Real Science for Real People:

BANKING WETLAND PROJECTS

USEPA "protected" wetlands are sacrificed; other wetlands "improved" for reparation

By Beth Ravit

Many people believe that the Clean Water Act (CWA), specifically Section 404, which "prohibits discharging dredge or fill material" into "waters of the United States," protects wetlands. Yet EPA currently estimates that non-federal wetlands are being lost at the rate of 70,000-90,000 acres annually. If wetlands are protected, how can these losses continue?

There are two factors contributing to this continued loss of "protected" wetlands. As the law is written, certain activities such as maintenance of flood control structures (an increasingly important aspect in light of global warming and sea level rise), federal activities that require an environmental impact study (EIS), and some fill activities covered by "general permits" that have no regulatory oversight are exempted from protection.

But these exempted activities are not the only factor causing the high rate of continuing wetland loss. In 1991 the senior Bush administration proposed a policy of "No Net Wetland Loss." The key word here is "net." This policy relies on a dubious scheme for "protecting" our national wetland inventory – wetland assessment (or evaluation) and mitigation banking, two concepts that are mutually dependent.

Wetland assessment systems classify a given wetland based primarily on surface vegetation, which serves as a surrogate for wetland functions. Wetland functions include water retention (reduces flooding), filtration of water (improves water quality), habitat for wildlife (including 46% of total U.S. Endangered and Threatened Species that are wetland associated or dependent), and recreation for humans. Wetland assessments analyze vegetation and water flows, and based on these measurements, a wetland is classified, or graded, from "quality" to "degraded." It should be noted that scientific studies have NOT been done to verify how vegetation actually relates to wetland function. In fact, current studies are showing that the correlation between vegetation and sediment functions may range from non-existent to less than 60%.

The second part of this equation is mitigation banking. A mitigation bank is set up to create, restore, enhance, or preserve wetlands. In the case of restoration, enhancements, or preservation, the wetland is already in existence. (These types of mitigation are preferred by regulators because the success rate for man-made "created" wetlands is very low.)

The mitigation banker is granted credits for "improving" the existing wetland, and these credits are then sold. If the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers determines that it is "necessary" to destroy a wetland through "unavoidable" impacts, a developer can be referred to a mitigation bank where credits are bought in compensation for destroyed wetlands.

Credits from the mitigation bank are sold at various stages in the "restoration" process: 10% when the plan is approved, 20% after water flow is established, 10% when vegetation is planted, 20% after the first year, 10% after the second year, 5% after the third year, and 25% five years after construction. In New Jersey credits are negotiated with NJDEP, which monitors the success of the mitigation and signs off on releasing the credits earned.

From a grass-roots perspective, we can assume that, by nature, mitigation banks inherently use wetlands. Used wetlands means loss of wetlands. It seems unbelievable that our government regulatory agencies aren't doing everything within their power to eliminate mitigation banks.

To exacerbate the situation, in many cases, mitigation banks are not even in the same geographical region as the development project. An improvement project in Secaucus could allow for a fill in Newark. The Newark Bay region loses wetlands and the Hackensack River watershed doesn't "gain" any. In reality, by "restoring," "enhancing," and "preserving" wetlands already in existence (and protected by the Clean Water Act), and using the unproven standard of surface vegetation as the equivalent of wetland functions, wetland destruction continues at the rate of 70,000-90,000 acres a year. If we continue to "protect" our wetlands with this No Net Loss policy, natural wetland destruction will continue because of projects like Meadowland Mills, where proposed mitigation banking credits would replace the natural wetlands that the mall would destroy.

 Previous Article | Next Article

Return to News Page