Nonregiilatorv Wetland Restoration Program

ORRSU-0-98-001 C2

Recommendations for a NONREGIILATORVWETLAND RESTORATIONPROGRAM for Oregon aOAI %PALOip

James W. Good Calvin B. Sawyer

ORE'HU-0-98-001 Recommendations for a NONREGULATORVWETLAND RESTORATIONPROGRAM for Oregon

Prepared for the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X

ISBN 1-881826-12-0

Oregon Sea Grant Oregon State University 402 Kerr Administration Bldg. Corvallis, OR 97331-2134

Support This book was funded by the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, through Oregon Sea Grant grant number NA36RG0451 and projectnumber ASESG-3! and by appropriationsmade by the Oregon State legislature. The views expressedherein are those of the authorsand do not necessarilyreflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.

The work was funded by the Oregon Division of State I ands with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency.Additional supportcame from Oregon Sea Grant and the Oregon State legislature.

Rdmtor: Sandy Ridlington

Cover: Dike and tide gate removal in 1978 Salmon River estuary restoration projectQ!iane Mitchell photo!,

Contents

List of Figures and Tables iv Acknowledgments v

Abbreviations vi Executive Summary vii Introduction and Background

Introduction 3

Wetland Restoration Defined 7 Why Oregon Needs a Wetland Restoration Policy 15 Recommendations and Implementation Actions Overview Recommendations for a Nonregulatory Wetland Restoration Program for Oregon 21 1. Formally establisha... nonregulatorywetland restorationprogram..., 23 2. Developan Oregonhydrogeomorphic functional assessmentmethod..., 27 3. Establish a[n]... integrated framework for... watersheds, ecoregions, and project sites.... 39 4. Integrate wetland restoration into Oregon'swatershed... programs.... 57 5. Remove regulatory, land use, and tax barriers.... 63 6. Increase incentives for... nonregulatory wetland restoration.... 67 7. Identify and restore... wetlands on public lands.... 73 8. Establish a wetland restoration site inventory.... 77 9. Integrate regional wetland restoration priorities into wetland mitigation.... 81 10. Integrate wetland restoration into... Oregon land use.... 85 Appendix:Wetland RestorationPolicy Work Group Membersand Participants 89

References 91 Glossary 95 Fi ures and Tables

Figures 1. Approximate distribution of major wetland systems in Oregon 3 2. Large losses of riverine and depressional wetlands 16 3. Process for developing a hydrogeomorphic approach 33 4. Typical watershed bounded by ridgetops 40 5. Oregon Level III ecoregions 42 6. Conceptual framework for wetland restoration planning 45 7. Reconstruction of historic vegetation patterns 47 8. Oregon Coast Range and Willamette Valley Level III and IV ecoregions 49 9. An idealized process for watershed-level wetland restoration planning 51 10. Steps in the design and implementation of a restoration project 54 11. Streams and riparian areas have been the principal focus of watershed assessment methods to date 60

Tables 1. Principal wetland management functions, governmental agencies 10 2. Wetland functions, related effects of functions, corresponding societal values 28 3. Hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands 30 4. Functions of riverine wetland classes 31 5. Draft HGM classes and subclasses for the Puget Sound Lowlands 35 6. Initial recommendations for Wetland Restoration Site Inventory database fields 79 Acknowled ments

hisreport is the culmination of a two-year Frenkel, Jim Pease, Dave Bella, Steve Daggett, effort to developa comprehensiveblueprint Willa Nehlsen, Ed Alverson, Mike Gr aybill, Julia T for an Oregon nonregulatory wetland res- Jones, Steve Pfeiffer, and Mary Lau Socia. We toration program. As with any undertaking of this appreciate your efforts on the project. Thanks are scope,many individuals made significant contri- due also to Greg Benoit, who assisted us with data butions toward its completion.We especiallythank gathering,Joy Burck, who helpedorganize work- Ken Bierly, Janet Morlan, and Joel Shaich for their shopsand prepare materials, and Sandy Bryce and encouragementand assistance,Ken initiated the Sharon Clarke, who provided maps of Oregon's project while wetlands program leader at the Or- ecoregions. egon Division of State Lands and managed it un- This work was financially supported though a til his departure to the governor's office. Janet, as contract with the Oregon Division of State Lands the Division's new wetlands program leader, pro- with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protec- vided the support and impetus for its completion. tion Agency. Additional support was provided by Joel's organization, the U.S. Environmental Pro- grant no. NA36RG045l,project number AhESG- tection Agency, provided the Division of State 3 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- Lands with the means to carry out the project and ministration to Oregon Sea Grant,, and by strongly supported it throughout. We also thank appropriationsmade by the OregonState legisla- all of the workshop participants and speakers ture. listed in the appendix! who helped sort out wet- Although the recommendations in this report land restoration-related issuesand problems,iden- have not been officially endorsed by the individu- tify solutions, and suggest new directions for als who participated in the processor by the groups Oregon. We especially appreciate the services of they represent,the recommendationsdo, in the Reed Noss of Oregon State University, Phil Will- view of the authors, represent a rough consensus iams of Philip Williams Associates, and Trina of the workshop participants and reviewers of the Wellman of Battelle Northwest. Each prepared draft report. However, not all would agree with background papers and gave stimulating presen- all of the recommendations. Finally, the authors tations at restoration workshops. Other present- take responsibility for all errors of fact or omis- ers or principal paper respondentsincluded Bob sion. Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and U.S. Department of Agricultur e! Wildlife Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OFWAM Oregon Freshwater Assessment CSRI Coastal Salmon Restoration Methodology Initiative OPRD Oregon Parks and Recreation DEQ Department of Environmental Department Quality Oregon! ORCTF Oregon Resource Conservation DLCD Department of Land Conserva- Trust Fund tion and Development Oregon! ORS Oregon Revised Statutes DOF Department of Forestry Oregon! OSU Oregon State University DOGAMI Department of Geology and OWRAC Oregon Wetland Restoration Mineral Industries Oregon! Advisory Council DSL Division of State Lands Oregon! OWRD Oregon Water Resources Depart- EFU exclusive farm use ment EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Park Service National Park Service Agency PLSS public lands survey system ESEE economic, social, environmental, R range and energy S section ESU evolutionary significant unit for SS subsection salmonids! SWCD Soil and Water Conservation Federal Emergency Management District Agency SWI statewide wetlands inventory GIS Geographic Information System SWMG Strategic Water Management GWEB Governor's Watershed Enhance- Group ment Board Oregon! T township HGM hydr ogeomorphic UGB urban growth boundary HUC hydrologic unit catalog USFS U.S. Forest Service Joint Venture Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LWI local wetlands inventory UUC urban unincorporated commu- MOU memorandum of understanding nities NMFS National Marine Fisheries UTM universal transverse Mercator Service WCM wetland compensatory mitigation NRC National Research Council WCP wetland conservation plan NRCS Natural Resources Conservation WCPI wetland conservation plan inven- Service tory XWI National Wetlands Inventory WET Wetland Evaluation Technique OAR Oregon Administrative Rules WHP Watershed Health Program ODA Oregon Department of Agricul- WRD Water Resources Department ture Oregon! Executive Summar

etlands are among the most important state policy or programmatic direction and little ecosystems on earth, providing a flow integration of wetlands with programs that seek W of valuable natural goods and services ta improve water quality, mitigate flood damage, that include water purification, flood water stor- restore fisheries, or restore watersheds in general. age during high flows, and habitat for fish and Yet restored wetlands could contribute mightily wildlife of commercial, recreational, and cultural ta these goals. significance.Approximately 40 percent of the origi- These findings suggest a need for clear, unam- nal wetlands in Oregon have been altered or con- biguous, nonregIdatory wetland reStOrationpolicy, verted to other uses since early Euro-American improved coordination among governmental and settlement. Many of the remaining wetlands have nongovernmental programs, better planning and been degraded and are no longer fully functional. assessment tools, and mare support and technical Although these wetland conversionshave resulted assistance ta landowners. This report addresses in many benefits for Oreganians a productive ag- these needs. It is the culmination of a two-year ricultural industry, modern cities and transporta- effort ta forge such a strategy. The work involved tion systems, and ports and waterways that link many of the key players in the sta~federal, the state ta the world the ecological and economic state, local, and private. Although the recommen- costs have also been great. At the time, these re- dations in this report have not been officially en- sources and the ecological services they provided dorsed by these groups, they represent a fair were not well understood or appreciated. That has consensus of the workshop participants and re- changed dramatically over the last 30 years. 'Ib- viewers of the draft report. day, wetland protection and preservation are high This proposed framework for an Oregon wet- national and state priorities. land restoration program consists of 10 recommen- Oregon has long been a leader in developing dations and 38 suggested implementing actions. and implementing effective programs to protect Collectively, the recommendations and actions and preserve wetlands. Regulatory permits and make up a comprehensive strategy to advance land use planning programs have been the princi- nonregulatory restoration in Oregon. The principal tools used by the state and local governments. pal mechanism to implement the strategy is a new Wetland mitigation, including compensatoryhabi- public-private partnership facilitated by the state's tat replacement for unavoidable losses,has been lead agency for wetland management, the Divi- a key feature af these programs in recent years. sion of State Lands. The partnership aspect of the But despite our best efforts, losses caused by de- strategy is its backbone because there are many velopment and other conversians continue, al- diverse contributors and potential contributors though at a much slower rate than in the past. federal, state, local, and private, including the The cumulative effects of continuing small losses most central partner, the landowner. The recom- combined with large historic losses have taken mendatians and implementing actions are sum- their toll on the aquatic resource base. marized below. Oregon has taken unprecedented steps in recent years to reverse these trends in aquatic ecosystem degradation, not through more regulation, Recommendation 1 but through nonregulatory watershed programs emphasizing technical assistance,incentives, and Formally establish a proactive,partnership-based, cooperation with private landowners. These pro- nonregulatory wetland restoration program for grams, however, focus almost exclusively on Oregon, with two principal goals: ! to achieve a stream and riparian habitat, not wetlands. Other net gain of wetland area and functions aver the programs that do focus an wetlands are mainly long term, emphasizing actions that both serve the for waterfowl habitat improvement. Although needs of society and restore wetland and overall these efforts are valuable, there is little overall aquatic ecosystemintegrity; and ! to establish viii Executive Summa partnerships that make public-private cooperation 3-3. Develop and implement a site-level wetland and landowner incentive programs the primary restoration protocol, mechanism for wetland restoration.

Implementing Actions: Recommendation 4 1-1. Establish a new federal-state-local-private Fully integrate wetland restoration into Oregon's partnership for nonregulatory wetland res- watershed enhancement programs, toration under leadership of the Division of State Lands. Establish an Oregon Wetland Restoration Advisory Council to implement IrnplernentingActions: this partnership and carry out the recom- 4-1. Establish a formal link between the Depart- mendations in this report. ment of State Lands' wetlands program, the 1-2. Establish measurable net-gain targets for in- Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, creasing wetland acreage and functions and local watershed councils. through restoration. 4-2. Add the director of the Department of State Lands to the Governor's Watershed En- hancement Board as a nonvoting member. 4-3. Establish a nonregulatory, watershed-based Recommendation 2 wetland restoration planning and technical Develop an Oregon hydrogeomorphic functional assistance program. assessment method for use in wetland restora- 4-4. Facilitate the interaction of grassroots, vol- tion planning and evaluation at a variety of scales. untary wetland restoration groups with local watershed councils. implementing Actions: 2-1. Develop a consistent, multiple-scale hydrogeomorphic approach ta wetland func- Recommendation 5 tional assessment for Oregon, beginning Remove regulatory, land use, and tax barriers to with a pilot study. nonregulatory wetland restoration. 2-2. Ir the interim prior to development of improved methods for wetland functional assessment, continue to use existing methods Implementing Actions: to assess the restoration or enhancement po- 5-1. Simplify the permit process for carrying out tential of former or degraded wetlands. aquatic ecosystemrestoration and enhance- 2-3. Evaluate the feasibility of developing a ment projects, providing more technical as- hydrogeomorphic approach to riparian eco- sistance and education on the process. system classification and functional assess- 5-2, Conduct a time- and cost-effectiveness audit of wetland regulatory versus ment. nonregulatory restoration and enhancement activities and make indicated adjustments. 5-3. Link stormwater planning and management Recommendation 3 with wetland restoration opportunities. Establish a fully integrated framework for wet- 5-4. Identify and, where possible, eliminate con- land restoration assessment, priority setting, and fiicts between land use planning and wet- actions at three scales: watersheds, ecoregions, land restoration. and project sites. 5-5. Redefine farm use to include conservation practices like wetland restoration or, alter- implementing Actions: natively, amend the Open SpaceTax Defer- 3-1. Beginning with a pilot ecoregion, establish ral Program to include agricultural areas. 5-6. Encourage reform of federal estate tax policy wetland restoration goals and priorities for to encourage natural resource restoration each of Oregon's eight principal ecoregions. 3-2. Establish and implement a watershed-level and enhancement. wetland restoration process through local watershed councils. Executive Sumtna ix

Recommendation 6 Recommendation 8 Increase incentives for proactive, nonregulatory Establish a wetland restoration site inventory wetland restoration and enhancement on private database of completed and potentiaL public and land, focusing on a combination of financial assis- private wetland restoration, creation, and en- tance, tax benefits, technical assistance, and edu- hancement projects and sites. cation. Implementing Actions: Implementing Actions: 8-1. Develop and implement a flexible framework 6-1, Explicitly include wetland restoration in for a wetland restoration site inventory da- Oregon's watershed improvement programs. tabase. 6-2. Use or develop nontraditional funding 8-2. Maintain a similar, interrelated database for sources for restoring the hydrologic and wa- wetland compensatory mitigation. ter-quality functions of wetlands. 6-3. Tie incentives for restoration to ecoregion and watershed priorities. Recommendation 9 6-4. Establish wetland restoration technical assistance teams or incorporate similar exper- Integrate regional wetland restoration priorities tise into watershed programs. into the wetland compensatory mitigation process. 6-5. Prepare technical design guidelines for wetland restoration and enhancement. Implementing Actions: 6-6, Revise the Oregon Wetlands Conservation 9-1. Use wetland restoration priorities and sites Guide to focus more on landowners as a pri- identified at the ecoregion level, in water- mary audience. shed action programs, and in local comprehensive plans as a basis for wetland compensatory mitigation actions and for es- Recommendation 7 tablishment of mitigation banks. Identify and restore foriner and degradedwetlands on public lands, consistent with regional and watershed priorities, collaborating with others to Recommendation 10 improve the cast-effectivenessof projects. Integrate wetland restoration into the Oregonland use and wetland conservation planning programs. Implementing Actions: 7-1. Fold the existing memorandum of under- Implementing Actions: standing on management of wetlands on 10-1. Revise wetland inventory requirements to public lands into the mission of the proposed include potential restoration sites. Oregon Wetland Restoration Advisory Coun- 10-2. Incorporate identified wetland restoration or cilL, with emphasis on fostering interagency enhancement sites into the Wetland Resto- and public-private partnerships to improve ration Site Inventory. the cost-effectiveness of projects. 10-3. Establish wetland restoration eleinents for 7-2. Identify and restore former and degraded Goals 5, 16, and 17 and wetland conserva- wetlands on public lands, consistent with re- tion plans. gional and watershed priorities for increas- 10-4. Use a watershed approach for wetland and ing hydrologic, water quality, and habitat riparian corridor planning in Goal 5 and functions of wetlands. wetland conservation plans. ntrodU+tjp d Backgro d

Introduction

ne of the legaciesof Euro-American settle- the ecological and economic costs have also been ment of the North American continent has great. Examples include altered hydrologic condi- been the large-scale conversion of aquatic tions that have increased flood and drought dam- ' ecosystems lakes, rivers and streams, and wet- ages in virtually all major river basins; loss or Lands to other land types and usesthrough drain- degradation of habitat for freshwater and marine ing, diking, filling, excavation, damming, fisheries, waterfowl, and other plants and animals; channelization, diversion, pollution, and other al- loss of biodiversity, including actual or threatened terations. For wetland ecosystems,only about 47 extinctions of species; and loss of water purifica- percent of the 221 million acres present in the tion and other services of direct or indirect eco- 1780s in the conterminous United States remain nomic value to society. At the time, the societal today Dahl 1990!. In Oregon, about 62 percent or benefits and services wetlands provided were not 1.4 million of an original 2.3 million acres of wet- well understood, and so few if any of these costs lands remain figure 1!. were accounted for in wetland alteration decisions. Although these wetland conversions and alter- Although wetland lossescontinue today, increased ations have resulted in many benefits to society, public awarenessof wetland values and numer-

r~v sa re

Figurel. Approximatedistribution of majorwetland systems in Oregon.Because of scale Limitations,most wettands are not shown map source:USGS. 199S. National Water Summary on Wetland Resources,WSP 2425!. 4 Infroduction ous local, state, and federal government protec- Impetus for the Project tion initiatives have slowed the process and helped Although the roots of wetland restoration policy preserve what remains. and planning in Oregon go back to the late 19?Os, At the state level, Oregon has been a leader in this report draws its principal direction from the developing and implementing programs to protect state's 1989 wetland conservation law. One goal and preserve wetlands. Among these programs are in the law was to "Establish the opportunity to the state Removal-Fill Law, which regulates al- increase wetland resources by encouraging wet- teratians to waterways and wetlands and requires land restoration and creation where appropriate" compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses, ORS 196.6?2.5!. Following this legislative direc- the statewide land use planning program, particu- tive, the Oregon Division of State Lands DSL! ap- larly Goals 5, 16, and 1?; and the 1989 wetland pointed a "wetlands restoration work group" to conservation law which establishes a statewide help prepare Oregon's Wetland Conservation Strat- wetland inventory and promotes development of egy ODSL 1995!. The wetlands restoration sec- local wetland conservation plans. There are also tion of that repart was the starting point for the a number of public and private acquisition and present project. management programs. The latter are especially Among the recommendations in Oregon's Wet- important in preserving critical or rare ecosys- land Conservation Strategy are several that are tems. Wetland protection and preservation pro- particularly relevant to this report. The most im- grams alone, however, even with "no-net-loss" portant of them are the following: mitigation policies being implemented at the federal and state levels, are not likely to reverse con- ~ Advisory Panel that the state should continued gradual lass. Recent efforts by property vene a restoration advisory panel to develop rights activists ta rewrite environmental laws and standards and guide wetland restoration ef- regulatians further underscore the need for other forts approaches to help reverse wetland decline. ~ Standards that consistent wetland resto- Nonregulatory wetland restoration is one such ration standards be developed for application approach. to both public and private lands Wetland restoration is defmed simply as "re- ~ Restoration Planning Program that a co- turning the ecosystem to a close approximation of operative, statewide, wetland restoration plan- its condition prior to disturbance" NRC 1992, 2!, ning program be undertaken to identify prior- Although wetland restoratian is sometimes used ity watersheds for immediate actions and to to compensate for permitted losses, nonregulatory develop a statewide restoration inventory for wetland restoration projects have a much greater the long term ecosystem impact, whether the measure be area ~ Regional Strategy that regional priorities or functional capacity. Nonregulatory restoration be established for restoration of wetland eco- is thus the principal emphasis of this report. systems within watersheds and wetland conservation planning areas ~ Reference Sites that high-quality wetland reference sites be established through research as a basis for establishing restoration goals and monitoring criteria

Fringing marshes and shallow waters of the Columbia River estuary attract a wide variety of tvildlife gim Good photo!, lnttoduction 5 project Objectives efits of restoration, land use issues, and other simi- Based on the directive in the 1989 wetland con- lar issues. The third workshop focused on imple- servation law and the start provided by the mentation issues how to integrate wetland Oregon's Wetland Conservation Strategy, this restoration into the existing institutional frame- project had three objectives: work for watershed, wetland, and land use planning and restoration action programs. For each of ! to reestablish and sustain a consensus- the workshops, experts prepared and presented building dialogue among the public and pri- technical background papers. The focuseddiscus- vate agencies and organizations involved in sions that followed and materials from federal wetland restoration throughout Oregon agencies,from other states'wetlands management ! to develop a technically sound framework programs, and from published literature served for wetland restoration that considers histori- as the basis for an October 1996 draft report. Com- cal conditions, present-day wetland functions ments on the draft were received from 20 review- and services, and desired future wetland con- ers, and a final workshop was held in February ditions, and that is based on sound ecological 1997 to further refine the recommendations. and economicprinciples, likely growth and development scenarios, and political feasibility What This Report Includes ! to developproposed goals, policies, and tech- The introduction to this report provides back- nical procedures for wetland restoration that ground about the project and its origins and ob- effectively integrate and coordinate the pro- jectives. It defines wetland restoration and grams and actions of public and private agen- outlines the reasons we need a proactive, cies and organizations in the state nonregulatory wetland restoration policy. The main part of the report is the wetland restoration recommendations, which detail specific compo- How This Report Was Developed nents of a comprehensive,coordinated strategy for The first step in this project was to reestablish nonregulatory wetland restoration in Oregon.The a wetland restoration work group that included report suggestspolicy goals and means to achieve many of the same individuals who developed the them, methods for functional classification and original Wetland Conservation Strategy. This assessment, a three-level planning and priority- group,listed in the appendix,held four workshops. setting framework, ways to integrate wetland res- The first workshop dealt with wetland restoration toration into existing programs, suggestions for from a scientific and ecological perspective. The improving incentives and technical assistance,and second focused on societal concerns: expected more. References and several appendices fill out growth and development, economiccosts and ben- the report.

