A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy

BenDor, Todd K.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.09.003

Cited by 104 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The strong effect of wetland size on hydrologic capacitance raises concerns about preferential losses of small, spatially distributed GIWs, and the preferential protection (and even creation) of larger wetlands within compensatory mitigation programs. Numerous studies [Zedler, 1996;Bonds and Pompe, 2003;Bendor, 2009] have assessed the structural and functional benefits (e.g., larger buffers, higher success rates) and costs (e.g., inability to replace similar wetland types, loss of species and habitat diversity) of mitigating the losses of small wetlands by enhancing or constructing large wetlands; this study suggests that large wetlands fail to provide the same landscapescale hydrologic buffering services as provided by small GIWs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A significant nexus: Geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape hydrology

McLaughlin

Kaplan

Cohen

2014

Water Resources Research

118

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have limited federal protections for geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs) except where a ''significant nexus'' to a navigable water body is demonstrated. Geographic isolation does not imply GIWs are hydrologically disconnected; indeed, wetland-groundwater interactions may yield important controls on regional hydrology. Differences in specific yield (S y ) between uplands and inundated GIWs drive differences in water level responses to precipitation and evapotranspiration, leading to frequent reversals in hydraulic gradients that cause GIWs to act as both groundwater sinks and sources. These reversals are predicted to buffer surficial aquifer dynamics and thus base flow delivery, a process we refer to as landscape hydrologic capacitance. To test this hypothesis, we connected models of soil moisture, upland water table, and wetland stage to simulate hydrology of a low-relief landscape with GIWs, and explored the influences of total wetland area, individual wetland size, climate, and soil texture on water table and base flow variation. Increasing total wetland area and decreasing individual wetland size substantially decreased water table and base flow variation (e.g., reducing base flow standard deviation by as much as 50%). GIWs also decreased the frequency of extremely high and low water tables and base flow deliveries. For the same total wetland area, landscapes with fewer (i.e., larger) wetlands exhibited markedly lower hydrologic capacitance than those with more (i.e., smaller) wetlands, highlighting the importance of small GIWs to regional hydrology. Our results suggest that GIWs buffer dynamics of the surficial aquifer and stream base flow, providing an indirect but significant nexus to the regional hydrologic system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A significant nexus: Geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape hydrology

McLaughlin

Kaplan

Cohen

2014

Water Resources Research

118

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Offset projects often fail to produce habitat that can sustain the target species at the original density, or at all (see wetland examples in [23]). This is often accounted for by offsetting larger areas of habitat than are lost (see [24] and [25] for a discussion of these "offset ratio" multipliers). Little work has studied these issues in the context of habitat offsets; unless habitat restoration or creation for the LPC is particularly easy, treating it as a flow will require consistent expansion of offset area.…”

Section: Application To the Lpcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Targets and Biodiversity Offsets for Endangered Species Habitat: Is Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat a Stock or Flow?

BenDor

Woodruff

2014

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The US Fish and Wildlife Service will make an Endangered Species Act listing decision for the lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus; "LPC") in March 2014. Based on the findings of a single, Uzbek antelope study, conservation plans put forth for the LPC propose to modify and re-position habitat in the landscape through a series of temporary preservation/restoration efforts. We argue that for certain species, including the LPC, dynamic habitat offsets represent a dangerous re-interpretation of habitat provision and recovery programs, which have nearly-universally viewed ecosystem offsets (habitat, wetlands, streams, etc.) as "stocks" that accumulate characteristics over time. Any effort to create a program of temporary, moving habitat offsets must consider species' (1) life history characteristics, (2) behavioral tendencies (e.g., avoidance of impacted areas, nesting/breeding site fidelity), and (3) habitat restoration characteristics, including long temporal lags in reoccupation. If misapplied, species recovery programs using temporary, moving habitat risk further population declines.

show abstract

“…While the idea has its merits, it is ineffective if not properly applied or implemented (Bendor, 2009). The restoration plan (Busan Metropolitan City, 2000) initially involved the construction of three artificial wetlands within the estuary.…”

Section: Nakdong Estuary and Eulsukdo Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mistakes Made, Lessons Learned: The Eulsukdo Wetland Restoration Program

Lineman¹,

Do²,

Kim³

et al. 2014

Journal of Environmental Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration is the process of reducing or reversing damage to an ecosystem so that it can function in its original manner. However, many restoration programs do not achieve this. In the Nakdong Estuary, the largest migratory nesting site in the center of the East Asian-Australasian flyway, an estuarine barrage was constructed in the 1980s that required site restoration following its completion in 1987 and the expansion of several large industrial complexes(Noksan and Jangrim) and a residential development(Myeongji). The goal of the restoration was to restore the function of the wetland to its pre-disturbance state. To achieve this, a restoration program was designed consisting of three stages. The first stage (1993)(1994)(1995), saw the construction of three artificial wetlands(Shinhori, Daemadeung, and Eulsuk), the second (2003)(2004)(2005) involved the dredging and returning of farmed lands to their natural state, and the third(2008-2012) focused on the rehabilitation and vegetation development of the wetlands. However, the project has not achieved all of the desired goals, and it is an example of the lapses in ecological restoration following anthropogenic disturbance. Issues that resulted in an incomplete restoration included the timing of the stages, noncompliance with the restoration plan, not directly monitoring the restoration or continuing the monitoring following completion of the development project, and the political subversion of the restoration plan. For the success of the restoration plan, it is necessary to avoid mistakes such as inconsistent monitoring, unequal levels of stakeholder involvement, and political interference.

show abstract

A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy

Cited by 104 publications

References 26 publications

A significant nexus: Geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape hydrology

A significant nexus: Geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape hydrology

Moving Targets and Biodiversity Offsets for Endangered Species Habitat: Is Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat a Stock or Flow?

Mistakes Made, Lessons Learned: The Eulsukdo Wetland Restoration Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About