Abstract
Wetland and stream mitigation programs originated to offset the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams from activities related to development. Until recently, most mitigation in the United States and globally was done on a case-by-case basis, with site selection based on availability. Today, systematic programs that choose sites based on structural and ecological characteristics that give an indication of the feasibility of the site for wetland and stream mitigation banking are necessary. This paper outlines a three-level framework to select, prioritize, and evaluate potential wetland and stream mitigation banking sites. The framework was tested on three ten-digit hydrologic unit code watersheds in West Virginia that were in three different physiographic regions and near proposed future road construction projects. Level 1 included a Geographic Information System (GIS) based analysis of watersheds and appropriate spatial data. Level 2 was a field reconnaissance survey of sites using evaluation criteria weighted with the pairwise comparison Analytical Hierarchy Process. Level 3 was an on-site evaluation of the highly ranked sites to verify the modeling approach. Results showed successful selection of suitable sites for combined wetland and stream mitigation banking. We found the framework to be an efficient and non-subjective way to identify and prioritize wetland and stream mitigation banking sites and has direct applications for other states or regions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen RG (2000) REF-ET: reference evapotranspiration calculation software for FAO and ASCE standardized equations. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Rentch JS, Grafton WN, Kordek WS (2005a) A comparison of wetland plant communities in mitigation and reference wetlands in the Mid-Appalachians. Wetlands 25:130–142
Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Kordek WS (2005b) Vegetation, invertebrate, and wildlife community rankings and habitat analysis of mitigation wetlands in West Virginia. Wetlands Ecol Manage 13:517–530
Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99–002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC
Benjamin CO, Ehie IC, Omurtag Y (1992) Planning facilities at the University of Missouri-Rolla. Interfaces 22:95–105
Berman MR, Rudnicky T, Berquist H, Hershner C (2002) Protocols for implementation of a GIS-based model for the selection of potential wetlands restoration sites in southeastern Virginia. Center for Coastal Resources Management, Gloucester Point, Virginia
Bledsoe BP, Haupt DM, Sutter LA, Wuenscher JE (1997) A Geographic Information System for targeting wetland restoration. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, North Carolina
Brown PH, Lant CL (1999) The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net loss. Environ Manage 23:333–345
Carver SJ (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographic information systems. Int J Geogr Info Syst 5(3):321–339
Eastman RJ, Jin W, Kyem PAK, Toledano J (1995) Raster procedures for multi-criteria / multi-objective decisions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 61(5):539–547
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) (1994) National wetland mitigation banking study: wetland mitigation banking. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Report 94-WMB-6, Alexandria, Virginia
Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
Fortney RH, Gray D, Dean D, Copen SA (2001) Mon-Fayette Expressway, Philippi Bypass, and Upshur County industrial park access road mitigation wetland site selection and design site selection report. Technical report submitted the West Virginia Division of Highways, State Project U399-MIT/IG-1.00
Gribbin JE (2002) Introduction to hydraulics & hydrology: with applications for storm water management. Delmar Thomson Learning, Clifton Park, New York
Harrelson CC, Rawlins CL, Potyondy JP (1994) Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field techniques. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-245, Washington, DC
Jankowski P, Richard L (1994) Integration of GIS-based suitability analysis and multicriteria evaluation in a spatial decision support system for route selection. Environ Plan B 21:323–340
Jensen ME, Burman RD, Allen RG (1990) Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements. American Society of Civil Engineers, Engineering Practice Manual No. 70
KCI Technologies (1999) Wetland mitigation site selection report: West Virginia route 10 Man to Logan, Logan County, West Virginia. West Virginia Department of Transportation, Charleston, WV
Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New York, New York
Marble AD, Riva X (2002) Guidelines for selecting compensatory wetlands mitigation options. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 482
Mitsch WJ, Gosselink RG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, NY
Munda G, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (1994) Qualitative multi-criteria evaluation for environmental management. Ecol Econ 102:97–112
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2003) Climatological data annual summary: West Virginia. Volume 111. Number 13. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2004) Climatological data annual summary: West Virginia. Volume 112. Number 13. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
National Research Council (NRC) (2001) Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. www.nap.edu/books/0309074320/html/