How This ReportWill BeUsed The actual use of this report by DSL, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA!, and by the public and private agencies and organizations that contributed to it has yet to be fully determined. Some of the recommendations may be easily implemented and will quickly improve wetland restoration efforts in the state. Other recommendations will require additional data gathering, applied research,and analysis;formal policy ini- tiation efforts by DSL, other agencies,or the legislature; or new implementation actions by local jurisdictions, watershedcouncils, state or federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. Many public and pri vate interests were representedin Realistically, implementing these recommenda- the wetland restoration workshops where this report's tions will also require adding new staff resources recommendationswere developedand evaluated Cal or redirecting existing staff. Sawyerphoto!.

Wetland Restoration Defined

Definition of Restoration lthoughthere is a long history of habitat recreated, and ecological damage to the resource manipulation for wildlife and waterfowl is repaired. The goalis to emulatea natural,func- A management,the conceptof ecologicalres- tioning, self-regulating system that is integrated toration is relatively new. Definitions of ecosys- with the ecological landscape in which it occurs. tem restoration have proliferated in recent years. [NRC 1992, 1S] The definition suggestedby the NationalAcademy This definition is particularly attractive be- of Sciences Committee on Restoration of Aquatic cause it applies equally to all aquatic ecosystem Ecosystems,quoted in part in the introduction, is components lakes, rivers, streams, riparian reproduced below. zones, and wetlands. This theme that wetland Restoration is the return of a former or degraded restoration is part of and needs to be fully inte- ecosystein to a close approximation of its condi- grated with overall aquatic ecosystemrestoration tion prior to disturbance.In restoration, both the in Oregon is emphasizedthroughout this report. structure and.the functions of the ecosystein are

Typesof Wetland Restoration There are two types of candidate sites for wetland dition prior to disturbance. Restoration actions restoration: former wetlands and degraded wet- may involve any of the following activities: ! re- lands. Former wetlands are areas that were once storing hydrology by improved culvert sizing, dike wetland but are now nonwetland. The changefrom removal, removal of drainage tiles, filling drain- wetland to nonwetland can often be traced to re- age ditches, or eliminating flow restrictions; ! moval of the source of water to the wetland by restoring substrate characteristics suitable for draining, diking, diversion, or similar alteration. reestablishing wetlands through removal or fill, Some former wetlands have been altered perina- reestablishing original topography, or replacing nently, at least from a practical perspective. Filled hydric soils; ! biological manipulation by control- wetlands in urban areas with intensive develop- ling introduced speciesor reintroducing absent or ment are examples.Degraded wetlands are those currently nonviable native plant and animal spe- that have been damaged or otherwise function- cies; or ! reestablishing the chemical integrity ally impaired but still have some wetland func- of the site by waste cleanup, or reducing or elimi- tions. In both cases,restoration involves returning nating pollutant inputs. the ecosystemto a closeapproximation of its con-

RelatedTerminology In wetland law, policy, and management, restora- also different from restoration in that it involves tion is often associated w ith two other terms alterating, maintaining, or managing existing wetland creation and wetland enhancement. wetlands for long-term improvement of particu- Wetland creation differs from restoration in that lar functions or services, often to the detriment of it involves the construction of a wetland at a site other functions or services ODSL 1995!. that was not wetland in recent times 00 to 200 All three activities restoration, creation, and years!. Significant landscape manipulation or ac- enhancement take place in both regulatory and tive maintenance may be required to develop and nonregulatory situations. Most wetland creation, maintain such a site as wetland. Enhancement is however, is undertaken in a regulatory context as 8 Wetland Restoration Oehned

A! Former wetlands, like these diked and drained farm landsin a river floodplain, are one category of lands tvith restoration potential. B! These g farmed fields are an example of a degraded but still functioning wetland tvith good restoration potential Jim Good photo!.

wetland compensatory mitigation WCM! the ation and enhancement may play a role in an over- replacement of habits.t lost as part of a permitted all ecosystem restoration framework for ex- development project. Using wetland creation for ample, creating a new wetland corridor to WCM has been popular, but it has also been di- reconnect wetland habitats that have been frag- rectly and indirectly criticized for its failure to ad- mented by urbanization they are generally not equately mitigate the loss of both wetland area the methods of choice. Some reasons they are not and functions Kentula and others 1992; Shaich preferred are the failures noted above, the lack of and Franklin 1995; Race and Fonseca 1996!. Most natural, self-sustaining features, and the overem- wetland enhancement, as defined above, occurs in phasis on one function at the expense of others. the context of public and private land manage- Definitions for other important terms used in ment, often for waterfowl, but also is used fre- this report, such as ecological integrity, quently for NCM. biodi versity, mitigation, and mitigation banking, This report focuses mainly on proactive, are provided in the glossary. nonregulatory restoration. Although wetland cre- Wetland Restoration Oe8ned 9

Wetland Management in Oregon Today The protection, restoration, and enhancement of The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife wetlands in Oregon involve many players. Fed- ODFW!, the USFWS, the Bureau of Land Man- eral, state, and local government agencies each agement BLM!, the U.S. Forest Service USFS!, have certain legal responsibilities and authorities, the NRCS, and local Soil and Water Conservation but private nonprofit land trusts and other non- Districts SWCDs! are the principal governmen- governmental organizations also play important tal agenciesinvolved. Private nonprofit land trusts roles. Responsibilities generally break out along and similar groups involved in wetland manage- functional lines and governmental levels; they az'e ment include The Nature Conservancy, Ducks summarized in table 1. Unlimited, The Wetlands Conservancy,and others. Many of these private groups comeunder the Mapping,Assessment, and Research umbrella of the Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture hereafter in this report referred to as the Joint Responsibilities in this area are shared among Venture!. Because these zionregulatory activities levels of government and agencies and relate pri- are the main thrust of this report, details on agency marily to assigned management responsibilities. and private organization involvement and pro- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts the grams are discussed later in the context of spe- National Wetlands Inventory NWI!. All of Oregon cific findings, recommendations, and has been mapped, but some znaps,particularly in implementing actions. In particular, see Recom- the Coast Range,are of poor quality and only about mendation 6, which explains existing programs 20 percent of the state's NWI maps are available and deals with the need foz'improved wetland res- in digital form. DSL usesthe NWI as its base statewide wetlands inventory and also fun'ds the de- toration incentives, velopment of local wetlands inventories LWIs! that provide more detail. As of 1997,35 communi- Regulation,Mitigation, and PermitReview ties had developed LWIs. Wetland functional as- At the federal level, Section 404 of the Clean sessment is also a priority at each governmental Water Act 0 CFR 230! is the principal nation- level and is used for a variety of purposes, The wide wetland regulatory program. Section 404 Oregon Freshwater Wetland AssessmentMethod- requires that anyone discharging dredge or fill ology Roth and others 1996!, for example, is used znaterial in the waters of the United States, which in conjunction with LWIs and local land use plan- includes wetlands, obtain a permit from the U.S. ning. Wetland research in Oregon is conducted Army Corps of Engineers hereafter, the Corps!. mainly by federal agencies the EPA, the U.S. The permit is subject to review by a number of Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS!, the Natural agencies, principally the EPA who also znayveto Resources Conservation Service NRCS!, and the the permit!, USFWS, the National Marine Fish- U.S. Geological Survey USGS! in particular. But eries Service NMFS!, ODFW, and the Oregon state agencies,university academics,and private Department of Environmental Quality DZQ! to nonprofits like The Nature Conservancy also con- certify that water quality standards are met!. As duct important research on wetland functions and part of the effort to implement the federal no-net- characteristics, providing useful management in- loss policy for wetlands, Section 404 applicants formation. must follow a sequential mitigation process.First, wetland impacts must be avoided if at all possible, NonregulatoryWetland Management usually by maximizing use of nonwetland on or off the property, Next, on-site wetland impacts There are a variety of federal, state, and pri- must be minimized. Finally, unavoidable wetland vate progrs.ms that focus on nonregulatory wet- losses must be compensated by restoring, creat- land znanagement in Oregon. The principal ing, or enhancing wetlands. In pzactice,WCM oc- activities of both public agencies and private or- curs on a project-by-project basis. In recent yeaz's, ganizations are land acquisition, management and mitigation banking has become a popular alter- restoration or enhancement of wetlands, techni- native to the project-by-project approach. Mitiga- cal assistanceto private landowners undertaking tion banking involves restoration or creation! of restoration or enhancement, and public education.

ltVetiond Restoration Defined 11

p g o 4 u 0 0

o cd ~ 4'~4 0 0 m0 0 . R.-o g ~ d cd O ~5 dl tA g ~ 0 0 cd I! Cl. ~~op cd cd ~ age: ccl D~ dl o ~ 4 0 g m +< 80" Q ~'cd O<4!CJ~ g ~ El:0. C 8 0 ~

0 g V5 0, jq dl ga 5 9 p+ al oCd

Qg 0, @ cdg g ga~ Og o cd g ~~K ~ g c4 > 0 O 4 Dyed Id

~ VQ ~ cO U 0 ~ p ~ Q

4 4 ~41g g Ml~ l

0 cd 0~ L1 0 g'2. g 4 ~0 6 Fk0 z oaq g0~0 ~ him ~ A,w ~ UP 0 ~ x@co ~ 4CU ~ g 0 Re j ~ a 8

"Cd 5e cpC $

~'8 K 12 Wetiand Restoration Dered

large wetland areas in advance. As needed, per- programs such as restoration. This report is one mit applicants may purchase WCM credits from example of that recent emphasis. the bank sponsor instead of conducting their own WCM project. Land Useand WatershedPlanning The "swampbuster" provisions of the Food Se- Oregon's statewide land use planning program curity Act of 1985 often referred to as the "Farm includes several provisions for wetland protection Bill" reversed a long-standing national policy of and restoration. Statewide Planning Goa1s, espe- promoting drainage of wetlands for agricultural cially Goal 5 Open Spaces... and Natural Re- cropping. Instead, farmers who convert wetlands sources!, Goal 16 Estuarine Resources!, and Goal to agricultural uses may be penalized by removal 17 Coastal Shorelands!, require the inventory and of certain agricultural price supports and other protection of significant wetlands. However, there subsidies. Wetlands that were converted to crop- is little consideration of wetland restoration, ex- land before December 1985 are exempted from the cept in Goals 16 and 17, where the emphasis in on law, The swampbuster provision of the Farm Hill locating sites for regulatory mitigation, not is administered by NRCS and was amended in nonregulatory restoration. Recent revisions to 1990 and 1996. The most recent Farm Bill gives Goal 5 have iinproved provisions for wetland and farmers more flexibility in meeting wetland con- riparian protection, but again do not address res- servation requirements in particular, expanded toration or enhancement as land use management mitigation provisions that a11ow for restoration, strategies. The other principal planning author- creation, and enhancement of wetlands. ity dealing with wetland protection and restora- The Oregon Removal-Fill Law is the principal tion is the 1989 wetland conservation law ORS state regulatory tool for protecting Oregon's wet- 196.668 et seq.!, also administered by DSL. The lands. Although it predated the Section 404 pro- legislation enabled the development of local wet- gram, the Removal-Fim Law is very similar. The land inventories mentioned above! and the prepa- law requires permits for fill or removal of 50 cubic ration of local wetland conservation plans WCPs!. yards or more froin wetlands or waters of the state. Although locating potential wetland restoration In some areas, like essential salmonid habitat, a sites is a required part of the WCP process, only permit is required for lesser amounts of fill or re- those necessary to mitigate future developinent moval. An important component of the law is a that affects wetlands must actually be identified three-part sequential mitigation process similar in inventories and plans. Issues related to land to the federal requirement.-Mitigation is thus the use planning authorities and wetland restoration principal link between regulatory programs and are addressed in detail in Recommendation 10, wetland restoration programs. The program is which calls for integrating nonregulatory wetland administered by DSL and applies statewide. Fed- restoration more fully into these programs, eral-state streamlining is achieved through a joint Watershed planning in Oregon is carried out permit application and review process. by federal, state, and private landowners and or- Wetland regulatory policy and programs have ganizations. In recent years, the watershed ap- been a lightning rod in recent years as fa~ proach has been institutionalized in Oregon, interests, developers, and private property rights largely through the Governor's Watershed En- advocates generally have sought to reverse the hancement Board GWKB!, which provides for the expanding jurisdiction of federal regulatory pro- establishment of local watershed councils and as- grams, speed up the permit process for develop- sociations. More than 60 local watershed groups ment, and as much as possible, externalize the have been established in Oregon so far. Many costs associated with cropping, dredging, filling, watershed councils have developed restoration and other wetland conversions. These efforts have action plans. However, few watershed plans and been blunted to some degree by conservationists programs address wetland restoration as part of and resource managers who are proinoting even overall ecosystem restoration. The need to more stronger wetland protection. Although protection fully integrate wetlands into watershed programs of remaining wetlands remains a federal and state is discussed in detail in Recommendation 4. priority. the impasse over regulatory program This brief overview of wetland management in changes has provided at least part of the ratio- Oregon illustrates the diversity and complexity of nale for putting more emphasis on nonregulatory programs and activities addressing restoration in lVetlond Restorotion Defined 13

Oregon. In many ways, this diversity mirrors the public-private and interagency cooperation, bet- larger society within which wetland and other ter integration of wetland restoration into exist- aquatic ecosystemmanagement occurs. What being watershedand planning programs,and the comesvery obviousas one examines these pro- enhancement and redirection of human and other grams is the need and opportunity for improved resources if such goals are to be accomplished.

WhyOregon Needs a Wetland Restoration Poli c

variety of watershed restoration initiatives Wetlandplanning and regulatory are underway at the federal, state, and lo- programsare not enough. A cal levels in Oregon, and intensive efforts Wetland conservation planning and regulatory are being made to inventory and protect signifi- programsthat aredesigned to protectand preserve cant wetlands in the state through land use plan- existing wetlands can stem, but not stop, the con- ning and other initiatives. Despite these good tinued loss of wetland ecosystemsin the state. This efforts, there is also a real need for a clear, consis- is especiallytrue today,when Oregon's population tent, and separate wetland restorutionpolicy. Some and economic hase are expanding rapidly. of the most important reasons for this are listed Nonregulatorywetland restoration is the most below, with more detail provided in subsequent promisingmeans to reversethis trend; policiesand sections of the report. programs to proinote proactive, nonregulatory restoration need to be integrated into Oregon's over- Wetland ecosystemsare important. all wetland conservation strategy. Wetlands are important components of the network that makes up aquatic ecosystems- Presentwetland restoration policies are lakes, streams, rivers, riparian lands, estuaries, limited and fragmented. and the marine environment. Although some wet- Wetland restoration policies in Oregon, which lands are isolated, most are directly or indirectly are implementedby severalagencies, consist of connected through surface or groundwater flow to fragmentedstatements dispersed among several the network that makes up aquatic ecosystems. statutes and administrative rules. These policy Wetlands are often ecological "hot spots" in wa- statements are limited in scope,lack clear direc- tersheds, playing a role disproportionate to their tion, and are not well integrated. Lacking a clear, size in supporting endangered speciesand main- consistent policy, efforts to plan and implement taining hiodiversity in general.At the sametime, wetland restoration projects are not well coordi- they are important ecosystemsin their own right, nated,Oregon's ability to fully avail itself of exist- servinga varietyof ecologicalfunctions in the land- ing funding and technicalassistance programs is scapeswhere they exist. Salmonids,for example, also hampered by a lack of clear policy direction. make extensive use of streamside, off-channel, and estuarine wetland habitat for rearing, food, and shelter. Wetlands also serve a variety of hydro- Assessmentcapability for potential logic and biogeochemical functions that translate wetland restoration projects is limited. into valued societal services such as flood control With little emphasis given to wetland restora- and water purification. tion, Oregonhas not developedthe digital data, classification systems, or assessment techniques Oregonhas already lost manywetlands. that are needed to evaluate historic wetland losses and establish scientifically sound wetland resto- Oregonhas lost nearly 40 percent of its his- ration priorities. This has contributed to a gen- toric wetlands during the settlement and devel- eral lack of coordination among wetland opment of the state figure 2!. Although many of restoration projects that have been put on the these altered wetlands must be considered per- ground.Appropriate technology exists and func- manently lost because of present land uses, other tional assessment models are available nationally former wetlands have significant potential for cost- or from other states that could be adapted to Or- effective restoration through removal of blockages egon. and reestablishment of hydrology, reintroduction of native wetland vegetation, and other remedial actions. In only a few areas of the state have these potential remedial actions been identified. 16 WhyOr on Needsa WetlandRestoration Poli

1852-54 1986

miles Willamette River Vegetation 0 i 2 8 kilometers

'Land low river bottom subject to inundation. Timbered with maple, ash, fir, ' tlJ alder, willow and Balm of Gilead {cottonwood]. Dense under-growth of vine maple, hazel, briers & c." [no report of cottonwood along Muddy Creek]. figure 2. Large losses of Prairie or fern clearings within river timber, a few oaks present. permanent and seasonal riverine and depressional wetlands oc- "Oak and yellow pine openings; subject to inundation;" open understory. curred in, the late 19th and early 20th centuries ~ ~ "Oak openings or Scattering of oak", open understory as the Willamette Valley was transformed by agriculture, urbaniza- "Level prairie," "High prairie or Wet prairie." tion, and river channelization source: Adapted from Benner Predominantly farmland and rural residences 986!. and Sedell 1997!. D PVhyOregon Needs a 1NetiandRestoration Poli 17

