PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATING WETLAND MITIGATION PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL ZONE
This section considers how the procedures for evaluating the performance of in-kind mitigation apply to wetland restoration projects completed for reasons other than compensatory mitigation. As described above, compensatory mitigation can include restoration activities, but wetland restoration projects are also completed solely for the purpose of re-establishing a former wetland. In California, there are significant opportunities for the restoration of former wetland habitat, and numerous examples exist of wetland restoration project completed or sponsored by government agencies. For example, in 1985 nearly 200 acres of former wetlands were re-established in the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve by breaching dikes surrounding areas managed as pasture land.
Wetland restoration undertaken for reasons other than satisfying a mitigation requirement should be guided by the desire to achieve functional equivalency with historic conditions or with reference wetlands. As a result of the emphasis on achieving functional wetland habitat, the success rate of pure restoration projects is thought to exceed the success rate of wetland mitigation projects. For example, a recent study by Josselyn, et al. (1993) found that 13 out of 22 (59%) Coastal Conservancy sponsored wetland restoration projects were effective in meeting initial project goals. This high success rate was expected due to the extensive planning that goes into Conservancy projects, the frequent interaction among various resource and regulatory agencies and the Conservancy, and the funding of project grantees who have a genuine interest in restoring wetlands (Josselyn, et al., 1993).
Although much of the overall framework described above is applicable to the review of wetland restoration plans and the subsequent performance evaluations, the absence of a compensatory mitigation requirement affects the process in several important ways. As with mitigation projects, completing an ecological assessment should be the first step in any wetland restoration project. However, in addition to assessing the restoration site, an ecological assessment of appropriate reference sites should also be completed. Recall that wetland restoration is defined here as an activity that re-establishes the habitats and functions of a former wetland. Thus, in its pre-project form, the restoration site will have no wetland values or characteristics. The ecological assessment of the restoration site is used mainly to determine if some existing features or functions should be incorporated into the project design. For example, if the ecological assessment shows that a portion of an historic wetland fill now serves as a least tern nesting area, then the restoration plan could be modified to incorporate least tern nesting habitat into the overall design.
Information from the ecological assessment of the reference sites is used to develop the project goals, objectives, and performance standards. If available, historic information on the restoration site may also be of value in establishing project goals and objectives. The project specific goals, objectives, and performance standards should always reflect the overarching purpose of wetland restoration: to re-establish viable, self-sustaining wetland habitat and functions.
There are other important distinctions between restoration projects completed for mitigation and restoration projects completed for other reasons. For example, there is no need to consider the various mitigation attributes. In particular, it is not necessary to consider project location and mitigation ratios in designing a restoration project, since habitat compensation is not an issue. Although the project proponent must remain cognizant of the regional habitat needs, removing the need to consider the mitigation attributes could simplify development of a comprehensive restoration plan,.
Although wetland restoration undertaken for reasons other than compensatory mitigation is considered a beneficial activity, it is still necessary to evaluate project performance. An objective performance evaluation is required to determine if design corrections are necessary, and ultimately to determine project success. Additionally, these types of restoration projects provide an excellent opportunity to obtain information useful to the planning of future projects. Thus, a monitoring program and methods for evaluating performance should be an integral part of all restoration plans. The processes for developing a monitoring program and evaluating performance are essentially identical to those described for in-kind mitigation. Tracking the performance level, early identification of problems, and determining if the goals, objectives, and performance standards are being met are equally important to all restoration and mitigation projects.
Return to Table
of Contents
Return to 7.
Evaluating the Performance of Out-of-Kind Mitigation Projects
Go to 9.
Evaluating the Performance of noncompensatory Wetland Enhancement Projects
Go to Literature
Cited
Go to Glossary
Return to
California Coastal Commission Publications Page
Return to
California Coastal Commission Home Page