Natural Resource Analysis Center (NRAC) (2003) National Wetland Inventory Data Update Project. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (1995) Soil survey geographic (SSURGO) database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1527
Pfankuch DJ (1975) Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, R1-75-002. Government Printing Office #696–260/200, Washington, DC
Prato T (1999) Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management. Ecol Econ 30:207–222
Rentch JS, Anderson JT, Lamont S, Sencindiver J, Eli R (2008) Vegetation along hydrologic, edaphic, and geochemical gradients in a high-elevation poor fen in Canaan Valley, West Virginia. Wetl Ecol Manage 16:237–253
Roise JP, Gainey KW, Shear TH (2004) An approach to optimal wetland mitigation using mathematical programming and geographic information system based wetland function estimation. Wetl Ecol Manage 12:321–331
Rosgen DL (1996) Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen DL (2001a) A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. In: Proceedings of the seventh federal interagency sedimentation conference, Reno, Nevada, March 25–29
Rosgen DL (2001b) A stream channel stability assessment methodology. In: Proceedings of the seventh federal interagency sedimentation conference, Reno, Nevada, March 25–29
Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York, New York
Strager MP, Rosenberger RS (2006) Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: weights and measures in spatial MCA. Ecol Econ 57:627–639
Strager MP, Rosenberger RS (2007) Spatial and economic approaches for implementing conservation priorities at the parcel level. J Environ Manage 82:290–298
Sweet DI (2002) County-wide watershed level stream corridor assessments and prioritization: A case for improved planning and decision making in urban stream restoration. Wetland Update. Virginia Association of Wetland Professionals, Gloucester, VA
Todd PC (2003) I-26 Stream mitigation. www.11.myflorida.com/emo/sched/i26.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008) Wetlands Compensatory Mitigation Fact Sheet. EPA document number: EPA-843-F-08-002
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) (2002) Guidance on compensatory mitigation projects for aquatic resource impacts under the Corps Regulatory Program pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 02-2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1987) Wetland delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2008) Final Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Regulatory Analysis for the Compensatory Mitigation Regulation. Directorate of Civil Works, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/MitRule_Regulatory_Analysis.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency (USACE-USEPA) (2008a) General mitigation requirements. Mitigation rule familiarization workshop. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation/workshops.html
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USACE-USEPA) (2008) Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. Federal Register 73(70):19594–19642
Voigt PC, Danielson LE (1996) Wetlands mitigation banking systems: A means of compensating for wetlands impacts. Resource Economics and Policy, Applied Resource Economics and Policy Group, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) (2006) Office of Water and Waste Management, Charleston, WV. http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/
Wilkinson J, Thompson J (2006) 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC
Acknowledgements
This research project was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. We thank Neal Carte and Norse Angus (West Virginia Division of Highways) for providing data, contacts, support, and for reviewing this manuscript. We recognize the following individuals for assistance with field data collection, interpretation, and technical support: Collin Balcombe, Jerri Bonner, Scott Copen, Donald Gray, Mark Hepner, Jeff Keaton, Seth Lemley, and Ryan Ward. We also sincerely appreciate the comments and suggestions provided by three anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A. Evaluation criteria used to evaluate potential wetland mitigation banking sites during Level 2 reconnaissance surveys
Ecological factors
Site hydrologic inputs and hydrologic regimes
Groundwater input
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | High probability of high seasonal groundwater table throughout the growing season |
3 | Moderate probability of high seasonal groundwater table during the growing season |
1 | High probability of high seasonal groundwater table only during winter and spring periods |
0 | High probability of no high seasonal groundwater table |
Overbank Flooding
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | High probability of a regular flooding cycle; physical evidence of flooding regime |
3 | High probability of regular flooding with minor construction |
1 | High probability of regular flooding with major construction |
0 | Low probability of flooding even with construction |
Surface Runoff
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | High probability that adequate surface runoff occurs on the site |
3 | High probability of adequate surface runoff with minor construction |
1 | High probability of adequate surface runoff with major construction |
0 | Low probability of adequate surface runoff even with construction |
Existing Land Cover
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Highly disturbed (i.e. reclaimed mining land) |
3 | Open agricultural land (i.e. pasture, cropland, naturalized meadow) |
1 | Agricultural land with scattered wood lots |
0 | Wooded (shrub or forest) or developed land |
Wetland Occurrences
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Indicators present for historic wetlands on or adjacent to site |
3 | Presence of wetlands on project site or on adjacent sites |
0 | No wetlands or evidence of historic wetlands present on-site or on adjacent sites |
Wooded Buffer
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Present and intact (>100 m) on all perimeters |
3 | Present and intact on more than 50% of the site perimeter |
1 | Present and intact on less than 50% of the site perimeter |
0 | Absent on all perimeters |
Water Quality
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | No impairments of water sources |
3 | Moderately impaired water sources |
0 | Strongly impaired water sources |
Value of site for wildlife habitat
On-site Wildlife Habitat Value
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Disturbed (i.e. mining land) |
3 | Active agricultural land: cropland or pasture |
1 | Mixed land uses or discontinuous single natural community |
0 | Diverse mosaic of natural communities or continuous single natural community |
Surrounding Wildlife Habitat Value
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Multiple habitat types juxtaposed for easy movement and access by terrestrial and aquatic species |
3 | Single continuous natural community suitable for select species |
1 | Fragmented patches of habitat types or fragmented single natural community creating difficult access and exposed movement corridors |
0 | Lack of habitat structure and variability; site dominated by open water, bare ground, or developed areas |
Possibility of on-site biotic recolonization
Possibility of Hydrophytic Recolonization
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Presence of hydrophytic vegetation on-site and on adjacent sites |
3 | Presence of hydrophytic vegetation adjacent to site |
0 | Absence of wetland vegetation in all settings |
Possibility of Wildlife Recolonization
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Presence of wetlands within 50 m of site |
3 | Presence of wetlands within 100 m of site |
1 | Presence of wetlands within 200 m of site |
0 | No wetlands adjacent to site |
Engineering design and construction factors
Size of Site
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Potential for site development in excess of two times the minimum size requirement |
3 | Potential for site development of up to two times the minimum size requirement |
1 | Sufficient—meets minimum size requirement |
0 | Inadequate—does not meet minimum size requirement |
Potential for Expansion with Design Flexibility
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Excellent flexible design capacity to support future expansion with contiguous functional wetland habitats within drainage basin |
3 | Some flexible design capacity to support future expansion with contiguous functional wetland habitats within drainage basin |
0 | No flexible design capacity to support future expansion with contiguous functional wetland habitats within drainage basin |
Excavation
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | No excavation required |
4 | <3 feet on average |
3 | 3–6 feet on average |
2 | 6–10 feet on average |
1 | 10–15 feet on average |
0 | >15 feet on average |
Topography
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Flat |
4 | Gently rolling |
3 | Moderately rolling |
2 | Rolling |
1 | Steep |
0 | Very steep |
Construction Access
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Completely accessible by all equipment |
4 | Completely accessible by minor equipment |
3 | Partially accessible by all equipment |
2 | Partially accessible by minor equipment |
1 | Access can only be accomplished through major construction |
0 | Inaccessible |
Constructability
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | High potential |
4 | Some minor problems with construction |
3 | Constructible with extensive planning |
2 | Less constructible, greater likelihood of construction difficulties |
1 | Construction difficult, high risk of failure |
0 | Not feasible or practical |
Construction Intrusion into Adjacent Habitats
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Low potential for impacts to adjacent areas or impacts are to poor quality habitats |
3 | Moderate potential for impacts requiring temporary disturbance and restoration |
0 | High potential for impacts creating permanent disturbance to off-site areas |
Anthropogenic factors
Potential Degradation due to External and Internal Factors
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Site without intrusive adjacent land uses and impairing in situ factors |
3 | Site with the potential for intrusive adjacent land uses and/or impairing in situ factors |
1 | Site with some evidence of intrusive adjacent land uses and/or impairing in situ factors |
0 | Site with strong evidence of intrusive adjacent land uses and/or impairing in situ factors |
Archaeological Resource Potential
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Confirmed absence of significant archaeological site within or near mitigation site |
4 | Confirmed absence of significant archaeological site within site |
3 | Probable absence of a significant archaeological site within mitigation site |
2 | Probable presence of archaeological site, significance unknown |
1 | Probable presence of a significant archaeological site within mitigation site |
0 | Confirmed presence of significant archaeological site within mitigation site |
Probable Number of Property Owners Affected
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Single property owner |
3 | Two property owners |
0 | More than two property owners |
Appropriateness of Adjacent Land Use
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Natural landscape with mature or developing forest cover |
4 | Extensive agricultural land |
3 | Mixed natural landscape and agricultural land |
2 | Mixed natural and residential land |
1 | Mostly residential land |
0 | Mostly densely developed commercial/industrial land |
Prime Farmland
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Absence of Prime Farmland soils |
3 | Possible presence of Prime Farmland soils |
0 | Presence of Prime Farmland soils |
Appendix B. Evaluation criteria used to evaluate potential stream mitigation banking sites during Level 2 reconnaissance surveys
Ecological factors
Incision
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Top of bank height/bankfull height > 2.0 |
4 | Top of bank height/bankfull height = 1.76–2.0 |
3 | Top of bank height/bankfull height = 1.51–1.75 |
2 | Top of bank height/bankfull height = 1.26–1.5 |
1 | Top of bank height/bankfull height = 1.01–1.25 |
0 | Top of bank height/bankfull height = 1.0 |
Relative Channel Width
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Low flow width to toe of bank width = 0.59–0.5 |
4 | Low flow width to toe of bank width = 0.69–0.6 |
3 | Low flow width to toe of bank width = 0.79–0.7 |
2 | Low flow width to toe of bank width = 0.89–0.8 |
1 | Low flow width to toe of bank width = 0.99–0.9 |
0 | Low flow width to toe of bank width = 1 |
Bank Erosion
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Greater than 80% of channel banks are eroded |
4 | 61–80% of channel banks are eroded |
3 | 41–60% of channel banks are eroded |
2 | 21–40% of channel banks are eroded |
1 | 20% or less of channel banks are eroded |
0 | No erosion present on channel banks |
Bank Vegetation
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Less than 20% of banks are vegetated |
4 | 20–39% of banks are vegetated |
3 | 40–59% of banks are vegetated |
2 | 60–79% of banks are vegetated |
1 | 80–99% of banks are vegetated |
0 | 100% of banks are vegetated |
Sediment Deposition
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Greater than 80% of bed has deposition |
4 | 61–80% of bed has deposition |
3 | 41–60% of bed has deposition |
2 | 21–40% of bed has deposition |
1 | 20% or less of bed has deposition |
0 | No deposition present on channel bed |
Stage of Channel Evolution
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | V Aggradation stage |
4 | IV Threshold Stage |
3 | III Degradation |
2 | II Constructed Stage |
1 | VI Restabilization |
0 | I Pre-modified Stage |
Engineering design and construction factors
Total Reach Length
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Greater than 6,000 LF |
4 | 5000–5,900 LF |
3 | 4,000–4,900 LF |
2 | 3,000–3,900 LF |
1 | 2,000–2,900 LF |
0 | 1,000–1,900 LF |
Private Property Owners
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | No private landowners along reach |
4 | One private landowner per 1000 LF |
3 | Two private landowners per 1000 LF |
2 | Three private landowners per 1000 LF |
1 | Four private landowners per 1000 LF |
0 | Five or more private landowners per 1000 LF |
Construction Access
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Fully accessible by all equipment |
4 | Partially accessible by all equipment |
3 | Accessible by small equipment |
2 | Some construction necessary |
1 | Access can only be accomplished through major construction |
0 | Inaccessible |
Constructability
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | High potential for constructability |
4 | Some minor problems with construction |
3 | Constructible with extensive planning |
2 | Great likelihood of construction difficulties |
1 | Construction difficult, high risk of failure |
0 | Not feasible for construction |
Bed Material
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Gravel bed material (D50 = 2–64 mm) |
4 | Cobble bed material (D50 = 64–256 mm) |
3 | Sand bed material (D50 = 0.062–2 mm) |
2 | Silt-Clay bed material (D50 < 0.062 mm) |
1 | Boulder bed material (D50 = 256–2048 mm) |
0 | Bedrock bed material (D50 > 2048 mm) |
Construction Intrusion into Adjacent Habitat
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
1 | No functional wetlands adjacent to the site |
0 | Functional wetlands present adjacent to site |
Anthropogenic factors
Educational Value
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | High potential for educational benefit |
3 | Moderate potential for educational benefit |
0 | Low potential for educational benefit |
Recreational Value
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | High potential for recreational benefit |
3 | Moderate potential for recreational benefit |
0 | Low potential for recreational benefit |
Archaeological Resource Potential
Scale | Factor |
|---|---|
5 | Confirmed absence of significant archaeological site |
3 | Probable absence of archeological site |
1 | Probable presence of archaeological site |
0 | Confirmed presence of archaeological site |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Strager, M.P., Anderson, J.T., Osbourne, J.D. et al. A three-tiered framework to select, prioritize, and evaluate potential wetland and stream mitigation banking sites. Wetlands Ecol Manage 19, 1–18 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-010-9194-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-010-9194-y