Watershed restoration programs lack other habitat restoration programs are the lack of wetland consideration. adequate funding, particularly at the state level, and the lack of financial incentives to landowners Wetland restoration is not well integrated into to restore. New or improved incentive programs other aquatic resource restoration programs and efforts in Oregon those focusing on streams, riv- offer significant opportunity for increasing the wetland resource base on private lands, but they ers, salmon recovery, and watersheds. This is re- must be well designed, funded, and implemented. f1ected in the lack of explicit consideration given to wetland restoration opportunities in current watershed analysis manuals, planning guidelines, Wetlandcompensatory mitigation is not and even the scientific literature on the subject. working well. It is thus unlikely that the growing number of Wetland compensatory mitigation associated watershed councils, communities, and others ear- with state and federal regulatory prograins in nestly preparing watershed action or land use Oregonhas overwhelminglydepended on widely plans will give sufhcientconsideration to the his- criticized attempts at wetland "creation," as op- toric and potential role of wetlands in healthy posedto restoration of former wetlands. This is aquatic ecosystems, despite the preference given to restoration over creation in freshwater wetland regulations. This Thereis significantunrealized potential for bias may in part be due to the lack of a restora- restorationon privatelands. tion site inventory. If regional and. watershed- Many foriner wetlands with restoration poten- based wetland restoration site inventories and priorities could be developed through a compre- tial are on private lands, If the values and soci- hensive restoration policy, they could serve as a etal services associated with wetlands are to be more scientifically sound, function-oriented, and restored, it will have to occur largely through the need-focused basis for compensatory mitigation efforts of willing landowners. 7o foster appropriate public-private landowner partnerships, we actions. need a clear, consistent state wetland restoration policy, as well as increasedpublic education ef- More and better technical guidance is forts, financial and other incentives for property needed. owners, and scientifically sound technical assis- In comparison to wetland regulatory and pro- tance. Further, disincentives need to be elimi- tection programs, few resourcesare invested in nated, such as loss of Exclusive Farm Use tax wetland restoration, particularly nonregulatory deferral when restoring former wetland on cur- programs.Increased financial and staff resources, rently producing lands. whether new or shifted from other programs, should be used to help determine regional wet- Incentivesfor nonregulatory restoration land restoration priorities, implement these pri- on privatelands need improvement. orities through both regulatory and nonregulatory programs,increase public educationon wetlands, There are few incentive programs that promote nonregulatoryrestoration of former wetlands on private lands, particularly at the state level. Ex- isting programsoften fail to reachtheir potential for a number of reasons; the way they are structured or implemented, insufficient technical assistance and public education, or failure to integrate or coordinate them with other programs. However, the biggest problems with wetland and

One-on-one technical assistance to landowners interested in identifying and implementing restoration projects is a vital service offered by natural resourceprofessionals. Much more is needed ODFA photo!. 18 Wh 0 on Needs a Wetland Restoration Poii

and provide on-the-ground technical assistance to regulatory and nonregulatory restoration, cre- watershed councils and landowners to carry out ation, and enhancement. Kxpenditures on resource wetland projects, and increase coordination and management programs are increasingly tied to on- information sharing among governmental and the-ground program outcomes, Yet Oregon has nongovernmental organizations. poor information on the extent and quality of its existing wetlands, and even poorer information on Wetland lossesand gains are poorly historic losses, recently permitted and other losses, documented. and regulatory and nonregulatory resource gains. It is increasingly important to understand and An overall wetland resource accounting system is document the area and functional impacts of wet- needed to make sense of programs and their effe- land losses and the gains associated with both ctivenes. ommend a ions t'

Overview: Recommendationsfor a Nonregulatory WetlandRestoration Program for Qregon

Recommendation 1. Formally establish a pro- Recommendation 8. Increase incentives for proactive, partnership-based, nonregulatory wetland active, nonregulatory wetland restoration and restoration program for Oregon, with two princi- enhancement on private land, focusing on a com- pal goals: ! to achieve a net gain of wetland area bination of financial assistance, tax benefits, tech- and functions over the long term, emphasizing nical assistance, and education page 67!. actions ths.t both serve the needs of society and restore wetland and overall aquatic ecosystem Recommendation 7. Identify and restore former tegrity; and ! to establish partnerships that and degradedwetlands on publiclands, consistent make public-private cooperation and landowner with regionaland watershedpriorities, collaborat- incentive programs the primary mechanism for ing with others to improvethe cost-effectiveness wetland restoration page 23!. of projects page 73!.

Recommendation 2. Develop an Oregon Recommendation S. Establish a Wetland Resto- hydrogeomorphicfunctional assessmentmethod ration Site Inventory databaseof completedand for use in wetland restoration planning and evalu- potential public and private wetland restoration, ation at a variety of scales page 27!. creation, and enhancementprojects and sites page 77!. Recommendation 3. Establish a fully integrated framework for wetland restoration assessment, Recommendation 9. Integrate regional wetland priority setting, and actions at three scales:wa- restoration priorities into the wetland compensa- tersheds, ecoregions, and project sites page 39!. tory mitigation process page 81!.

Recommendation 4. Fully integrate wetland Recommendation 10. Integrate wetland resto- restoration into Oregon's watershed enhancement ration into the Oregon land use and wetland con- programs page 57!, servation planning programs page 85!.

Recommendation 5. Remove regulatory, land use, and tax barriers to nonregulatory wetland restoration page 63!.

Recommendation 1

RECOMMENDATION1: Formallyestablish a proactive,partnership- based,nonregulatory wetland restoration program for Oregon,with two principal goals:! to achievea net gain of wetland areaand functionsover the longterm, emphasizing actions that both servethe needsof societyand restorewetland and overallaquatic ecosystem integrity; and ! to establishpartnerships that makepublic-private cooperationand landownerincentive programs the primarymecha- nism for wetland restoration.

Findings LegislativeBasis for an OregonWetland SignificantRestoration Occurring but Restoration Program ImprovedCoordination Needed heprincipal legislative authority for devel- There are several state agencies with major oping and implementing a proactive, responsibilities for nonregulatory habitat restora- T nonregulatory wetland restoration pro- tion and enhancement in Oregon. One is the Or- gram in Oregonis the broadmandate in the state's egon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODFW!, 1989 wetland conservation law ORS which has restored and enhanced thousands of 196.672! which declares that acres of wetlands in state wildlife management areas and on other public lands they manage. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to establish Throughout the state, ODFW biologists also pro- the opportunity to increasewetland resourcesby encouraging wetland restoration and creation vide technical assistance to private landowners wishing to restore wetlands to enhancefish and where appropriate. wildlife habitat. Other state agencies also have a The Division of State Lands DSL!, through its role or a potentialrole in wetland restoration ef- Wetlands Program, is responsible for implement- forts, including the Department of Environmen- ing this and other provisions of the 1989 wetland tal Quality DEQ!, through its Section 319 conservation law,Although a number of other state nonpoint sourcepollution control program; the statutes and administrative rules address wetland Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board restoration, this statute provides the clearest over- GWEB!, which coordinates and funds local wa- all state-level direction, albeit few details. The rec- tershed council restoration efforts, and the Oregon ommendations in this report fill in those details. Department of Agriculture ODA! a.ndlocal Soil The recommendations are also consistent with and Water Conservation Districts, which assist national policy, which promotes no net loss of wet- farmers with the development of management land area and function in the short term, imple- plansto protectwaters of the state,including wet- mented primarily through regulatory programs, lands, from farm-related pollution. The Oregon and a net gain of wetland area and function over Department of Forestry, with its riparian and the long term, implemented primarily through wetland management responsibilities on state and nonregulatory programs WHOEP 1993!. private lands,is anotherkey player,especially as 24 Recommendation 1 it relates to habitat improvement for salmonids. nonpoint source pollution control programs, ODA's Increasingly, agencies with responsibilities for water-quality management plaaaiag, DOFs ripar- flood hazard mitigation and water management iari management, Oregon Emergency Manage- generally, such as the Oregon Emergency Man- inent Division's flood mitigation program, and local agement Division, the Department of Geologyand land use planning. Further, programs could be Mineral Industries, and the Water Resources De- better coordinated with one another. For example, partment, are also getting involved in wetland res- private efforts, such as those coordinated by the toratioa and enhancement. Local communities, Joint Venture, are not well connected with those through their land use planning responsibilities, of the more than 60 loca1 watershed councils ia aad the statewide planning agency, the Depart- the state. rnent of Land Conservation and Development, are also involved with wetland restoration and en- Rationale for a Net Cain of Wetlands Goal hancemeri, as they seek to protect and improve The ecological functions and societal services the "green infrastructure" in their communities and benefits provided by natural wetlands are the for flood control, storm water cleansing and con- principal rationale for working toward a net gain veyance, recreation aad open space protection. of wetlands through restoration. For example, res- Federal partners implementing national policy toration of streamside, off-chaanel, and estuarine also play key roles iri wetland restoration in Or- wetland habitat used by salmon for rearing, feed- egon, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for ex- ing, and shelter will benefit Oregon's commercial ample, restoresaad enhanceswetlands on national and sports fishing industries, Restored wetlands wildlife refuges and offers technical assistanceand store flood waters, thereby reducing property dara- incentives to private landowners, as doesthe Natu- age. During low flow and drought, this water is ral Resources Conservation Service, the Bureau gradually released to help maintain base flow. of Land Maiiagemen, and the Farm Services Restored wetlands can help keep rivers, lakes, and Agency, The U.S. Forest Service is restoriag hun- estuaries clean through natural treatment of run- dreds of acres of wetlands in the Salmon River off aad other pollution. Recreation, tourism, edu- estuary and the Oregon Dunes National Recre- catioa, and more aesthetically pleasing urban ation Area on the central coast. The National environments are other benefits of wetland resto- Marine Fisheries Service also has a key role in ration. habitat restoration with respect to the recovery of Although it is aot the principal focus of this salmon stocks aloag the coast and inland. report, it is iinportant to note that Oregon already Private partners in wetland restoration, includ- has a policy of rio net loss of wetlands, based on ing Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, the 1989 wetland conservation law ORS aad local land trusts like The Wetlands Conser- 196.672[4]!. This statute is the basis for the no vancy, often play crucial roles as well, in part be- net loss standard established as part of the Or- cause of their unique nonprofit status. Many of egon Benchmarks Program Oregon Progress these private groups work under the umbrella of Board 1994! and is implemented through the Re- the Oregon Wetland Joint Venture, which also moval-Fill Law's compensatory mitigation require- counts as partners many of the state and feder al ments. Although this policy has helped stem agenciesnoted above. wetland lossesby promoting avoidanceof wetlands On the surface, it might seem that the array of in the development process, practical difliculties wetland restoration programs aad activities are with implementing no net loss through compen- relatively well coordinated and functioniag effec- satory mitigation are another reason for promot- tively. This is true of those programs operating ing proactive, nonregulatory restoration. under the umbrella of the Joint Venture to im- Part of the net gain goal includes restoration prove waterfowl habitat, However, as detailed of ecologicalintegrity, which is defined here as "the throughout this report, wetland restoration and capability of supporting and maintaining a bal- enhancemeat could be much better integrated iato anced, integrated community of adaptive organ- many state programs, particularly those seeking isms, having a speciescomposition, diversity, and to restore fisheries, maintain or improve water functional orgaaization comparable to that of natu- quality, and mitigate flood aad erosion hazards. ral habitats in the region" Karr aad Dudley 1981!. Examples of such programs, described above, in- At regional and watershed scales, ecological include GWEB's watershed partnership, DEQ's Recommendation 1 25

tegrity is a fundamental concept in the design of 1995!, To deal effectively with the decline of healthy networks of aquatic ecosystems streams, salmon, flood losses, nonpoint source runoff, and rivers, lakes, wetlands, riparian lands, and asso- similar problems related to wetland loss, the agen- ciated uplands to be preserved and restored cies and groups promoting wetland restoration and Noss 1995!. enhancement will need to form strong partner- Implicit in the concept of ecological integrity ships with private landowners. They will need to is that wetlands are not isolated ecosystems, but provide landowners with sound advice and tech- rather they are components of the larger, inter- nical assistance, help locate funding and other connected network that makes up aquatic ecosys- incentives, and assist in removing barriers and tems lakes, streams, rivers, riparian lands, disincentives,such as unwieldy permit procedures. estuaries, and the marine environment, Although Federal, state, local, and nongovernmental agen- a few wetlands are isolated. from this network, cies and organizations are the ones who provide most are directly or indirectly connected to it these incentives, but they are sometimes not well through surface or groundwater flow. This point coordinated or sufficient to convince landowners that wetlands are an integral part of aquatic eco- to take restoration action see Recommendation systems is one of the key themes in this report. 6!. More often than not, this is because there may be substantial disincentives to restore wetlands Rationale for the Public-Private see Recommendation 5!, Another key aspect of Partnership Goal building partnerships with landowners is respect At least half the opportunities for wetland res- for private property rights. toration in Oregon are on private land OWCA

Implementation Actions

1-1. Establish a new federal-state-local-pri- chaired by the director of DSL or his or her desig- vate partnership for nonregulatory wetland nee. restoration under leadership of the Division OWRAC'sprincipal function would be to serve of State Lande. Establish an Oregon Wetland as a forum for achieving the goals in Recommen- Restoration Advisory Council to implement dation 1 and for implementing other recommen- this partnership and carry out the recom- dations in this report. Particular emphasis should mendations ia this report. be given to not duplicating the functions of existing groups, such as the Joint Venture, but rather DSL, as the state's principal wetlands conser- to filling in the gaps noted in the findings above. vation agency,should provide leadership for a new Although the advisory council would no doubt de- partnership for nonregulatory wetland restoration fine its role incrementally, it conceivably could in Oregon. Because many other public and pri- engage in partnership building among the diver- vate agencies and organizations are key players sity of federal-state-local-private actors; incorpo- in restoration planning, funding and other incen- ration of wetlands into watershed and other tives, on-the-ground implementation, and moni- restoration and enhancement programs; regional toring, DSL's leadership role should be facilitative, wetland restoration planning and priority setting; not directive. identification of research needs; development of To implement this partnership, DSL should needed scientific methods and assessment tools establish an Oregon WetlandRestoration Advisory for wetland restoration.; and definition of the rela- Council OWRAC! composedof the agencies and tionship of nonregulatory restoration initiatives organizations noted in the findings above. The to state and federal regulatory and land use pro- partnership could be initiated informally through grams designedto protect and restore wetlands. an interagency memorandum of agreement or by an administrative rule that implements ORS 196,672! quoted above! and other recommen- 1-2. Establish measurable net-gain targets for dations in this report. Such rules are authorized increasing wetland acreage and functions by ORS 196.692. The advisory council should be through restoration. 26 Recommendatfon 1

Measurable, achievable, net-gain targets for Board 1994!. The proposed Wetland Restoration restoration of both wetland area and function Site Inventory database recommended in Recom- should be established and incorporated into the mendation 9 could serve as a tool for tracking Oregon Benchmarks Program Oregon Progress wetland ecosystem changes in the state. Recommendation 2

RECOMMENDATION2; Developan Oregon hydrogeomorphicfunctional assessmentmethod for use in wetland restorationplanning and evaluation at a variety of scales.

Findings

Wetland Functions as a Basis for report for wetlandplanning, priority setting, and Restoration site restoration are based largely on such a functions-oriented approach. t the most basic level, the ecological func- Much of the literature on wetlands describes tions of wetlands, the societal services de- the functions these ecosystems perform and the rived from these functions, and the social A societal services that result see, for example, NRC and economic value of these services are the bases 1995;Wellman 1995;ODSL 1995; Gersib and oth- and rationale for protecting existing wetlands and ers 1994; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; Roth and restoring former or degraded wetlands. This others 1996; Wilen 1992; NRC 1992; NRC 1995; theme that wetland functions and services pro- Adamus and Stockwell 1983; and Adamus and vide the rationale for restoration underlies many of the recoxnmendations in this report. But estab- others 1991!. Although scientists and managers use a variety of methods to describe and group lishing the nature and degree of these relation- functions, most would agree that ecological func- ships among function, service, and value for tions can be divided into three general categories: different kinds of wetlands is not that simple. hydrologicfunctions, biogeochemical water-qual- Much wetland research today is directed at these ity! functions, and habitat and food web support questions and is contributing to the development functions. Some add another category relating to of new assessment tools and policy initiatives at social values for example, recreation, aesthetics, federal, state, and local levels. This research is education!, but others make a specific point of being encouraged by xnajor national policy stud- separating ecologicalfunctions from the services ies, such as the National Wetlands Policy Forum TCF 1988! and the report of the Interagency Com- and values that flow from or are attributed to them by society Brinson 1993!.Table 2, from the Na- mittee on Wetlands Restoration and Creation tional Academy of Science's report, Wetlands: ICWRC 1992!, and in Oregon through the Wet- Characteristics and Boundaries NRC 1995, 28!, land Conservation Strategy ODSL 1995!.Wetland is one such categorization, having the added ben- restoration is being touted as a cost-effective efit of showing the relationship of functions to the means to meet society's needs for improved flood effects they producein the environment, the value control, clean water, and healthy resource-depen- they serve in society, and indicators of their pres- dent industries, such as commercial and recreational fishing. The methods proposed in this ence.

27 2$ Recomrnendatlon 2

TaMe 2. Wetland functions, related effects of functions, corresponding societal values, and relevant indicator s of wetland functions NRC 1995!.

