 6(1):33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (1999) The ecological restoration spectrum. In: Streever W (ed.) An international perspective on wetland rehabilitation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, p 301–318

  • Zedler JB, Callaway JC (1999) Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor Ecol 7:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by a US Department of Education Jacob K. Javits Fellowship and support from the Geography Departments of the University of Kentucky and the University of Minnesota. The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Emmons & Olivier Resources, the South Washington Watershed District, the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, the City of Woodbury, and the St. Paul District of the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Morgan Robertson

  2. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Susan M. Galatowitsch

  3. Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Jeffrey W. Matthews

Authors
  1. Morgan Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan M. Galatowitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey W. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan Robertson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robertson, M., Galatowitsch, S.M. & Matthews, J.W. Wetland Compensation and Landscape Change in a Rapidly Urbanizing Context. Environmental Management 67, 355–370 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01380-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01380-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation