-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
1/13
1 WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007
WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
WDNR Summary and Recommendations
December 2007, revised May 2008Joanne 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 1990-
2005 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
1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Federal Highway Administration
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
2/13
2 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 ofwetlands 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 ofEnergy 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 ofwetland acres and wetland plant community type. WisDOT does nottrack the plant
community type, quality, or function ofwetland 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 generallycomplies 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 suggestsrecommended actions for both WDNR and WisDOT to improve the program.
2 The Guidelines were revised in 1997 and again in 2002.3 National Research Council (US) Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. 2001. Compensating for
Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
3/13
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 analysisand evaluation using current assessment methods.
Determine trends in wetland compensation acres, type, function, location, andquality.
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.
WisDOTsWetland 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.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
4/13
4 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). TheGuidelines 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).
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 wetlandcompensation by wetland community
type, staff report that compensationgenerally 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
Fig. 2. Distribution of the number of projects and
the area of wetland loss by the type of wetland
compensation site.
1016
181
1302
45184
0
500
1000
1500
Wet or
Sedge
Meadow
Deep &
Shallow
Marsh
Wooded
Wetland
Bog Unknown
Acres
Plant Community Type
Wetland Loss by 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.
1569
147266
54 66
0
500
1000
1500
2000
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
5/13
5 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 lossand wetland compensation. Counties with Bank Sites generally have a positive
wetland balance, while counties without them have a negative balance (Figure 4).
While WMBAS data does not allow analysis by watershed, it suggests that theimbalance 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 qualitycontrol. 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
Fig. 4. Net wetland gain by county and the
location of WisDOT Bank Sites and WDNR
Watersheds.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
6/13
6 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 staffdedicated 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 Sectionvalues 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 Regionskeep 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 annualreport 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.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
7/13
7 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 #Sites Reviewed Total #Sites5 #Acres Included Total #Acres
Bank Sites 13 34 ~ 1250 ~ 2000
Consolidation Sites 12 37 ~ 416 ~ 600
On or Near Sites 19 186 ~ 143 ~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:
5 John Jackson, pers. comm.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
8/13
8 WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007
Figure 5a. Pre-construction agency involvement based on WDNR files.
13
12
11
9
13
11
5
3
1
4
5
12
10
8
5
9
10
7
2
9
19
10
4
6
5
5
1
13
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
Number of Sites by Type
Bank Sites
Consolidation Sites
On or Near Sites
Documented Post-Construction Activity
Figure 5b. Permitting and post-construction agency involvement based on WDNR files.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
9/13
9 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 formonitoring 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. Staffreported 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. Wildlifedata, 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 managementactivity 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 thatincludes 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 themonitoring 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.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
10/13
10 WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007
Identification of a sites long-term owner is generally made in the site planningstage. 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 majorinvasive 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 majorinvasive 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.
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, wetlandmitigation 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 ofinvasive species and identified management issues.
Sites in the same region were typically similar in design strategy and level ofmanagement.
0
5
10
15
20
25
None Minimal Moderate Severe Unknown
NumberofSites
Degree of Invasive Plant Species Cover
at 44 Wetland Compensation Sites
Purple Loosestrife
Hybrid Cattail
Reed Canary Grass
Figure 6. Extent of Invasive Plant Species
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
11/13
11 WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007
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 wildlifefunctional 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) overseedevelopment and implementation of a database system that:
1. tracks wetland losses as well as gains by wetland community type2. tracks wetland losses and gains by WDNR watershed and ecological
landscape
3. includes a spatial component that allows for geographic analysis4. is accessible for reporting to WisDOT, WDNR and Corps staff5. provides adequate data management staff to insure data quality
Improve implementation of the current Guidelines for elements that are consistentwith the 2008 Federal Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
Develop a checklist for WDNR staff to ensure consistent documentation ofenvironmental 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 ofWisDOT 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
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
12/13
12 WisDOT Compensatory Mitigation Review, WDNR Summary and Recommendations 2007
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 andstewardship commitments for all compensation sites and incorporate these stepsinto all new wetland compensation proposals.
In consultation with the Corps, introduce monitoring that includes features inaddition 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, Reversingthe 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 goalsand 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 theend 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 selectionstage that may lead to improved wetland restorations, methods and long-term
management.
-
8/3/2019 WisDOT Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Review
13/13
13 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 publicrecreational 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 RhinelanderTim Smith, USCOE
WMBAS & WDNR File Reviews
Amanda Cushman, Jim Doperalski, Ron Grasshoff, Shawn Haseleu, Joanne Kline, Maureen
Millmann, Al Stranz, Nick Schaff, Jon Simonsen
6 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.