Functions Effects Societal Value Indicator Hydrologic

Short-term surface Reduced downstream Reduced damage Presence of water storage flood peaks from floodwater s floodplain along river corridor

Long-term surface Maintenance of base Maintenance of fish Topographic relief on water storage flows, seasonal flow habitat during dry floodplain distribution periods

Maintenance of high- Maintenance of hy- Maintenance of Presence of water table drophyticvegetation biodiversity hydrophyte s

Bi o geochemical

Transformation, Maintenance of Wood production Tree growth cycling of elements nutrient stocks within wetland

Retention, removal Reduced transport of Maintenance of water Nutrient outflow of dissolved nutrients quality lower than inflow substances downstream Accumulation of peat Retention of Maintenance of water Increase in depth of nutrients, metals, quality peat and other substances

Accumulation of Retention of Maintenance of water Increase in depth of inorganic substances sediments and some quality sediment nutrients

Habitat and Food Web Support

Maintenance of Food, nesting, cover Support forwaterfowl, Mature wetland characteristic plant for animals furbearers vegetation communities

Maintenanceof Supportfor Maintenance of High diversity of characteristic energy P P hiodiversity vertebrates flow vertebrates

Wetland Functional Assessment Methods one wetland versus another, There are even fewer for Restoration assessment tools for evaluating groups of wetlands One of the frequent criticisms of wetland man- at larger landscape scales, such as watersheds or agement and regulation is that all wetlands are ecoregions, and fewer still that focus on the resto- treated equally, when in fact they are often very ration potential of former or degraded wetlands. different in structure, function, and quality. Al- What is needed to implement the wetland res- though these criticisms are often overstated, it is toration planning, priority setting, and actions true that wetland managers do not have adequate envisioned in this report is an assessment method tools to characterize and quantify the functions of or an interrelated set of inethods that work well Recommendation 2 29

In addition to their ecological Wetlands help maintain water quality, reduce down- functions, wet- stream flooding, and provide jish and wildlife habitat lands are also Ji m Good photo!. valued as recreational resources N'SGS photo!. at scales ranging from whole ecosystemsto individual restoration sites. The term potential functions is important in this context a method or land types, is not easily adaptable to landscape- set of methods is needed that estimates how former level analysis, and does not provide quantitative or degraded wetlands, oncerestored, might func- estimates of function, only probabilities. tion at a variety of scales.With reasonable confi- dence, an assessment method must be able to Oregon'sFreshwater Wetland Assessment predict physical and biologicalconditions after res- Methodology toration and the trajectory of change. So what as- To address some of the shortcomings of WET, sessment options exist? several states have developed regionally tailored wetland functional assessmenttechniques. One of Wetland EvaluationTechnique them is Oregon'sFresh, water Wetland Assessment A variety of assessment methodologies have Methodology, or OFWAM Roth and others 1996!. been developedto evaluate existing wetland func- OFWAM assesses six wetland functions wildlife tions, values, and serviceslike those described in habitat, fish habitat, water quality, hydrologic con- table l. One of the earliest was developed for the trol, education, and recreation! and three wetland Federal Highway Administration Adamus 1983; conditions sensitivity to impacts, enhancement Adamus and Stockwell 1983!. This system was potential, and aesthetics!.OFWAM is an excellent subsequentlymodified and updated and published tool for its intended purposes assessing a group by the Corps as Wetland Evaluation Vkchnique,or of wetlands in a land use planning context or for WET Adamus and others 1991!. WET is a broad- education. But it was not designed for use in wet- brush approach to wetland evaluation based on land restoration assessment as envisioned here. information about correlative predictors of ll wet- OFWAM, like WET, can not be scaled for use with land functions and values that can be gathered larger landscapes.Again like WET, the same as- relatively quickly. The WET process generates sessment approach is used to evaluate all wet- high-, moderate-, or low-probability ratings that lands, regardless of inherent functional a particular wetland performs a given function. It differences. OFWAM also mixes the assessment has been used primarily in the regulatory process of ecologicalfunctions with socialfunctions, lead- to assesswetlands proposedfor alteration and to ing to possibleconfusion of science-basedquestions help designand monitor restoredor createdwet- with policy questions. Also, the results of an evalu- lands. But it has also been used for advanced iden- ation tell you only whether or not a function is tification of important wetlands to be protected performedor intact; it doesnot providea basisfor and for setting priorities for acquisition or re- comparison of sites, except generally. Finally, it is search. For assessing wet1and restoration oppor- designedfor evaluation of existing wetlands,not tunities as proposedhere, WET is not that useful former wetlands or degraded sites although there becauseit uses a single method to assessall wet- is a set of questions that incompletely addresses 30 Recommendation 2 restoration potential!, OFWAM would need sub- HGM classification is based on three principal stantial revisions to make it useful for wetland hydrogeomorphic characteristics of wetlands: geo- restoration assessment as envisioned here. morphic setting, water source and transport vec- tor, and hydrodynamics. Water chemistry and soil The HydrogeomorphIcApproach properties axe also important variables R. D. A relatively new tool under developxnent is the Smith, pers. corn. 1996!. The strength of HGM as hydrogeomorphic HGM! approach to wetland compared to other classification systems is that functional assessment Brinson 1993; Brinson variations in these hydrogeomorphic properties 1995, Brinson 1996; Smith and others 1995!. The are directly related to the ecological functions of HGM approach was developed in response to the wetlands table 2!. However, an HGM classifica- Army Corps of Engineers' the Corps! need for an tion system is not intended to replace other wet- improved rapid assessment tool to evaluate func- land classification systems, such as that used for tional losses and compensatory mitigation require- the National Wetlands Inventory Cowardin and ments in the Section 404 regulatory program. A others 1979!. It simply serves as a first-order general framework or model for HGM has been stratification for performing wetland functional developed at the national level, but for local use, assessments or for characterizing wetland func- it must be adapted to account for regional differ- tions at larger landscape scales. Ideally, it should ences. Given the national commitment and plan interface with other classification systems to bet- of the Corps, the U,S, Environmental Protection ter describe wetlands. Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the In HGM classification, geomorphic setting re- Natural Resources Council Service, and the Fed- fers to topographic position in the landscape,from exal Highway Administration to implement HGM which seven basic wetland classes are derived Federal Register!, it would make sense for Or- table 3!. Water sources include precipitation, lat- egon to at least initiate a pilot study at the state eral flows from upstream ox upslope, and ground level. HGM addresses some of the shortcomings water. Respectively, these sources correspond to of WET and OFWAM at the site assessment level transport from the atmosphere, transport by sur- and has potential for adaptation to larger land- face or near-surface flows, and subsurface trans- scape scales, as demonstrated in Washington State port by flow of groundwater froxn unconfined Gersib and others 1994; Gersib 1996!. aquifers. Hydrodynamic velocities can vary within

Table 8. Hydrogeomorphic classes of raetlands showing associated dominant water sources,hydrodynamics, and examples of subclasses Smith and others 1995!.

Hydrogeomorphic Dominant Water Doxninant Exanxples of Class Source Hydrodynaxnics Subclasses

Riverine Overbank flow from Unidirectional, Riparian forested channel horizontal

Depressional Return flow from Vertical Vernal pools groundwater and interflow

Slope Return flow from Unidirectional, Avalanche chutes groundwater horizontal

Mineral soil flats Precipitation Vertical Large playas

Organic soil fiats Precipitation Vertical Peat bogs

Estuarine fringe Overbank flow froxn Bidirectional Coos Bay marshes estuary horizontal

Lacustrine fringe Overbank flow from lake Bidirectional, Malheur Lake horizontal marshes Recommendation 2 31 each of three flow types: primarily vertical, pri- wetlands are wetland sites in a defined geographic marily unidirectional and horizontal, and prima- region that correspond to the known variation of rily bidirectional and horizontal. Vertical a wetland subclass. Reference wetlands should be movements are due to evapotranspiration and sites where variables that relate to function can precipitation, unidirectional flows are downslope or have been measured and thus serve as bench- mavement that occurs from seeps and on flood- marks for comparison. Reference wetlands are plains, and bidirectional flows are astronomic tides used to establish the range of functioning within or wind-driven seiches. Important water chemis- the subclass, from pristine wetlands to those dis- try properties include salinity, a primary factor in turbed by urban fi11or agricultural conversion.The coastal wetlands and discharge wetlands. Turbid- extent to which disturbed wetlands are different ity, humic and fulvic content, and conductivity are from more natural ones provides insight into the important properties of fresh water. Soil proper- relationships betweenwetland structure, function, ties that help define functions include organic con- and the nature af disturbance. As we assess refer- tent and grain size.For example,in dryer climates, ence wetlands, certain variables or indicators of' wetlands with coarse-textured sediments are al- variables that affect the capacity of a wetland to most always areas of groundwater discharge, perform a functionbecome apparent. Froin these whereas those with fine sediments may be re- indicators, we can develop and test subjective as- charge, flawthrough, or discharge. sessment models based upon best professional The ecological significance and role of judgment and a review of the scientific literature. hydrogeomorphic characteristics can be deter- Referencestandards are the conditions exhibited mined fram previous studies of different types of by a group of reference wetlands that correspond wetlands. Once the hydrogeomorphic character- to the highest level of functioning across the suite istics are described for a particular subclass of of functions of the subclass. By definition, refer- wetlands, they are used to develop a functional ence standards receive an index score of 1.0. Ref- profile for that subclass. Functions for one class erence wetlands and referencestandard sites from at the national level riverine wetlands includes which reference standards are derived are real indices for 15 separate functions table 4!. parts of the landscape.They can be monitored aver A second important aspect of the HGM ap- the long term and the results can be used to re- proach is the use of referencewetlands. Reference fine reference standards.

Table 4. Functions of ri Uerine wetland classes Hydrologic ~ Dynainic surface water storage Brinson and others 7995!. Functions ~ Long-term surface water storage ~ Energy dissipation Subsurface storage of water ~ Moderation of groundwater flow or discharge

Biogeocheniical ~ Nutrient cycling Functions ~ Removal of imparted elements or compounds ~ Retentian of particulates ~ Organic carbon transport

Plant Habitat ~ Maintain characteristic plant communities Functions ~ Maintain characteristic detrital biomass

Animal Habitat ~ Maintain spatial structure of habitat Functions ~ Maintain habitat interspersion and connectivity ~ Maintain distribution and abundance of invertebrates ~ Maintain distribution and abundance of vertebrates 32 Recommendation 2

This relati vely pristine wetland may be ideal as a reference standard wetland for its hydrogeomorphic class Jim Good photo!.

The third component of HGM is wetland func- ties that influence the performance of a function. tional assessment models and the functional indi- Variables are aggregated in such a way as to de- ces that result from them. A model incorporates scribe the relationship between the variables and, variables or indicators of variables associated with the function. Models take the form Index of the important wetland processes and characteris- function A Vi+V2+V3+V

Implementation Actions

HGN should be developed as a set of integrated cedures for use in restoration planning at three wetland functional assessment methods useful in scales: ecoregions, watersheds, and individual restoration planning at several scales individual sites figure 3!. The Division of State Lands DSL! sites, watersheds, and ecoregions. The detail, should initiate this pracess through s. pilot study, specificity, and even functions examined will nec- focusing mainly on the site-specific HGM ap- essarily change with scale, but the intent is to proach, but with simultaneous attention to develop a consistent assessment framework that ecoregian- and watershed-scale applications. The can be easily interrelated. Because it will take sev- first task should be to develop a statewide frame- eral years to develop HGM in the manner envi- work for HGM, including ecoregian-based classi- sioned, it is stressed that the best available fications and profiles figure 3, steps 1 through 4!. methods now in use should continue to be used. The preliminary classification system developed None of the other recommendations in this report by Washington State for the Puget Sound lowlands should be viewed as HGM dependent; restoration serves as a regionally relevant example of the first opportunities should continue to be pursued ag- step in this process table 5!. From step 5 an, HGM- gressively. It is further suggested that an HGM- based restoration assessment methods far each of based restoration assessment framework be the three scales ecoregion, watersheds, and developed and applied to aquatic ecasystems gen- sites should be developed separately, but in a erally streams, lakes, riparian lands, associated consistent, integrated manner. uplands, and wetlands. Ecoreglon-ScaleHCM Approach. 2-1. Develop a consistent, multiple-scale, Following development of a preliminary state- hydrogeomorphic approach to wetland func- wide HGM classification system, an ecoregion- tional assessment for Oregon, beginning with level, HGM-based process for evaluating wetland a pilot study. restaration opportunities should be developed. Such a process would likely be GIS-intensive and An Oregon HGM appraach to wetland functional assessment should include interrelated pro- be used to help set long-range priorities for pro- Recommendation 2 33

Step 1: Identify Classes: ~ Use Level III ecoregions as initial basis for subdividing Identify HGM wetland classes state for HGM class identification. and subcl asses types!. ~ Use Level IV ecoregions to guide identification of wetland types and candidates for referencewetlands.

Step 2: Define Functions: ~ Discriminate betweenuetland types by uniquely defining Identify ecological functions wetland functions for each type at each scale. typically performed by each ~ For each function at each scale, make qualitative estimates of the expectedoptimal performance levels. wetland type at each scale: ~ For each scale, describe and document functions and ecoregion, watershed, site expectedperformance levels in a wetland type profile. profiles!.

Step 3: Reference Wetlands: ~ Referencewetlands may range from fully functioning sites Identify a range of reference to degraded or even former wetlands, wetlands for each type.

Step 4: Select Indicators: For ~ Combinations of variables are used to model functions to each wetland type, identify determine a single index, potential variables or indicators ~ Some variables may contribute to index establishment for more than one function. of variables for each function.

Step 5: Prelixninary Models: ~ Use bestprofessional j udgment of wetland expertsin region Develop preliminary functional to develop preliminary models. assessment models. ~ Models take the following form: lIndex of function A= VI+ Vg+Vg+Vj.

Step 8: Field Work: Conduct ~ Variables or indicators are evaluated in the field to build field investigations of reference data sets on the range of functioning within a wetland type. wetlands of each type.

Step 7: Reference Sites: Select ~ These are the "best-of-the-best wetlands of each type, reference standard wetland sites. based on high performance levels across the full suite of functions being examined,

Step 8: Finalize Models: ~ Data sets from referencestandard wetlands are used to test, Finalize functional assessment modify, and calibrate functional assessmentmodels. models: indexes of function and ~ Models are updated as new information becomes a v ail a hie. reference standards, ~ Resulting functional assessmentmodels can be used to >compareimpacts of proposeddevelopment alternatives l compare functional lossesof developmentprojects unth functional gains of proposed mitigation projects I help design and predict functional capacity of proactive, nonregulatory wetland restoration or creation projects I select among alternati ve nonregulatory restoration projects basedon functional cost-effectiveness

Figure 8. Processfor developinga hydrogeomorphicapproach to wetland functional assessmentin Oregon. 34 Recommendation 2 moting and funding restoration of wetland ecosys- evaluating functional losses and gains in the Re- tem functions statewide. It is anticipated that the moval-Fill and Section 404 permit processes. HGM convening group for this level of analysis would would also have useful applications in training and be the proposed Oregon Wetland Restoration Ad- education. visory Council Recommendation 1! or a subunit of the council. How the results of this evaluation 2-2. In the interim prior to development of would fit within the larger ecoregion-level wetland improved methods for wetland functional restoration planning process is discussed further assessment, continue to use existing meth- in Recommendation 3. ods to assess the restoration or enhancement potential of former or degraded wetlands. Watershed-ScaieHCM Approach If an HGM approach to wetland functional as- An HGM function-baaed approach to evaluat- sessmentis developedin Oregon, it will be a num- ing sets of wetland restoration opportunities at ber of years before the necessary models and the watershed level should be another outgrowth methods are in place for use in wetland restora- of the statewide HGM wetland classification sys- tion planning and priority setting. In the interim, tem. A good example of how this might work in it is essential that wetland restoration and en- Oregon is the HGM-based characterization of re- hancement opportunities continue to be identified storable wetlands in the Stillaguamish watershed and evaluated, designed and constructed, and in northern Puget Sound Gersib 1996!. Such a monitored for success. In all cases, the best avail- process, like the ecoregion one described above, able processesand tools for these activities need would be integrated in the broader watershed res- to be employed. They may include WET, OFWAM, toration planning process described further in best professionaljudgment, and various watershed Recommendation 3!. Local watershed councils or analysis methods. Although many of the recom- similar groups would be the principal implemen- mendations in this report refer to or include the tation mechanism, although some technical sup- use of HGM as the functional assessment approach port or training would likely be needed. of choice, most can be undertaken without the benefit of HGM. A flexible perspective is strongly Site-Specific-ScaleHCIVl Approach endorsed. For a pilot ecoregioii, the statewide HGM classification system should be refined and one or more 2-3. Evaluate the feasibility of developiiig a functions selectedfrom a single class for develop- hydrogeomorphic approach to riparian eco- ment of site-specific functional assessment mod- system classification and functional assess- els figure 3, steps 5 through 8!. Based on this ment. experience, a full implementation strategy for a site-specific Oregon HGM approach should be de- An HGM framework has general validity for veloped for the entire state, with regional priori- classifying other components of aquatic ecosys- ties, a schedule, and costs. Again, recent experience tems, such as riparian areas and streams. Devel- in Washington State with site-specific HGM should opment of an HGM-based riparian habitat be instructive Granger and others 1996!. Recom- classification system that could be further inte- mendation 3 discusses use of HGM at the site scale grated with existing stream classifications for project design and monitoring. Frissell and others 1986! would facilitate the in- As envisioned in this report, the principal use tegration of stream, riparian, and wetland resto- of HGM would be to serve as a basis for integrated ration programs and activities into an overall evaluation of the restoration potential of former framework for aquatic ecosystemrestoration. Al- or degraded wetlands. But HGM would also have though this is beyond the scopeof the present re- other uses. For example, the HGM reference stan- port, developing such an integrated system of dard sites identified in step 7 of figure 3 would classification systems should be evaluated further also serve as the basis for identifying outstanding by DSL, the Governor's Watershed Enhancement state wetlands OAR 141-86-360 et seq.!. The site- Board, and other agenciesinvolved in the proposed specific HGM approach would also be useful for Oregon Wetland Restoration Advisory Council. Recommendation 2 P5

Ihble 5. Draft HEI classesand subclassesfor the PugetSound Laiolands region of Washington State Granger and others 1996!.

CLASS SUBCLASS Class Riverine Valley Subclass Riverine Valley Connectecl Riverine valley wetlands occur in topographic Riverine wetlands that have a direct surface water valleys associated with stream or river connection to a stream or river that discharges into corridors. The dominant water sources are the ocean. The direct surface water connection overbank flow from the channel or through a between wetland and stream can be seasonal or subsurface hydraulic connection between the more permanent in nature. stream and wetland the hyporheic zone!. Surface and shaHow subsurface water Subclass Riverine Valley Unconnected movement in most wetlands is unidirectional Riverine wetlands that have no direct surface flow from the valley sides toward the stream into or from rivers or streams. The prixnary source channel, from the stream channel toward the of water is groundwater linked to the hyporheic adjacent floodplain and downstreaxn during zoneexcept during time of flooding when surface overbank events, Situations may occur, water dominates. In rare cases a valley wetland however, where the dominant hydrodynamics within the 100-year floodplain may form on are vertical such as a wetland that is impermeable glacial tills and be fed mostly by unconnected to a river but controlled by water rainfa11. This wetland should probably be classified levels in the hyporheic zone. At the headwaters as a depressional or slope wetland, and may be of streams, riverine wetlands are often replaced difficult to classify without a detailed by depressional or slope wetlands where the understanding of soils and local patterns of water dominant source of water becomes surface flow. runoff or groundwater seepage. Field Characteristics for Washington State: Riverine valley wetlands are those that lie within the 100-yearfloodplain, or whereno floodplainis mappedby visual evidenceof frequentoverbank flooding suchas 1! early successionalwetland plant speciesindicative of recentflood disturbance, 2! recentand undecomposed,flood debris, and 3! historical evidenceof flooding at least onceevery five years. Class Depressional Subclass Depress lanai Connected Depressionalwetlands occur in topographic Depressional wetlands that have a surface water depressions; they exhibit a closed contour outflow to a stream or river eventually discharging interval s! and elevations that are lower than into the ocean! for at least part of the year. They the surrounding landscape. The shape of exhibit a closed contour interval s! and elevations depressionalwetlands vary, but in all cases,the that are lower than the surrounding landscape. movement of surface water and shallow Connecteddepressional wetlands have a defined subsurface water from at least three cardinal outflow channel that physically connects to an directions in the surrounding landscape is intermittent or perennial stre axn, toward the point of lowest elevation in the depression. The movexnent of surface water in depressionalwetlands is mostly vertical up and Subclass Depressional Unconnected Depressionalwetlands that have no surface water down!. Depressianalwetlands may be isolated connection to channels, streams, or rivers. with no surface water inflow or outflow through Unconnected. depressional wetlands may have a defined channel or they may have permanent surface water inflow but no outflow through a or intermittent, surface water inflow or outflow defined channel. in defined channels, that connects them to other surface waters or wetlands. Depressional wetlands with channels or streams differ from riverine wetlands in that their primary source of water is surface runoff, groundwater, or rainfall, not the water in the stream, 36 Recommendation 2

Tbble 5. Drag HGM classes and subclasses for the Puget Sound Lowlands region of Washington State continued!.

