Issues Related to Implementation of Mitigation and Restoration
(List of References)


I. MITIGATION/RESTORATION
 
 

A. DEFINITIONS
 
 

1. What is mitigation?
 
  Root is from the Latin mitigare, "to soften"
 
  Webster defines it as the process to cause something to be gentle or less hostile.
 
 

It is a requirement of permitting for a particular project; it all goes back to the National Environmental Policy Act and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) locally which required us to assess the impacts of any action and mitigate its impacts on the envirnoment. We can mitigate for wetland loss (Clean Water Act (CWA) requirement) as well as mitigate for loss of sensitve species habitat (Endangered Species Act (ESA)).
 
 

 2. Restoration in an ecological context
 
  Ecological restoration is the process of renewing and maintaining ecosystem health (Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), 1995)
 
  B. HOW IT WORKS
 
  What is the intent of mitigation as it relates to wetlands?
 
 

To soften the effect of development with a loss or impact by creating, restoring, or enhancing wetlands, on or off-site.
 
 

Placing mitigation in ecological context: mitigation in space and time

space: what area is lost and what area is gained as created wetlands
 
  Note: what is a wetland?; dynamic and non-static
 
 

Implementing mitigation
 
 

• local laws and ordinances
 
 

• condition of approval of permit
 
 

• SEPA requirements
 
 

 C. TARGET within the ecosystem/watershed/landscape

fully functional wetland/native plant/habitat system, connected to all its links (riparian, estuarine, lakes, watershed, ground water aquifers)
 
 

1. Goals of any design:
 
  2. Ratios: Range from 1:1 to 8:1
 
 

Considering that less than 20% are successful, 1:1 equates with a net wetlands loss. Ratios must be developed in the future that are realistic
 
 

 3. Types:

a. on-site
 
 

b. in kind:

e.g. forested -- forested; open water -- open water; bog -- bog? (sometimes not possible)

c. acreage vs. functions/values
 
  d. off-site
 
  e. mitigation banks
 
  4. How to determine what is lost?
 
  D. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSES MODELS
 
  1. WET II
 
 

2. Reppert
 
 

3. Hydrogeomorphic method
 
 

4. Biological diversity model
 
 

 E. SAVING ALL THE PARTS
 
  1. Temporal and spatial relationships
 
 

2. Linkages/watersheds/corridors/location["location is everything"]
 
 
 
 
 

 F. DESIGN PHASE
 
  1. Inventory of:
 
  a. Baseline/Existing Setting
 
 

b. Target Site
 
 

G. REFERENCE SITES
 
 

1. Relevance
 
 

2. History of disturbance
 
 

3. Parameters to measure
 
 
 
 

 H. PLANTING MATERIAL
 
  1. Selection of material
 
 

a. Native species from local sources to insure genetic purity
 
 

b. Salvage vs. grown material
 
 

2. Criteria: Enough for the job; over plant; replace; maintain density to the end.
 
 

3. Minimize human disturbance; not a park, but functional wetlands.
 
 
 
 
 

 I. APPROVAL PHASES 1. Ok; now we can forget about it?!@!
 
 
 
 
  J. IMPLEMENTATION
 
  1. Post permit/development
 
 

2. Problems
 
 

3. The players change: owners, contractors, agency representatives.
 
 

4. What are the priorities? not $.
 
 

5. Follow up by agency is not funded/available nor even mentioned.
 
 
 
 

 K. LEARNING ABOUT MITIGATION PERMITS
 
  1. Follow notices of proposed changes to SAO/CAO
 
 

2. Attend the hearings with clear and concise points regarding the proposed text, e.g. are the ratios realistic?
 
 

3. Get on SEPA review list
 
 

4. Get on local mailing lists
 
 

5. Watch for posted notices on proposed land use actions
 
 

6. Ask to see the review by agencies and conditions of approval
 
 

7. Review the results of the annual monitoring
 
 
 
 
 
 

 L. MONITORING : ECOLOGICAL, PHISICAL
 
  1. Design for Permanence with adjustments for failed phases
 
  --Primary problem is time; most agencies recommend 3 years as minimum; VERY HARD TO ACHEIVE RESULTS IN THIS PERIOD; Now changing to 10 years (5 years to reach performance standards; 5 additional years to follow system).
 
  2. Design of monitoring plan; is it feasible?; is it credible? 3. A picture is worth a thousand words

A statistical design is worth 10,000 words
 
 

4. Was the design of monitoring randomly selected (i.e. scientific in approach)
 
 

5. How do we evaluate monitoring; what are the results telling us?

Do we have agency support?
 
 

YES » provide clear input and review
 
 

NO » prepare review to go before a Hearing Examiner and SEPA scrutiny.
 
 

 6. Documentation is critical!
 
 

7. Volunteer assistance; attempt to get access to the site throughout monitoring phases.
 
 

 M. MONITORING TECHNIQUES
 
 

Indicator Parameter
 
 

Plant Cover

Diversity

Frequency

Survival (e.g. woody species)
 
 

Animals Nesting

Winter-Use

Population Size (Counts)

Diversity
 
 

Critical elements: raptors, waterfowl, amphibians, aquatic insects, occurrence and use by exotics (cats,dogs, rats, etc.)

Hydrology Seasonal saturation (ground water wells)

Sedimentation rate
 
 

Topography Slopes Contours

Stability

Shorelines Contours
 
 

Other points: Are buffers intact and contiguous?
 
  N. ROLE OF VOLUNTEERS
 
  1. Mitigation:

a. Oversight of permit conditions
 
 

b. Design of SAO/CAO and criteria
 
 

c. Use of native local material
 
 

2. Monitoring (All phases)
 



 

 O. AFTERWARD
 
  1. After monitoring or within it
 
  2. Fees: force the agency to use them to acquire wetland sites
 
  Note: Most fees or bonds are returned to applicant even with non-compliance or mitigation wetland failure.
 
  3. Use non-compliance as grounds for permit denial in the future.
 
 

4. Monitoring must be required at the permit approval level.

Work to insure this!

Currently less than 53% of permits require monitoring.
 
 

5. The nightmare of buffer width averaging; the weakest link is the narrowest point.
 
 

II. NATIVE PLANTS IN RESTORATION
 
 

A. KNOW YOUR SITE
 
 

1. Setting within the Puget Trough
 
 

2. Reference sites: see what they can tell you
 
 

3. Soils: Use county soil survey information
 
 

4. Review background reports
 
 

 B. Select appropriate material
 
  1. Salvage is preferred from on-site or adjoining sites.
 
 

2. On-site nurseries can help, especially in urban, highly disturbed sites.
 
 

3. Seed use: Caution on source. Lodgepole pine example. Animal predation.
 
 

 C. Storage
 
 

D. Preparation
 
 

1. Soil prep.
 
 

2. Covers
 
 

 3. Weed removal/control
 
 

E. Planting
 
 

F. Maintenance
 
 

1. Watering Schedules
 
 

2. Weeding
 
 

 G. Replanting
 
 

H. Total Failure

To replant or redesign entire system.