Field Characteristics for Washington State: Depressional wetlands are 1! not classifiable as a riverine wetland, 2! lie in a topographic depression where the slope on at least three sides above the wetland is at least 1%. Very small wetlands found in surface depressions with only a 1-3 foot topographic relief may be difficult to classify. If such small wetlands form a mosaic an a landscape that is flat it may be more appropriate to classify thexn as a single wetland in the "flat's" class. If the overall coverage of wetlands is mare than 50% of the land, but the individual wetlands are smaller than 1/4 acre, the entire complex should be classified as one wetland din the "flats" class.

HYDROGEOMORPHIC CLASS HYDROGEOMORPHIC SUBCLASS

Class Slope Subclass Slope Connected» Slope wetlands occur on hill or valley slopes. Slope wetlands with a surface water connection, at Elevation gradients may range fram steep least periodically, to an interxnittent or perennial hillsides ta slight slopes. Principal water stream or other surface water body connected to a sources are usually groundwater seepage and stream or river that discharges into the ocean. precipitation. Slope wetlands may occur in nearly flat landscapes if groundwater discharge is a dominant source of water and there is flow in one direction. The movement of surface and Subclass Slope Unconnected shallow subsurface water is perpendicular to Slope wetlands isolated from streaxns or surface topographic contour lines, Slope wetlands are waters. distinguished from the riverine wetland class by the lack of a defined topographic valley with observable features of bed and bank. Slope wetlands may develop channels but the channels serve only to convey water away &om the slope wetland. Field Characteristics for Washington State: Slope wetlands in Washington are found on hillsides or at the edge of hill where they grade into a river valley. They are identified by the fact that: 1! they are on a slope, even if very gradual!, 2! they lack closed contours and cannot store surface water, and 3! they have no obvious surface water inflows such as streams or channels.

Class Flats Flats wetlands occur in topographically flat areas that are hydrolagically isolated from surrounding groundwater or surface water. The main source of water in these wetlands is precipitation. They receive virtually na groundwater discharge which distinguishes them froxn depressional and slope wetlands, The Technical Committee decided that for Washington there was no need to create two separate classes for "flats" as proposed in the current HGM dacuxnentation. Flats" wetlands are not very common in the state, and the committee judged that both organic and mineral flats found in the state perform the same functions and do not need to be separated. The A-team developing the models for the flats, however, may decide that further divisions are necessary. Class Lacustrine %ringe Lacustrine fringe wetlands occur at the margin of topographic depressions in which fresh surface water is greater than 2 meters deep. They are found along the edges of bodies of water such as lakes. The dominant surface water movement in fringe wetlands has a bi-directional horizontal component due to winds or currents, but there may also be a corresponding up and down vertical coxnponent resulting from seiches, wind, or seasonal water fluctuations. No subclasses are proposed for the Lacustrine Fringe class in Washington State.

*Connected and unconnected refers to perennial ar intermittent surface water connection to a river or stream. Recommendation 2 37

Table5. Draft HGM classesand subclassesfor the PugetSound Lowlands region of Washington State tcontinued!.

Field Characteristics for Washington State: Lacustrine fringe wetlands are those adjacent to bodiesof freshwater that are at least two meters deepwith no evidenceof water flow in one direction. Somewetlands may be adjacentto rivers that are morethan two metersdeep but thesewould be classified as riverine because there is measurable flow in one direction. Class Estuarine Fringe Subclass Estuarine Saltwater Frira ge Estuarine fringe wetlands occur at the margin Estuarine fringe wetlands in which the dominant of topographicdepressions in which marine water fiows have salinities that are higher than 0.5 waters are greater than 2 meters deep, They parts per thousand. are found along the coastsand in river mouths to the extent of tidal influence. The dominant Subclass Estuarine Freshwater Fringe source of water is from the ocean or river. The Estuarine fringe wetlands in which the dominant one unifying characteristic of this class is water flows are tidal but freshwater, with salinities hydrodynamic.All estuarine fringe wetlands below 0.5 parts per thousand. have water flows dominated by tidal influences with water depths controlled by the tidal cycles.

Recommendation 3

RECOMMENDATION3: Establish a fully integrated framework for wetland restorationassessment, priority setting, and actionsat three scales:watersheds, ecoregions, and project sites.

Findings

ver the last decade in Oregon, the water- discussed below, this is not the case.Instead, it is shed approach to ecosystem restoration recommended that wetland restoration needs and has become a well-established principle. opportunities and aquatic ecosystemrestoration The approach is based on the premise that resto- generally also be examined from an ecoregion ration of aquatic ecosystemsis likely to be more perspective. Ecoregions and watersheds are often successful and beneficial if it is planned and car- viewed as competing frameworks for resource ried out in the context of a whole watershed, rather management, an either/or choice. As proposed than through piecemeal,ad hoc proj ects. This per- here, ecoregions and watersheds are viewed as spective was strongly supported in the National complementary, interrelated landscape subdivi- Research Council NRC! report RestarfJtion of sions. Each contributes to our understanding of Aquatic Ecasystems NRC 1992!. In discussing ap- historic and present-day wetland ecosystempro- proaches to aquatic ecosystem restoration, the cesses,structure, and function. Each contributes committee stated that "the integrated approach to our understanding of the issues and problems ... tries to consider the major ecological interac- restoration might address. And each helps us map tions in a watershed and seeks to nurture the the route toward desired future conditions. watershed's restoration to a functioning system" NRC 1992, 341!. Today,Oregon's local watershed Rationale and Benefits of the Watershed action programs are the heart of the recovery strat- Approach egy for coastal coho salmon CSRI 1997!, are cen- The rationale for using watersheds as part of tral to habitat improvement programs for other our landscape framework for wetland and aquatic salmonids throughout the state, and are a key part ecosystemrestoration is clear and well accepted. of the strategy for improving water quality, In Some examples illustrate why. 1997,the state legislature provided $30 million to fund these programs over the next two years and ~ Watershedsare logicalunits for assessingsome made a commitment for continued support over key ecosystemfeatures. the long term. A watershed is a meaningful unit for describ- Given the widespread support for a watershed ing, assessing,and, where opportunities exist, re- approach to ecosystemrestoration in Oregon, it is storing the connectivity of aquatic ecosystemsfrom tempting ta recommend that watersheds be the ridgetop to river mouth a key feature of ecosys- one and only landscape level for addressing wet- tem integrity. The importance of connectivity in a land restoration needs. For a variety of reasons 40 Recommendation 9

What Are lVatersheCh7 7'he term watershed as used here refers to the entire physical area or basin drained by a distinct stream or river system, physically separated from other eater sheds by ridgetop boundaries figure 4!. Watersheds in the context of wetland and aquatic ecosystem restoration may be relatively small basins, such as the Coqui7le, Yaquina, Elk, and ¹stucca on the Oregon coast; or similar or smaller-sized subwatersheds of larger basins, such as the Applegate River or Jittie Butte Creek in the Rogue basin, or fhe McXenzm, Calapooia, or Vbalatin in the WiQarnette Basin. From an institutional perspective, a watershed is one ivhere a watershed council or association has been or could be established, or where a city, county, or state or federal agency is planning within i ts area ofjurisdiction, From a hydrologic perspective, and for associated data collection and display purposes, watersheds may be U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic units or Oregon Water Resources Department basins.

%gare 4. Qpical watershed bounded by ridgetops.

watershed context is well illustrated by the life poses using a watershed approach. Examples of cycles of salmonids, species that depend on differ- such functions include the capacity for short-term ent parts of watersheds for different life stages. storage of surface waters that can reduce down- Other ecological characteristics of wetlands, such stream flood peaks; storage of groundwater that as size and adjacency to other wetlands or to helps maintain base flows, natural seasonal flow streams, lakes, or estuaries, are also well consid- variability, and biodiversity; retention, transfor- ered at this scale. mation, or removal of dissolved substances, organ- ics, or inorganic sediment delivered from upslope ~ Watershedsare useful for analysisof certain sources, thereby improving water quality; and the wetland functions. support of characteristic plant and animal com- Many of the ecological functions performed by munities that are often distributed along water- wetlands and other components of aquatic ecosys- shed gradients. tems might be best analyzed for restoration pur- Recommendotion 3 41

~ Watershed data are available. ~ Technicalsupport is limited. Restoration planning can be a very data-inten- With more than 60 watershed councils siveprocess, and a greatdeal of dataare currently throughout the state and more forming each year, collected, compiled, and made available on a wa- some groups may not be able to marshal the tershed basis; this facilitates the assessment pro- needed technical support to incorporate the best cess and reduces costs. available science into the assessment of wetland restoration opportunities, the setting of priorities ~ Watersheds are often the basis for local among sites; and the design, construction, and restoration advocacygroups. monitoring of projects. This problem the failure The principal institutional means for organiz- of restoration planners to use available informa- ing restorationefforts is through localwatershed tion was highlighted in the NRC study quoted councils people are beginning to identify with earlier NRC 1992, 347!. This might be viewed as their watershed and with the watershed approach. positive by some watershed groups who distrust Clearly, for these and other reasons, a water- or are turned off by government and academic "ex- shed approach must be central to any statewide perts" and their technological approaches. These wetland restoration program. But the approach kinds of barriers, however, need to be broken down does have sozne limitations, to ensure that all available information is brought to bear on problems. Limitations of the WatershedApproach Although watersheds are a necessaryscale for The Casefor a ComplementaryEcoregion considering wetland and aquatic ecosystemresto- Approachto Restoration ration opportunities and needs, the watershed For a variety of ecological, institutional, and approach on its own has some shortcomings. practical reasons,ecoregions serve as a valuable Again, several examples illustrate this point. complementto watershedsfor evaluatingwetland restoration needs and opportunities. In doing so, ~ Somefunctions operate at differentscales, they address many of the shortcomings of a wa- Some ecological functions performed by wet- tersheds-only approach. Some of these reasons are lands and aquatic ecosystemsoperate at different- outlined below. than-watershed scales. Analysis at other, often larger, landscapelevels is neededto understand ~ Ecoregionsare the starting point for a functional capacities and restoration needs. The hydrogeomorphic HCM! approach. home ranges for migratory waterfowl and large Because ecoregions are by definition areas of mammals are obvious examples,but there are oth- ecologicalsimilarity, they are useful for stratify- ers as well. ing wetlandsfrom a functional perspective.Con- sequently,ecoregions serve as the starting point ~ Significantvariation exists along watershed for the HGM approach recommended earlier. gradients. There is considerable ecological, socioeconomic, ~ Some wetland functions are best understood at and institutional variation along longitudinal gra- this scale. dients of watersheds. As a result, there are often The ecoregionframework is a valuable comple- more homogeneity and transferability between ment to watersheds for examining functional res- subunits of adjacent watersheds than within in- toration potential of former or degraded wetlands dividual watersheds. Examples where this might to address the practical issues and problems faced be important are establishing restoration goals by communitiesand resourcemanagers, such as and priorities; designing and constructing projects; water-quality maintenance, flood-hazard mitiga- establishing criteria for what constitutes success- tion, and wildlife-habitat improvement. The ex- ful restoration and setting up appropriate moni- amples below illustrate this point, toring criteria and schedules; and involving interest groups, industry trade organizations, fed- Habitot funct>ons era.l and state agencies, and funding source rep- An ecoregion, by definition, has characteristic resentatives. plant communitiesthat, in turn, support charac-

Recommendation 3 43

Hydrologicfunctions tribute to that function at the restoration site can In a relatively large basin like the Willamette, be monitored over time and compared to reference there are at least a dozen watersheds where wa- standards to estimate success. tershed-level restoration planning is underway or where the potential exists for forming a local coun- ~ Institutional boundaries approximate ecoregion cil for doing so. But solutions to flooding problems boundaries. are more of a basinwide problem. A x'ecent report Ecoregionsapproximate the jurisdictional and doxie for the River Network Coulton and others program boundaries for many state and federal 1996! found that flooding along the valley floor agencies,and nongovernmental organizations ac- portionsof lowerWillamette tributary watersheds tive in wetland restoration. For example, federal might be best mitigated by restoring riverine and and Oregon State agencieswith agriculture inter- floadplain wetlands in upstream tributary water- ests the Natural Resources Conservation Ser- sheds. Watershed councils on these upstream vice, the Farm Services Agency, and the Oregon tributaries of the Willamette, such as the Department of Agriculture tend to focus on val- McKenzie River Council, would be unlikely to ad- ley bottomland wetlands. Agencies that focus on dress this issue without a higher perspective, forested foothills and mountains include the U.S. ecoregion-level assessment and priority-setting Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, process. and the Oregon Department of Forestry, These "home ranges" roughly correspond to ecoregion ~ Ecoregionsprovide a basisfor developing boundaries. Examples of restoration incentive pro- restoration design specifications. grams with similar ecoregionboundary correspon- Ecoregions, because of their ecological homo- dence are the Wetland Reserve Program and geneity,also serveas a useful framework for de- Partners for Wildlife, which focus on farmed ar- veloping design specificationsor templates for eas, valleys, and lakes that serve as waterfowl wetland restoration. This template development habitat. Capitalizing on historic agency interests processis inherent to the HGM approachto build- in certain landscapes and making the most effec- ing functional assessmentmodels, a processthat tive use of agency expertise and programs suggests is described in Recommendation 2. One of the prod- analysis of wetland restoration needs and oppor- ucts of the HGM process is reference standards. tunities within an ecoregion framework. Reference standards for the functions performed by a given wetland class, and the specific refer- ~ Largeecoregion areas are appropriatefor state- ence site s! from which they are derived, can serve level restoration policy guidance. as design specifications and templates for func- Ecoregions, because they consider very large tional restoration of former or degraded wetlands. landscape subdivisions that often correspondwith Reference standard sites are not needed for each areas of federal and state agency resource man- watershed; rather, only a few for each wetland agementmandates, are appropriatescales for in- class within an ecoregion are needed. This will tegrating state-level policy considerationsand make protection and monitoring of reference sites priorities into local, watershed-levelplanning ef- more feasible and likely. forts for example, promoting wetland restoration within tributary watersheds in the upper ~ Ecoregionsprovide a basisfor developing Willamette basin to provide benefits in the Port- restoration "success"criteria and monitoring land metro area Coulton and others 1996!. guidelines. How to define success in wetland. restoration ~ Ecoregionsare amenableto multiple-interest, and what attributes to monitor to measure consensus-buildingprocesses with a strongscience progresshas beena continuingdebate in the sci- basis. entific community. The ecoregion-basedHGM clas- Ecoregions are also amenable to innovative sification system and referencestandards and sites consensus-building planning approaches,such as discussed above also provide the basis for setting the AdaptiveEnvironmental Assessment approach up a meaningful monitoring program for deter- cited in the NRC report NRC 1992, 345!, where mining restoration success. If, for example, the scientists, resource managers, interest groups, restoration goal is to improve habitat for a par- watershed council representatives, and elected ticular animal community, the variables that con- officials interactively design restoration goals,

Recommendation 3 45

EcoregioIi Level ~ Level III and IV ecoregion-based evaluation ~ Statewideapplication by state-led teams ~ Integrates similar ecosystemsand functions at larger-than-water shed scales ~ HGM approachto wetland function analysis ~ Current, historic, and desired future conditions guide planning ~ Problem-solving and need-centered priorities ~ Products: characterization, reference wetlands,restoration goals and actionplan ~ Implementation:regionally by federal, state, private groups; locally by watershedcouncils, cities, mounties, and private groups

Watershed Level ~ Watershed-based evaluation parts of several ecoregions! ~ Community-based, local leadership by watershed councils, cities, or counties ~ Factors in needs and priorities from ecoregions ~ HGM approachto wetland functionanalysis ~ Current, historic, desired future conditions, basedon benefit-costanalysis, guide planning ~ Problem-solvingand need-centeredpriorities ~ Product: action plan network of priority sites for wetland restoration ~ Implementation: voluntary through watershed councils, cities, counties

Project Site Level ~ Projectsselected based on ecoregionor watershedpriorities and willing landowners ~ Current, historic,and desiredfuture site conditionsguide planning; HGM used to assess functionalcapacity of alternative site designs ~ Willing public and private landowners plan and carry out projectswith technicalassistance ~ Monitoringand evaluationplan specifiedin advance and resources identified ~ Product: functional, self-sustaining restored wetlands that serve landowner and community needs ~ Implementation: landowners

Figure6. Conceptualframeuork for toetlandrestoration planning and priority setting in Oregon, 46 Recommendation 9 including descriptive profiles. The assessment to be wetlands but that for some reason are not process would include the steps below, tailored to today. Historical conditions are not used as a strict ecoregion-level scales. Broad public involvement template for how the landscape might actually be would be appropriate in several of the steps. restored in the future. Instead, historical conditions provide insight into how the ecosystem Characterization of aquatic ecosystem pro- worked at some time in the past when there were cesses, structure, and functions to gain an fewer or no human disturbances. Historical con- understanding of how the entire system ditions can also provide insight into how distur- works and the role of wetlands in that sys- bances or changes resulted in the loss of a wetland tem and whether or not restoration is technically fea- 2. Analysis of current wetland conditions, sible. Although historical analysis is indispensable using an HGM classification system and to restoration assessment, many other factors are profiles also involved in the decision of what wetlands to 3. Analysis of historical wetland conditions, restore and how to restore them. Present-day prob- using an HGM classification system and lems and needs, present land use and future com- profiles mitments, landowner willingness, public and 4. Analysis and prioritization of problems or private costs, and other actors need to be consid- needs that wetland restoration might serve ered. For example, overlaying historical and 5. Analysis of existing and possible future present-day bottomland vegetation and land use constraints to restoration, including land for an area like the Coquille River figure 7! helps use, economic, social, and political con- sort out what are or are not restoration opportunities. straints 6. Evaluating alternative wetland and What will the products be at the ecoregion level? aquatic ecosystem futures, and setting re- alistic goals and measurable objectives for Products of the ecoregion planning process would include ecoregion characterizations, sets of restoration reference wetlands for each subclass, and broad 7. Priority setting among potential restora- ecoregion restoration goals and priorities. tion areas and functions based on the cost- effectiveness of actions relative to goals ~ Ecoregioncharacterizations Because of the relatively large areas encom- Ecoregion characterizations would include passed by ecoregions in comparison to most wa- GIS-based theme and multiple theme maps, and tersheds, information display and analysis will be associated narrative and data that illustrate the at relatively small scales for example, 1:100,000 hydrologic character and functions of the or 1:250,000! for considering individual, small wet- ecoregion; historic ecosystem conditions; current lands. Data availability may also be a limitation. ecosystem conditions and human interventions Consequently, stratification and sampling may and impacts; alternative future ecosystem condi- play an important role in analysis at this level. tions, given growth patterns and trends; and However, Geographic Information System GIS! ecoregion problems and needs that wetland resto- data analysis and display will also play an impor- ration can address. tant role, taking advantage of whatever digital data are available and developing new data lay- ~ Ecaregiongoals and priorities ers that are deemed essential. It is also anticipated Functional restoration goals and area-specific that the HGM classification system see Recom- objectives will be the principal end products of the mendation 2! will be used at the ecoregion level ecoregion-level planning process. They would flow for broad wetland characterization. Ecoregional from the assessment of restoration needs, oppor- analysis will also be important in estabhshing a tunities, and constraints analysis in the planning set of reference wetlands that can be used to de- process outlined above, velop more detailed functional assessment procedures for site evaluation and design. ~ Reference wetlands and reference standard sites In the assessment process for both ecoregions For selected HGM classes, reference wetlands and watersheds, analysis of historical conditions will be identified and qua1itatively characterized is used as a basis for identifying areas that used Necommertdatiott 3 47

Map Key

I I. O Woodedbottomland, Marshy thicket / Marsh prairie mostly floodplain Timbered swampw/ a brushy understory a Upland forest Flat. tidal land Timberedswamp w/ coarsegrass understory; =::=:=-: Uplandprairie Pine opeilirig brush; wet& miry, mucky soil & large ¹ of beaver

Timberedswamp w/ coarsegrass understory: Sandybarrens w/ Good grassland s brush;substantial standing water & pondlilies; scatteringof pine muckysoil wet & miry; & large ¹ of beaver

Map courtesy of Patricia Benner

Figure7. Reconstructionof historic vegetationpatterns from old mapsand public lands surveyrecords was an importantsource ofi n formationfor identifying restorationopportu- nities in the lower Coquillewatershed. More such efforts are neededin other watersheds source/ Benner and Sedell 1991!. 48 Recommendation 3 based on literature review, expert opinion, and lim- "expert" process and to gather, organize, and ana- ited field evaluation. Prom them, a set of refer- lyze data to support the process using GIS and ence standard sites will be selected. These models. wetlands and the functional assessment models derived from them will serve as templates for de- ~ Coast RanrIeLevel ill pilot ecoregion signing individual wetland restoration projects. The Coast Range ecoregion within Oregon in- They can be used to help set goals, predict resto- cludes seven Level IV ecoregions that could serve ration trajectories, and provide a basis for moni- as organizing units for wetland restoration analy- toring. See Recommendation 2 for details on sis figure 8!. These Level IV subdivisions are adaptation of HGM to Oregon. coastal lowlands, coastal uplands, coastal volcanics, volcanics, Willapa hills, midcoastal sedi- How might ecoregion-levelproducts be used? mentary, and California Coast Range extension. Ecoregion wetland restoration priorities, how- The Coa.st Range ecoregion extends roughly from ever general, could be implemented directly the Columbia River south to California, and east through governmental and nongovernmental pro- to the Willamette Valley or the Klamath Moun- grams with a primary interest in a particular land- tains. One reason for suggesting this ecoregion for scape, habitat, or species found there. For portions a pilot study is that it approximates one of the of ecoregions with watershed councils in place, evolutionary significant units for coastal coho these local groups may serve as primary imple- salmon, a species that recently has been consid- menting groups. Ideally, representatives of water- ered for listing as threatened by the National shed groups would be involved in the ecoregion Marine Fisheries Service. The state, in an unprec- workshop process. Each of the products suggested edented public-private partnership effort, has de- above should be useful to watershed councils, veloped a strategic plan the Coastal Salmon Kcoregion characterizations may serve as a start- Restoration Initiative CSRI 1997! to restore ing point for watershed characterization. coastal coho. However, the CSRI plan does not deal Ecoregion goals and priorities may provide a explicitly with wetland restoration. An ecoregion- larger-than-watershed context for watershed as- level assessment and subsequent wetland resto- sessment, goal development, site identification, ration would greatly benefit the salmon recovery and priority setting. Reference standard sites may effort and simultaneously address other priority serve as templates for watershed projects, whether issues including water-quality improvement. In or not they are in the watershed. It should be lowland diked areas, for example, there are doz- noted, however, that watershed-level action plans ens of potential restoration sites that could sup- and on-the-ground restoration projects have been port populations of young salmon Jones and and will continue to be undertaken without ben- Stokes Associates 1988; Liebovitz 1992!. Many efit of ecoregion-level input. However, once in more diked sites have partial breaches where ad- place, ecoregion plans can serve as valuable guid- ditional restoration might improve their function- ance for watershed programs and projects. ing Simenstad and Feist 1996!. Wetland functional analyses at the ecoregion level would What ecoregionsmight serveas pilot project he1p set priorities among these and other areas. areas? The Coast Range ecoregion includes several of the Two ecoregions are suggested as candidates for priority watersheds for protection and restoration pilot development and testing of an ecoregion wet- activities identified in two separate exercises land restoration assessment methodology. the Daggett 1994, Pacific Rivers Council 1995!. Sub- Coast Range and the Willamette Valley figure stantial governmental and nongovernmental GIS 8!. The pilot process might include one or more data are also available for the region Interrain intensive workshops, beginning with development Pacific, pers. coin. 1997!. of a preliminary HGM wetland classification system and functional characterization see Recom- ~ WinametteVal/ey Level ill ecoregion mendation 2 for details! and continuing with The Willamette Valley ecoregion includes six appropriate steps outlined above, including a wet- level IV ecoregions that could serve as organizing land restoration needs assessment and priority units for wetland restoration analysis figure 8!, setting. Significant preworkshop preparation These are the Portland/Vancouver basin, would be neededto develop a structured, efficient, Willamette River tributaries and gallery forest, Recommendation 3 49

Will amette Valley Ecoregion :---:==-; PortlandNancouver Basin

Willarnette River and Tributaries Gallery Forest

Prairie Terraces

Valley Foothills

0 30

miles

Figure 8. Oregon Coast Ilange and Willamette Valley Level III and IV eeoregions. 50 Recommendotlon 9 prairie terraces, and valley foothills. These range advisory role in these processes. At least part of from the Columbia River south to the Klamath this "advice" inight include wetland restoration Mountains and are bordered on the west by the needs, opportunities, and priorities identified at Coast Range and the east by the Cascades the ecoregion levels. ecoregion. There are several reasons for selecting this ecoregion. First, the Willamette Valley's wet- How will the watershed assessment for wetland land resources are among the inost threatened in restoration be conducted? the state because of urban development pressures. Wetland restoration assessment at the water- Second, most of the region is on the high-priority shed level is basically an adaptation of better- list for watershed protection and restoration based known watershed assessment procedures on recent priority setting exercises Daggett 1994; developed for management of the forested portions Pacific Rivers Council 1995!, and another recent of watersheds here in the Pacific Northwest study has touted the downstream flood control Euphrat and Warkentin 1994; FEMAT 1998; benefits of wetland restoration in upper ecoregion Washington Forest Practices Board 1998; Mont- tributaries Coulton and others 1996!. Finally, as gomery, Grant, and Sullivan 1995; Pacific Rivers with the Coast Range, there is good data avail- Council 1996; and others!. Traditional watershed ability, including ongoing efforts by The Nature analysis has focused mainly on the higher gradi- Conservancy to reconstruct prewhite settlement ent portions of streams and rivers and instream vegetation from original Public Land Survey data. and riparian conditions. Although wetlands are sometimes an implicit subset of riparian ecosys- 3-2. Establish and iniplement a watershed- tems in established watershed analysis proce- level wetland restoration process through dures, they are rarely dealt with explicitly, despite local watershed councils. the fact that they are often the ecological hot spots in watersheds Noss 1995!, The purpose of the Watersheds were described earlier in several present report is to provide watershed planners ways: as physical entities, as hydrologic data col- with a more explicit and complete procedure for lection units, and as institutional planning areas. including the wetland component of aquatic eco- Any of these definitions may be appropriate for systems in watershed analysis. Alternatively, implementing the watershed-level wetland resto- where the analysis is conducted as part of a wet- ration planning process below. The watershed- land-specific planning effort for example, land use level process presented here should not be seen as planning's Goal 5 evaluation or a local wetland a cookbook. Rather, it should be considered a pre- conservation plan!, the assessment process could liminary framework or guide and should be modi- be used independently. However, in such cases, it fied by users to fit their situation. is recommended that all components of the aquatic ecosystem be included in the analysis, not just Who will be involved at the watershed level and wetlands. how? A proposedprocess for wetland restoration as- The principal groups involved in watershed- sessment at the watershed level is outlined in fig- level planning and actions will be watershed coun- ure 9. It borrows liberally from various watershed cils established under the watershed enhancement analysis procedures see above cites!, and the wa- authorities of the Governor's Watershed Enhance- tershed-level wetland restoration planning pro- ment Board GWKB!. However, there may also be grams being developed and implemented in other watershed or subwatershed planning au- Massachusetts USACE 1995; Foote-Smith 1996! thorities. Examples are city or county governments and Washington State Gersib and others 1994; who have authority to protect wetlands under Gersib 1996!. Added features on the role of eco- statewide land use law and to protect watersheds nomic analysis in determining overall desired lev- for water supply purposes. State, federal, or tribal els of watershed restoration benefit-cost analysis! entities who have jurisdiction over entire water- and in setting priorities among sites cost-effec- sheds and subwatersheds may also undertake a tiveness analysis! are based on a background pa- similar process. Whoever the convening author- per developed for the present project Wellman ity, however, it is anticipated that GWKB, DSL, 1995!. and others on the proposed Oregon Wetland Res- GIS would play a crucial role in the processes toration Advisory Council will play a funding and outlined in figure 6, from the initial characteriza- Recommendation 3 51

Step 3. Screen wetland restoration sites for potential to contribute to watershed goals 3.1 Evaluatepotential restorationsites for theirfunctional capacityto contribute to watershed goals: ~ habitat connectivity,fish and wildlife production ~flood water storage, baseflow maintenance ~ water-quality improvement 3.2 Display and summarizeevaluation results in matrix of site capacity versus watershed goals. 3.3 Preparepreliminary restorationsite priority list.

Step 4. Screen potential restoration sitesfor social, economic, and political constraints 4. I Evaluate constraintsfor siteson preliminary priority list: ~existing and expectedfuture land use; conflicts ~ownership and landownerwillingness to restore ~public and private restorationcosts ~political trends,mandates, and feasibility 4.2 Display and summarizepotential constraintsfor restorationsites on preliminary priority list.

Step S. Determine overall desired levels of wetland function restoration and reorder site priorities accordingly 5.I Consideringgoals step 2!, overallfunctional capacitiesof sites step 3!, and site constraints step4!, usebeneftt-cost analysis to establishoverall desiredlevel of wetlandfunction restoration. 5.2 Calculate cost-effectivenessfor restoringalternative sites 5.3 Reorderwetland restorationsite priority list basedon overall desiredlevel of restorarionand cost-effectivenessof indi vidual sites.

Figure 9. An idealizedprocess for watershed-leveLwetland restoration planning. 52 Recommendation 3

tion of wetlands in a watershed to the setting of located in the watershed. These sites may priarities. Because of expense or limitations in serve as templates for restoration of the data availability, some of the analysis may need various types of wetland. to be done manually. DSL and other agencies involved in the proposed Oregon Wetland Restora- How will these products be used? tion Advisory Council should give priarity to Watershed wetland restoration sites and pri- converting available map data to digital form for orities will serve as a menu of oppartunities, imple- use at the watershed level. Where the National mented in a proactive, nonregulatory context as Wetlands Inventory NWI! has been digitized, this funds become available. Watershed councils, non- data can be used to "cross-walk" NWI classifica- governmental organizations, and state and federal tions to HGM classes and subclasses, allowing for agencies are likely to be facilitators of these resto- application of the more robust HGM functianal ration actions, and because many wetland resto- assessment techniques see Recommendation 2 for ration opportunities are likely to be on private details on the HGM appraach!. When combined land, landowners will be major cooperators. The with ather digital information on floodplains, el- menu of potential restoration sites may also be evations, soils, land use, ownership, and other very useful to developers and agencies who regu- data, it will provide an excellent basis for lacating late development, particularly in the wetland com- former and degraded wetlands, identifying prob- pensatory mitigation site selection process. Having lems, needs, and constraints, and identifying and a list of potential sites of different HGM wetland priaritizing potential restoration actions. types, along with initial assessments of functional capacities, will help guide mitigation away from What will the watershed-level products be? less successful wetland creation projects toward Products at the watershed level will be simi- more feasible restoration actions. Reference wet- lar to those at the ecoregion level, but more re- lands may serve as templates for wetland resto- flned and detailed. They should be designed to fit ration projects in watersheds, whether or not they into the format of watershed action programs or are located in the same watershed. other similar watershed plans.

~ Watershed Wetland Characterization What watershed might serve as pilot project maps and discussion of how the watershed areas? works, current and former wetland condi- There are many watersheds that might serve tions, constraints to restoration, and as candidates for pilot development and testing of potential restoration sites. s. watershed wetland restoration assessment methodolagy. A few suggestions are outlined here, ~ Watershed Problems, Goals, and Restora- but more detailed considerations are needed be- tion Opportunities a prioritized list of fore a decisian is made. Whatever the case, the wetland restoration sites from an integrated ecoregion-watershed perspective. This would include maps and descriptions of reference standard wetland sites applicable to the watershed see Recom- mendation 2 for details!, whether or not they are

The Nestucca watershed i n the Coast Range has been rated high priority for restoration in several analyses Jim. Good photo!. Recommendatfon 3 53 watershed selected should be part of the ecoregion these guides focus on restoration and creation in chosen for analysis as outlined above. From a the WCM context, the principles embodied in them salmon-focused perspective, candidates in the apply equally well to nonregulatory restoration Coast Range include the Alsea, Nestucca, and projects. One simple example of a nonregulatory Tillamook watersheds, given high priority by both restoration guide is the checklist in Appendix C of the Bradbury watershed priority setting Pacific The Oregon WetlandsConservation Guide OWCA Rivers Council 1995! and the Stage I Watershed 1995!. The checklist asks questions about wetland Assessment Daggett 1994!. The Nehalem, functions and services; baseline data on hydrol- Necanicum, Coqui11e,Umpqua main stern, and ogy, vegetation and other factors; needed struc- Sixes Rivers were rated high priority by at least tures to promote restoration; vegetation one of these two studies. In the Willamette Valley, introduction; future water supply; surrounding again from a salmon restoration perspective, the land use; and other factors. It does not, however, Clackamas and the McKenzie were high priority offer design guidelines for restoring any particu- in both of these studies, with the Santiam, lar function. Figure 10 is a step-by-stepsite resto- Calapooia, Upper Willamette, Middle Willamette, ration guide that links with the ecoregion and and Sandy Rivers high priority in one. More com- watershed assessment framework outlined in the prehensive analysis of multiple-function, earlier parts of this recommendation. It also in- ecoregion-level wetland restoration needs as out- corporates many of the restoration principles sug- lined earlier may identify higher-priority water- gested below, sheds overall, The pilot processis envisioned as a The process outlined in figure 10 is a generic collaborative effort led by a local watershed coun- one. Specific guidelines are neededfor restoration cil supported by a technical team, generally fol- of different functions for different types of wet- lowing the process outlined in figure 6. Also, as lands. Once HGM reference standards are devel- discussed in Recommendation 2, the process would oped for a given class or subclass see include use of an HGM-based wetland classifica- Recommendation 2!, site restoration guidelines for tion and function characterization process. GIS each class should be developed,including criteria analysis would play a prominent role in the tech- and methods to restore different functions or suites nical parts of the watershed-level wetland resto- of functions. Best professional judgment, in part ration pilot. represented by the variety of existing guidelines available, will also play an important role in de- 3-3. Develop and implement a site-level wet- velopment of HGM-based site restoration guide- land restoration protocol. lines. What the proposed guidelines will do that is diFerent is systematize and organize restora- Wetland restoration, creation, and enhance- tion guidelines by general wetland class and func- ment projects, especially those undertaken as tions performed by that class. See Recom- wetland compensatory mitigation WCM!, have mendation 6 for further discussion of needed tech- been widely studied over the last decadeto deter- nical design guidelines. mine what works and what does not Frenkel and Morlan 1990; Kentula and others 1992; Race and Principlesfor Restorationof Formeror Christie 1982; Race 1985; Race and Fonseca 1996; Shaich and Franklin 1995; Zedler 1987, 1996!. As DegradedWetlands a consequence of these studies, a good deal is The following principles should guide selection known about what is needed to achieve restora- of wetland restoration sites, and the design, con- tion, creation, or enhancementsuccess in the WCM struction, and monitoring of restoration projects. context. Another consequenceis that there have Wetland restoration at the site level shouM be been many guides or formulas published on resto- based on regional and watershed needs,goals, ration or creation site assessment, planning, con- and priorities. struction, and monitoring. Kentula and others ~ Goals for wetland restoration, although based 993!, for example, in their guide, An Appmach in human services and values, should be trans- to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Resto- lated into restoration of ecosystemfunctions, ration and Creation, list and review 19 guides or recognizing the capacity of a site to perform books that offer site planning guidance for wet- those functions. land restoration and creation. Although many of 54 Recommendation 9

Step 1. Characterise the ecoregion and watershed setting of the restora¹on site. ~ How does the ecosystem work at these scales? ~ What are the problemsand needsat these scalesthat restorationmight help address e.g., downstreainflooding, nonpoint source pollution, habitat for threatenedor endangered species!?

Step R Describe current condi tions at the restoration site. ~ What are the hydrogeomorphiccharacteristics and other physicalparameters of the former or degradedsite landscapeposition, water sources,water flow,topography, geology, soils, vegetation, etc.!? ~ Is the site wetland now, and if so, what functions and structural componentsare degraded? + What are the human use characteristics of the site site and adjacent land uses, site and adjacent managementactivities, pollution and other disturbances!?

Step 8, Describe historic conditions at the restoration site. ~ From available data, what can be inferred abouthistoric hydrogeomorphiccharacteristics and other physical parameters of the former or degraded wetland site water sources, water flow, differences in elevation, vegetation, etc.!? ~ How has the site been changedby natural and human activities,when did these changes occur,and what was their impact on the site direct physicalalterations, uses, and management of the site and adjacentlands!?

Step 4. Develop initial site restoration goals. ~ What problems and needsat the ecoregionand watershedlevels need to be addressed? ~ What are the potential hydrogeomorphicfunctional capacities of the site? ~ What are the site restorationconstraints hydrology,adjacent land use, area growth, pollution, other disturbances,etc.! and how can they be overcome? ~ How can the site be physically protectedfollowing restoration accesslimitations, such as boardwalks, seasonal use restrictions, structural elements!? ~ How can the site be institutionally protectedfollowing restoration conservationeasement, land trust acquisition,donation to wildlife agency!?

Step 5. Evalacate alternative site designs, considering initial restoration goals. ~ In an ideal sense, how closely can historic conditions be emulated? ~ What water regime sources and flow! is neededand availableto reestablisha self-regulating wetland system? ~ What other physicalsite changesare neededto reestablisha self-regulatingwetland system'? ~ How do the abovedesign considerations translate into measurable,achievable objectives for design and reestablishment or restoration of the wetland?

Step 8. Set final goals, obJectives,design parameters, site restoration trajectory, and monitoring program ~ Are the restoration objectivesclear, measurable,and linked to the goals? ~ What are the designparameters, and are they derivedfrom the goalsand objectives? ~ What is the expected site restoration trajectory? ~ What and how often will monitoringbe done,and is it linked to objectivesand the expected trajectory?

Step 7. Restore the site and naonitor wetland restoration. ~ Who will restore the site, includingequipment operators, and are they experiencedin the processand sensitiveto the detailed design parametersfor the site? ~ Does restoration follow the anticipated trajectory? ~ If not, do changesneed to be made; if so,what are they?

Figure 10. Steps in the designand implementationof a typical,site-specific restoration project, Recommendation 3 55

~ Wetland restoration site plans should predict ~ Blocks of'wetland habitat that are close to- the trajectory for recovery and succession fol- gether are better than those which are far lowing restoration; this scenario should be apart, allowing more interchange between used as a basis for monitoring and adaptive units, and are thus considered to be function- management of the site. ally united, ~ Wetland restoration sites should be designed ~ Wetland habitat in contiguous blocks is better to be self-sustaining, self-regulating ecosys- than fragmented habitat. tems that do not require long-term, active ~ Blocks of wetland habitat that are not easily maintenance. accessible to humans are ecologically better ~ Historic conditions, including geomorphic than roaded and accessible habitat blocks this characteristics, hydrology, vegetation, and eco- needs to be balanced with project goals related system functions, are a useful guide to resto- to human recreational or educational use!. ration potential, ~ Where sites may be subject to human distur- ~ Nature should be used as a template, wher- bance, upland vegetative buffers sufficient to ever possible, for wetland restoration refer- protect the wetland should be part of a site ence standard wetlands identified at ecoregion plan, levels can serve as these templates!. ~ Wetland restoration must be adaptive; that is, ~ Reestablishment of hydrology is fundamental information gained subsequent to restoration to successful wetland restoration. should be used to adjust restoration trajecto- Consideration for the position and role of a po- ries in a more effective direction, as needed. tential or restorable wetland in the broader Human disturbances that mimic or simulate regional landscape should be taken. natural processes are less likely to threaten ~ Large blocks of wetland habitat, containing species than are disturbances radically differ- large populations of a target species, are su- ent from the natural regime. perior to small blocks of wetland habitat con- ~ Although physical processes drive wetland tainiug small populations. systems, biota must also be considered as an ~ Future hydrology, including flood events and active component in the restoration process. their effect on a wetland restoration site, should be incorporated into restoration site plans.

Periodic monitoring of restoration proj ects is necessary tojudge progress toward goals and implement any needed corrective measures Diane kfitcheil and Jim Good photos!,

Recommendation 4

RECOMMENDATION4: Fullyintegrate wetland restorationinto Oregon'swatershed enhancement programs.

Findings

Historyof Oregon'sWatershed Programs accomplished a gooddeal. However, with so many n 1987,the Oregon legislature established the new, geographically dispersed staR,' pressure to Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board show accomplishmentsquickly, and too little start- t GWEB! to fund watershed enhancement up time to plan for effective use of available funds, projects throughout the state. GWEB was com- it failed to meet the high expectations that were posedof five voting members,one each from the set. Contributing factors included initial coordi- Environmental Quality Commission, Fish and nation problems and perceptions of funding ineq- Wildlife Commission, Board of Forestry, State Soil uities by local officials and watershed councils in and Water Conservation Commission, and Water other parts of the state, Resources Commission. Nonvoting members in- In 1995, the legislature consolidated the WHP cluded the directors of the OSU Extension Ser- with GWEB's program. In addition, the 1995 leg- vice and the Oregon Department of Agriculture, islation added the governor's natural resources and representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, the advisor as chair of GWEB, eliminated SWMG'srole Bureau of Land Management, and the Natural in the watershed program, expandedeligibility for Resources Conservation Service. During its early watershed improvement grants to the entire state, operation,GWEB built, a successfultrack record reduced staff support, particularly in the pilot pri- funding restoration projects. ority regions, and defined the process for estab- The 1993 legislature established the Water- lishing voluntary, citizen-based watershed shed Health Program WHP! as a pilot program councils. More than 60 local watershed councils to respondto growing concernabout the decline have been certified to date and are the main on- of salmon, the potential for watershed restoration the-groundimplementation mechanism for water- to play a part in their recovery, and the growing shed restoration. local interest in creating local watershed councils Oregon's watershed program got another sig- to solve stream and riparian habitat problems. nificant boost in 1997. One impetus was the list- Conceived by the Strategic Water Management ing of hundreds of Oregon'srivers and streams as Group SWMG!,the WHP was well funded $10 water-quality limited under Section303 d! of the million for the 1993 95 biennium! but limited in federal Clean Water Act. Another driving force was its geographic scopeto three priority regions: the the potential listing of coastal coho salmon as a Roguebasin, the South Coast basin, and the Grand threatenedspecies under the federalEndangered Ronde basin. In its first two years the program SpeciesAct ESA!. In responseto the latter situa-

57 58 Recornmendotion 4

tion, the governor developed the Coastal Salmon How Well Have Wetlands Been Restoration Initiative CSRI 1997!. The CSRI is Representedin Watershed Programs? based on. a watershed approach and engages the The short answer to the question of how well full authority of many different state and local wetlands have been represented in watershed pro- agencies and the private sector, including the for- grams is, not well at all. The GWEB program has est industry, agriculture, commercial and recre- focused mainly on protection, restoration, and en- ational fishing, and many other groups. Local hancement of riparian zones and assorioted up- watershed councils are one of the centerpiece Lands. Riparian zones are defined as "transition implementation strategies for the CSRI. Legisla- zones between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, tion to implement CSRI and water-quality im- dependent upon surface or subsurface water" and provements to meet the requirements of the Clean may be "located adjacent to a lake, reservoir, es- Water Act was passed and became effective in April tuary, pothole, spring, bog, wet meadow, muskeg, 1997. The legislation created a Healthy Streams or ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial stream Partnership to achieve salmon restoration and that are transition zones " ORS 541.350[5]!. As- water-quality improvement goals and appropri- sociated uplands include "those lands of a water- ated $30 million in state funds, half of which will shed that are critical to the functioning and go toward on-the-ground enhancement projects in protection of the riparian areas" ORS 541.350[ii!. coastal and other watersheds. Other funds will go Although that statute could be interpreted to mean toward hiring state agency technical assistance that wetlands are simply a habitat within ripar- staff and watershed coordinators. Under the ian zones and associated uplands, and indeed some Healthy Streams Partnership, streams, riparian wetlands do fall within these boundaries, there is zones, and associated uplands are all areas where no explicit role specifiedfor restoration of wetlands projects can be undertaken to enhance or restore as part of watershed restoration. Wetlands were salmon habitat or water quality. As with earlier not mentioned again in 1995's HB 3441, nor, as watershed legislation, wetlands are not singled out noted above, are they mentioned in the 1997 leg- for attention, but they clearly fall within the geo- islation. graphic domain slated for restoration and directly Another indication that wetlands were not on provide the ecosystem functions and services for the legislature's mind when they initiated the which the program was established water puri- GWEB program is that the Division of State Lands fication and cooling, water storage and gradual DSL!, the lead agency for wetland conservation release to help maintain base flows, and provision and management, is not represented on GWEB. of shelter, food, and habitat for salmonids and Neither are federal fisheries and wildlife agencies other stream biota. including those with ESA listing responsibilities! As a result of the state's initiative, the National or the EPA, agencies that have the most experi- Marine Fisheries Service NMFS! did not bst the ence with wetland restoration. However, several northern evolutionary significant unit ESU! of other state and federal agencies are represented coastal coho as threatened, instead accepting the as nonvoting, advisory members. One can conclude CSRI and Healthy Streams Partnership as an ac- that from a policy and institutional perspective, ceptable recovery plan. Although the southern coho wetland restoration was not perceived as an im- ESU was listed as threatened, the Oregon Plan portant activity for watershed enhancement. was accepted as the recovery plan, even though it Another avenue of exploration about the role is likely there will be additional NMFS oversight of wetlands in state watershed programs is to ex- and regulation, Nevertheless, the Oregon Plan and amine program implementation activities. First, subsequent federal action are themselves a "wa- what projects are being funded? Second, are local tershed" in endangered species management and watershed councils addressing wetland restora- are considered a national model for future federal- tion needs and identifying opportunities in their state relations under the ESA. watershed action programs?In a report to the leg- GWEB, state and local agencies, private con- islature on its first 13 months of activities, the cerns, and local watershed councils are now gear- WHP reported that 67 miles of stream bank were ing up for the great challenge of planning and planted with native trees and grasses to shade implementing sound restoration actions and moni- streams, 268 instream structures were put in place toring outcomes on the ground. as fish habitat enhancement, 53 miles of fences Recommendation 4 59

were erected to protect streams from grazing wetland restoration per se and none identified cattle, and 16 fish screens were installed on wa- former wetlands using the array of information ter diversions OWRD 1995!. There is no mention and tools available to do that, such as the Nation.al of wetland restoration or enhancement projects. Wetlands Inventory, original Public Lands Survey A review of "working assessments"for three wa- data, and hydric soils maps. Discussionswith those tersheds the Applegate, Coquille, and Little familiar with other local watershed assessments Butte Creek shows that local councils do iden- confirm this trend watershed assessment tify wetland loss and degradation as maj or prob- through the existing watershed programs gives lems, particularly for coastal coho salmon little consideration to the ro1e that wetlands might Applegate River Watershed Council 1994; Co- play in overall aquatic ecosystemrestoration. Nev- quille WatershedAssociation 1994; Anthony and ertheless, the beginning efforts in each of these Grenbemer 1995!. Examples of probleins they cite action programs to address wetland losses augur that have contributed to loss of floodplain wetlands well for more explicit consideration of wetlands and meandering stream and off-channel fish habi- by the state's principal facilitator of nonregulatory, tats are drainage for agricultural development, aquatic ecosystemrestoration GWEB. trapping out beaver, and flood control activities, all primarily in the lower and.middle portions of Are Wetlands Adequately Addressedin the watersheds. These former wetlands likely con- Watershed Assessment Methods? tributed to low stream temperatures and good The finding that the GWKB program and local water quality and provided for flood water stor- watershed assessments conducted under the pro- age and base flow maintenance during dry sea- gram give little attention to wetlands is not all sons and drought. These issues are not discussed that surprising.A reviewof numerouswatershed in watershed assessments in a site-specific con- assessment methods used in the Pacific Northwest text, however, and thus do not provide a goodbase Kuphrat and Warkentin 1994!shows that all fo- for identifying wetland restoration opportunities. cus almost exclusively on streams and riparian Although eachof these plans discussedcreation habitat; none have wetland or wetland restora- of off-channel ponds for fish use during floods and tion components.There are probably several rea- low-water periods, only the Coquille addressed sons for this. 60 Recommendation 4

First, watershed assessment in the Pacific channel morphology in ways that did not permit Northwest has historically dealt with forest lands their reestablishment Dewberry, pers. corn., that are in the middle to upper portions of water- 1995!. Few remnant examples of this habitat re- sheds.Analysis there has focusedon problems as- main today as reference sites. sociated with timber harvesting, road building, Yet another reason is that landscape-level ap- and their influences on spawning and rearing habi- proaches to aquatic ecosystem restoration gener- tat for anadromous and other native fishes. Pro- ally, and wetlands in particular, are still in the tecting and restoring stream and riparian habitat early stages of development. As recently as 1992, are thus seen as the major challenges in water- the National Academy of Science's expert commit- sheds fiigure 11!. tee that prepared the landmark study, Restora- tion of Aquatic Ecosystems, noted that they could not find a region, watershed, or state that has used its full resource planning capabilities to des- ignate restoration priorities NRC 1992, 347!. Finally, wetlands are perceived by some local officials, landowners, and the public as a contentious regulatory issue where unsuspecting landowners are pitted against unyielding bureaucrats, and where government "takings" of private property without compensation routinely occur. t t Wetland programs simply Riparian Area Riparian Area have a bad name, particularly I in rural circles where many Stream Channel watershed programs have Figure Il, Streams and riparian areas have been the principal focus of taken root. TD strongly link rvatershed assessment methods to date rvetlands and opportunities watershed programs to wet- for their enhancement also need to be included in these evaluations. lands might make the programs less popular, some would argue. Second, the multiple functions of wetlands as Clearly, if wetland restoration can play an im- components of the aquatic ecosystemare not yet portant role in overall aquatic ecosystem restora- fully appr'eciatedor understood,particularly in the tion, as authors of the National Academy of rniddle and upper portions of watersheds for which Sciences report NRC 1992! and others assert, Or- assessment methods have been developed. For egon needs to develop methods to integrate wet- example, flood flow storage and desynchronization lands into watershed health and related programs. benefits of wetlands have only recently been evalu- Fortunately, there are some models for more sys- ated for major watersheds such as the upper Mis- tematic, multiple-function wetland-watershed sissippi River IHey and Philippi 1994; Philippi analysis, community needs assessment, and res- 1994] and, more recently, the Willamette River toration site and project identification available [Coulton and others 1996]!. from other states, such as Massachusetts and Another reason wetlands are not much consid- Washington. These models contributed to devel- ered in middle and upper parts of basins is be- opment of some of the proposals included in Rec- cause early logging practices for example, ommendations 2 and 3 for wetland classification splash-dam log storage and transport! eliminated and functional assessment and watershed resto- most off-channel riverine wetlands, changing ration planning. Recommendation 4 61

Implementation Actions Options for integrating wetland restoration into DSL should initiate contact with local water- Oregon's watershed programs that were consid- shed councils in the state through a special resto- ered for this report are ! establishing a separate ration issue of the Wetlands Program newsletter, watershed program for nonregulatory wetland Wetlands Update, and follow that up with techni- restoration, following models from several other cal assistance and information as resources per- states, with coordination through GWEB; ! add- mit. ing a wetland restoration component to the existing GWEB program and amending ORS 541.350 4-2. Add the director of the Division of State et seq, by adding appropriate findings, goals, wa- Lands to the Governor's Watershed. Enhance- tershed assessment and action program requirement Board as a nonvoting member. ments for wetlands, and funding mechanisms; ! The Oregon legislature should amend ORS modifying the GWEB program more substantially, 541.360! b! to add the director of DSL as a non- integrating wetlands as part of an overall aquatic voting member of GWEB. This will formally ac- ecosystemrestoration program that addressesres- knowledge the role of the state's lead agency for toration and enhancement opportunities in wetland conservation in the state's principal wa- streams, lakes, wetlands, lands riparian to these tershed program. Similar consideration should be aquatic habitats, and associateduplands; and ! given to adding other key wetland management using elements of earlier recommendations and, agenciesat the federallevel, for example,the U.S. basedon existing DSL wetland restoration and en- Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA. Both agen- hancement authority ORS 196.672[5]!, adminis- cies promote watershed approaches, are heavily tratively develop a watershed-based wetland involved in nonregulatory wetland restoration and restoration program in collaboration with GWEB, enhancement, and have funding and technical its member agencies,local watershed councils, and assistanceprograms that could complement those other members of the proposed Wetland Restora- tiou Advisory Council see Recommendation 1!. of the state. The recommendations below include elements of several options, but mainly option four. 4-3. Establish a nonregulatory, watershed- based wetland restoration planning and technical assistance program. 4-1. Establish a formal linis between the Di- vision of State Lands' wetlands program, the Section 13 of Senate Bill 924 997! established Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, proceduresfor state agenciesto seek additional and local watershed councils. funding for implementing the CSRI or related stream enhancement programs, Such proposals DSL should work with GWEB to integrate the are first submitted to the Joint Legislative Com- watershed-level planning, assessment, actions, mittee on Salmon and Stream Enhanceinent and and monitoring envisioned in this report into the then to the Emergency Board. To establish a wa- state's Healthy Streams Partnership and related tershed-based wetland restoration technical assis- GWEB watershed programs. tanceprogram, DSL shouldprepare a work plan DSL should seek standing for wetland resto- and seek such funding. Alternatively, DSL should ration and enhancement projects as a high prior- seekGWEB funding for specificactivities designed ity in the GWEB decision-making process, in to foster wetland restoration and enhancement recognitionof the significant,unrealized potential through local watershed councils. of such projects to contribute to salmon recovery and other fish and wildlife needs in coastal and inland watersheds; to the maintenance and im- 4-4. Facilitate the interaction of grassroots, provement of stream, lake, and estuarme water voluntary wetland restoration groups with quality; to flood damage reduction; and to water- local watershed councils. shed health generally see also Recommendation DSL, through its role as coordinator of the pro- 6!. posedWetLand Restoration Advisory CounciL see 62 Recommendation 4

Recommendation 1!, should facilitate the interac- restoration, using a variety of fee and less-than- tion of watershed councils with voluntary land fee techniques available to them. Where such land trusts and other groups doing wetland protection trusts do not exist, they might be established as and restoration, such as the Joint Venture and arms of local watershed councils. DSL should fos- member organizations of the OregonWetland Con- ter these and other interactions, such as informa- servation Alliance OWCA 1995!. One of the key tion sharing, collaborative watershed planning, ways land trusts might be able to assist water- and on-the-ground projects see Recommendation shed councils is in the protection of sites following 6!.

64 Recommendation S age of their staff resources on regulatory restora- A barrier to tidal wetland restoration in coastal tion, creation, or enhancement activities wetland areas is the Goal 16/17 requirement to identify compensatory mitigation WCM!, The limited suc- and protect sites specifically and only for future cess af WCM, at least from ecological function and use for WCM. The great majority of former wet- no-net-loss perspectives, suggests that a realloca- lands designated for future mitigation mostly tion of resources to provide more technical assis- diked tidelands have not been needed in the last tance for nanregulatory wetland restoration 20 years and, given the limitations on alterations planning and project design would result in greater of estuarine wetlands, they are unlikely to be increase in the wetland resource. needed in the future. An example where this was a prablem was in Coos Bay, where caunty plan pro- Land Use Planning and Management visions almost prevented the South Slough Na- Barriers and Disincentives tional Estuarine Research Reserve from restoring a site within reserve boundaries because it was Some land use planning and management on the mitigation site list. Negatiations allowed practices conflict with nonregulatory wetland res- the site to be removed from the list, but the extent toration goals and opportunities. For example, to of this barrier coastwide has not been determined. prevent localized flooding, city and county public works departments have historically promoted the fastest possible drainage of surface storm water Tax Barriers and Disineentives off the land. Other activities in urban areas also Many wetland restoration opportunities are an promote rapid runoff, such as impervious surfaces farm land zoned for exclusive farm use EFU!. and landfill in floodplains. These land and water Although lands are normally assessed for prap- management strategies are counter to one of the erty taxes at "highest and best use," Oregon law natural functions of wetlands short- and long- provides for lower use-value tax assessment for term storage of floodwaters and work against EFU lands. However, if farmers convert farmland restoration of this function. to wetland or other wildlife habitat, they lose pref- Local zoning and ordinance provisions that do erential tax treatment. This is because the law not provide for or that prevent the use of former and Oregon courts have strictly construed the defi- wetlands for restoration are another issue. Inflex- nition of farm use to exclude conservation prac- ible lot line setbacks and density requireinents and tices Or. St. Ann. Sec. 308.370, Craven v. Jackson, similar measures are examples of local ordinance 308 OR 281, 779 P. 2d 1011 [1989]!. This restric- provisions that create barriers to or outright con- tive definition of farm use limits the use of prop- flict, with protection or restoration of wetlands. erty tax breaks for lands subject to wetland Among land use tools that merit examination for restoration and other conservation in Oregan. their potential to facilitate restoration are trans- Other states, such as Colorado, Texas, and Mon- ferable development rights, which separate development rights from specific land parcels and allow them to be transferred to other places that can more readily accammodate intense development. Density bonuses for preserving or restoring wetland habitat may also be an effective tool.

Land use issues may be barriers to wetland restoration; some communities, such as Warrenton, are addressing these issues comprehensively through regional rvetland conserva- tionnplanning Jim Good photo!. Recommendation S 65 tana, do include conservation activities in the defi- the prospect of lost tax revenue to local govern- nition of agriculture. Some states, such as Wash- ments, requirements to repay deferred taxes if the ington, have enacted specific current use taxation property zoning is changed, or potential difficul- programs to help protect open space and promote ties landowners might face in converting the land conservation. Thurston County's program, for ex- back to development or another land use category. ample, provides up to a 90 percent reduction in Federal estate taxes are another major obstacle taxes on eligible properties, using a public benefit to the restoration and conservation of habitat on rating systein that evaluates parcels according to private land Williams and Lathbury 1996!. Tax criteria that include aquatic ecosystems,wildlife bills of up to 55 percent af the value of land and values, and special animal or plant sites. other property passing from one generation to Modi fying an existing tax incentive the Open another can create insurmountable financial hard- SpaceDeferral might be an alternative to chang- ships for some people, especially those who are ing the farm use definition. Under the open space "land rich and cash poor." This often requires the deferral program, property taxes are reduced on new lantiowners to either sell or develop property, lands zoned as open space. However, very few resulting in loss of significant habitat or restora- lands have been placed in this category and few of tion opportunities. Reform of federal tax laws could them are wetlands. This may be due to a number provide a powerful incentive for habitat conserva- of factors, such as the availability of the program tion on private land. only for areas within urban growth boundaries,

Implementation Actions

5-1. Simplify the permit process for c~ring should target more education on the wetland res- out aquatic ecosysteIn restoration and en- toration opportunities and interests of landown- hancement projects, providing more techni- ers in both rural and urban areas, The process cal assistance and education on the process. and relative easeof obtaining wetland restoration perinits should be part of that program. DSL should evaluate additional means to simplify the permitting of wetland restoration projects. For example, DSL could streainline the 5-2. Conduct a time- and cost-effectiveness process for projects that are consistent with an audit of wetland regulatory versus approved watershed council action plan. Or they nonregulatory restoration and enhancement could decentralize the approval process through activities and make indicated adjustments. local staff who have been trained and certified in Natural resource regulatory agencies,includ- the process; for example, local ODFW biologists ing DSL anti the Corps, should conduct a simple or Soil and Water Conservation District staff. audit of the time and resources expended on regu- A short, simple, step-by-step guide to obtain- latory versus nonregulatory restoration and en- ing a wetland restoration or enhancement permit hancement activities with respect to the overall should be prepared that incorporates state and effectiveness in achieving gains in wetland acre- federal requirements. The guide should be distrib- ageand functionsstatewide. Where indicated and uted through state and federal wetland restora- feasible, staff and resource allocations should be tion technical assistance providers. This guide adjusted to focus more on nonregulatory activi- could be the basis for the expedited approval pro- ties that have greater overall ecological benefits cess recommended above. to the resource base. However, given the clear DSL and the Corps, in cooperation with OSU value and effectiveness of the regulatory process Extension or community college outreach educa- and mitigation sequencingfor protecting existing tion programs, agency technical experts at the wetlands Good and others 1997!, this should not Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest be construed as a recommendation to eliminate or Service, the Natural ResourcesConservation Ser- greatly reduce regulatory efforts. vice NRCS!, ODFW, and Oregon's Water Re- sources Department, and academic institutions, 66 Recommendotion S

6-$. Link storm water planning and manage- need for WCM sites in estuaries, and ad- ment with wetland restoration opportuni- justing inventories accordingly. ties. Integrate urban and rural storm water drain- 6-5. Redefine farm use to include conserva- age planning with wetland protection and resto- tion practices like wetland restoration or, al- ration programs, including set-asides of natural ternatively, amend the Open Space Tax flood storage areas. The Department of Land Con- Deferral Program to include agricultural servation and Development DLCD!, in coopera- areas. tion with the Department of Environmental Revise the definition of farm use in ORS Quality, DSL, and the Oregon Emergency Man- 215.203 to include conservation practices, includ- agement Division, should develop model planning ing wetland and other habitat protection and res- procedures for storm water and flood mitigation toration. This will aHow EFU differential tax planning that incorporates such provisions. assessment for restored wetlands on farms in Or- egon. 5-4. Identify and, where possible, eliminate A less attractive and probably more bureau- confiicts between land use planning and cratic alternative would be to revise the Open wetland restoration. Space Tax Deferral Program to allow for its use on lands outside as well as inside urban growth DLCD and DSL should survey local govern- boundaries to provide for wetland and other habi- ment planning departments to identify potential tat restoration or protection. 'Ib minimize paper- conflicts and conflict resolution mechanisms! between local land use planning and wetland resto- work, simple procedures for conversion of EFU ration activities. Following the survey and an deferral to Open Spacedeferral could be developed. assessment of measures that would limit conflicts, DLCD should develop and publish a model ordi- 5-6. Encourage reform of federal estate tax nance that local governments could adapt to their policy to encourage natural resource resto- situation. Examples of ways to streamline land ration and enhancement. use requirements might include Oregon, through the National Association of ~ Requiring or at least enabling local gov- Governors, the Association of State Wetland Man- ernments to include variance provisions in agers, and congressional representatives, should local plans and ordinances that provide for seek reform of federal estate tax laws to promote restoration of wetlands and other aquatic conservation. In exchange for landowners enter- ecosystems. ing into agreements with the Secretary of Inte= rior or DSL or ODFW at the state level! to manage ~ Examining opportunities for flexible build- their properties as wetlands or other wildlife habi- ing specifications, performance standards tat, the estate tax could be deferred for as long as e.g., density bonuses, density transfers, landowners honor the agreement. Such agree- transferable development rights!, and con- ments would be voluntary and revocable, but when servation easements designed to promote agreements are ended, deferred taxes would be- wetland preservation and restoration. come due. In this manner, subsequent heirs to an ~ For coastal local governments, working estate could defer payment of taxes as long as they with DLCD and DSL, reevaluating the choose Keystone Center 1995!. Recommendation 6

RECOMMENDATION6: Increaseincentives for proactive,nonregulatory wetland restorationand enhancementon privateland, focusingon a combination of financial assistance,tax benefits, technical assistance, and education.

Findings

t has been estimated that about half of the Information Sourceson Nonregulatory opportunities for wetland restoration in Or- Wetland Protection and Restoration r egon are on private land OWCA 1995!. The A variety of publications and reports describe principal meansof promotingrestoration on these wetland restoration incentives and protection tools private lands is through incentives to landown- that are available in Oregon. A recent example is ers, Principal categories of incentives are ! fi- the OregonWetland ConservationAlliance's The nancial assistance such as cost-sharing Oregon Wetlands Conservation Gunk: Voluntary arrangementsfor restorationactivities; ! special Wetlands Stewardship Options for Oregon's Pri- tax treatment for restored areas or moneys in- vateeLandowners OWCA 1995!. Aimed at resource vested; ! technical assistance such as project managers who work with landowners, it lays out planning and design; and ! educational materi- a variety of permanent and less-than-permanent als or programs f'or landowners designed to foster approachesfor private land protection,along with restoration projects. Most of the incentive pro- advantagesand disadvantages of each.Among the grams for wetland restoration that involve direct options described are conservation easements, payments,project cost sharing, or significanttech- leases, management agreements, mutual cov- nical assistance also require measures to ensure enants, limited development strategies, transfer- protection of the restored lands, either perma- able development rights, and sale options. The nently or for a specified time. guide also identifies sourcesof technical assistance The question of what role incentives play in and describes federal and state incentive pro- motivating private landowners to restore wetlands grams, private land trusts, and other organiza- is widely debated. Most believe that incentives tions involved in wetland restoration. A planning work mainly at the margins, helping landowners checklist and information on required permits overcome some of the disincentives described in complete the guide. Similar guides for neighbor- Recommendation 5. Other motivations than incen- ing states offer additional useful information tives, such as the desire of landowners to enhance WDOE 1986; CSCC 1994! fish and wildlife habitat for hunting or aesthetic enjoyment, are probably more important. This State Incentives for Wetland Restoration suggests an important role for landowner education about restoration opportumties and methods. Verylittle funding for wetlandrestoration and subsequentwetland protection comesthrough

67 68 Recommexxdotton 6 state programs or appropriations. Instead, most available funding, and other incentives is an im- are federally funded, although programs may be portant motivator for private landowner action. administered by a mixture of federal and state Such information is also useful to resource agency agencies, and private nonprofit organizations. One staft' providing technical assistance, For wetland state program operating with federal funds that restoration and enhancement in Oregon, such in- has been important for wetland restoration and formation is lacking. A number of guidebooks pub- protection in Oregon is Oregon's Department of lished by Washington State might serve as a Fish and Wildlife's ODFW! habitat work on pri- starting point for developing Oregon materials vate lands using funds provided through the fed- WDOK 1986; 1991; 1992a; 1992b; 1993!. Ducks eral Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. Unlimited technical bulletins on wetland restora- These moneys fund technical assistance position for waterfowl habitat in California's central tions habitat biologists as well as wetland ac- valley might also be adapted or serve as templates quisition and xnanagement. However, not all for similar guides here Fred Reid, pers. corn., ODFW regions have habitat biologists and the 1996!, ones that do may not necessarily focus on wetlands. Another program that has supported wet- Federal Incentives for Wetland Restoration land enhancement or restoration projects is Federal incentive programs for wetland resto- ODFW's Access and Habitat Program, created by ration on private lands have had more impact than the 1995 legislature and funded by a surcharge state programs. However, even some federal pro- on hunting licenses. The Department of Environ- grams have been limited by the lack of state funds mental Quality's DEQ! federally funded Section for use as match. This puts Oregon at a competi- 319 nonpoint source water-quality control program tive disadvantage for federal assistance, as coxn- is another program with unrealized potential for pared to many other states. But what federal wetland restoration. incentive programs are working? Although some programs are working well or The Wetland Reserve Program, established by show promise, there are probably more shortcom- the 1985 farm bill and significantly expanded in ings than strengths in state incentive programs. 1990 and 1996 farm bills, is a voluntary program For example, the Oregon Resource Conservation to restore and protect up to about 1 million acres Trust Fund, established by the 1989 state legisla- of wetlands nationally. The response of farmers to ture HB 3482! to promote recycling and land pro- a 1990 nine-state pilot program operated by the tection and restoration, was never funded and was Farm Services Agency and the Natural Resources repealed by the 1997 legislature. Another un- Conservation Service NRCS! was overwhelming, funded program with potential to support wetland with proposals for 250,000 acres of restoration by restoration is the State Parks 2010 program, cre- over 2,300 farmers. The 1996 Farm Bill xnakes all ated to protect outstanding natural and other ar- states eligible for the program and puts a cap for eas for education and recreation. Underfunded program enrollment at 975,000 acres. One-third programs related to wetlands restoration include of enrollments must be permanent easements, one- the Oregon Department of Agriculture's Conser- third must be 30-year easements, and the remain- vation Biology Program, ODFW's nongame wild- der must be in restoration-only, cost-share life program, and the Division of State Land's agreements. The program gives priority to wet- DSL! Wetlands Program, which has enabling leg- lands that enhance habitat for migratory birds and islation for a wetland restoration program see other wildlife. Under the act, the U.S. Fish and Recommendation 1! but no funding to implement Wildlife Service USFWS! assesses the eligibility it. With little or no funding for restoration, these of each offered property and must approve the res- programs have fallen short of their potential. Nev- toration and management plans for each easement ertheless, those that remain do at least provide area. The program has been operating in Oregon an institutional framew ork for wetland protection since 1994, and to date, approximately 6,000 acres and restoration, But they also need to be updated have been enrolled in permanent easements, with to address current restoration priorities, such as more proposed, This federal incentive program has salmon restoration, water-quality improvement, good potential for fostering wetland restoration in and flood damage mitigation. the state. Clear, easy-to-understand inforxnation about Other federally operated programs with sig- wetland x'estoration and enhancement techxuques, nificant impact and potential as incentives to wet- Recommendation 6 69 land restoration include the USFWS's Partners for cus an wetland restoration and stewardship. The Wildlife Program for private lands and the Faz'm Joint Venture has worked with private groups and Services Agency'sAgricultural Conservation Pro- cooperating public agencies since 1991 to protect, grazn and Stewardship Incentive Program, which zestare, and enhance wetlands in the state, The focuses an forested area improvement, including private members of the Joint Venture serve as the wetlands. Direct federal appropriations have also Oregon steering committee for the two larger re- had major impacts on wetland restoration, such gional partnerships the Pacific Coast and Inter- as the $9 million allocated in 1996 97 for Upper mountain West Joint Ventures that were Klamath Basin wetlands restoration. Federal initiated to implement the North American Wa- agencieshave significant technical assistance ca- terfowl Management Plan. The Joint Venture uses pacity far wetland restoration on private lands, nonregulatory strategies and private-public fund- led by the USFWS, the NRCS, the Farm Services ing partnerships to protect and restore large wet- Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau land areas in the state. Its partners have taken of I.and Management. Again, however, there is lead roles in recent restoration initiatives such as little educational material on specific restoration the 4,700-acre Williamson River wetland restora- techniques to achieve particular wetland function adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake and resto- tions, with the possible exception of wildlife habi- ration on The Nature Conservancy's 19,000-acre tat. Sycan Marsh. The latter project has been particularly instructive for understanding the down- The Roleof LandTrusts, Nonprofits, and stream benefits of headwaters restoration by extending late-season flows and improving water Coalitions quality. A more recent coalition, the OregonWet- There are a variety of private and cooperative lands Conservation Alliance OWCA!, has been ventures in Oregon that focus at least in part on organizedto promotevoluntary wetlandssteward- wetland restoration and enhancement. The Oregon ship on private lands and includes many of the Wetlands Conservation Guide names 25 land sameorganizations and agencies.OWCA received trusts and private groups promoting wetland stew- start-up assistancefrom the EnvironmentalPro- ardship and restoration. Many of them are local tection Agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and groups and the number is growing rapidly. Land Watersheds, which supports similar groups in trusts are private, nonprofit corporations dedi- many states. The earlier described landowner op- cated to the preservation of land for scenic, recre- tions guidewas one of OWCA'sfirst ventures,along ational, ecological, historical, or other with several educational workshops. Presently, noncommercial values. They protect land prima- OWCA is inactive, but it could be revived and play rily through the donation of conservation ease- a useful role. ments, although older trusts are often more Private groups and public-private partnerships experienced at raising capital for outright pur- are one of the keys ta impleznenting a proactive, chase of lands. Land donated to a trust yields the nonregulatory wetland restoration pragrazn in same tax benefits as would a donation to a gov- Oregon. However, there is not much interaction ernment agency, but land trusts are more aggres- between these groups and the other major grass- sive and successful in soliciting donations, roots restoration program in the state the more Maintaining sufficient operating funds to manage than 65 local watershed councils enabled and sup- or restore donated properties is often a problem, portedby the Governor'sWatershed Enhancement however. Someof the principal land trusts include Board GWEB!. Collaboration among these groups The Wetlands Conservancy,based in Tualatin but could result in major wetland and riparian resto- operatingstatewide, The Nature Conservancy,and ration partnerships and be another means of pro- local groups, such as The North Coast Land Con- moting wetland restoration as part of overall servancy in Astoria. watershed restoration see Implementation Action There are two coalitions of these private groups 4-4!. and state and federal agenciesin Oregon that fa-

Recommendation 6 71

6-4. Establish wetland restoration technical water quality, hydrology, land use planning, pub- assistance teams or incorporate similar ex- lic participation, informal outreach education, pertise into watershed programs. landscape design, and construction site preparation. State and federal natural resource agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local governments, and university outreach programs should 6-5. Prepare technical design guidelines for establish statewide and regional wetland restora- wetland restoration and enhancement. tion technical assistance teams as part of the pro- Technical design guidelines for wetland resto- posedWetland Restoration Advisory Council to a! ration project should be developed.Guides should develop and implement education programs; b! be prepared after establishment of a assist with watershed analysis and planning for hydrogeomorphic HGM! regional framework for wetland restoration, including public participa- Oregon see Recommendation 2!. They should be tion; c! assist with the design and construction of based on HGM classes and functions and use HGM wetland restoration projects on the ground; and reference wetlands as templates. Priority for d! develop "recognition" programs for cooperat- preparation of restoration technical design guides ing landowners and corporate and business spon- should follow regional wetland restoration priori- sors, using signs, awards, field tours, and other ties. For example, if riverine wetlands in the measures. State-level leadership for wetlands res- Willamette Valley have the most potential for restoration education should be vested with the OSU toration there, guidelines should focus on these Extension Service, which should establish a spe- kinds of wetlands. Guidelines should be based on cialist position to coordinate statewide efforts the best available science, but should be easy to through county Extension programs. Alternatively, understand and well illustrated. Ducks Unlimited such expertise could be folded into a similar tech- guides for landowners in the California Central nical assistance arrangement that focuses on wa- Valley 'Valley-Care" project serve as examples. tershed restoration generally. Technical assistance leadership for wet- 6-6. Revise the Oregon Wetlands Conserva- land restoration assessment, planning, and project tion Guile to focus more on landowners as a construction should be shared by ODFW, DSL, and primary audience. federal partners, such as USFWS, NRCS, and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. At the When supplies of The Oregon Wetlands Con- state level, ODFW has the most experience with servation Guide OWCA 1995! are exhausted, the restoration in a nonregulatory context, emphasiz- OWCA should revise it, changing the principal ing habitat improvement, whereas DSL's experi- audience from resource agency staff to private ence is in the regulatory context where other landowners. This broader approach will appeal wetland functions may also be priorities. The tech- more to landowners and still be useful to those nical assistance teams should be multidisciplinary resource agency staff and others providing tech- and include individuals with expertise in wetland nical assistance. A similar California guide CSCC vegetation, soils, fish and wildlife, nonpoint source 1994! serves as a model for this landowner-oriented approach.

Recommendation 7

RECOMMENDATION7: Identify and restoreformer and degraded wetlandson publiclands, consistent with regionaland watershed priorities,collaborating with othersto improvethe cost-effectiveness of projects.

Findings

pproximately50 percent of the land in Or- land restoration and enhancement projects have egon is owned and managed by federal been undertaken or are planned by federal and A agencies. The predomUumt federal own- state agencies on lands they own and manage. ers are the U.S. Forest Service USFS!, with 16 Some af the best examples are coastal projects of million acres of forest and recreation lands, and the USFS in the Salmon River estuary and the the Bureau af Land Management BLM!, with 15.7 USFWS in the Nestucca and Siletz Bay National million acres of forest, range, and recz'eational Wildlife Refuges. The USFWS, with its mandate lands. The U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS! for waterfowl habitat improvement, has also re- refuges!, the Army Corps of Engineers Corps! stored wetlands in its Columbia River refuges, water project lands!, and the National Park Ser- Willamette Valley refuges, and Malheur and other vice parks and monuments! are also major fed- refuges in eastern Oregon. BLM and Corps resto- eral! andowners and managers. Another 5 percent ration projects in Eugene and BLM's Wood River of Oregon land is owned and managed by state wetlands restoration in Klamath County are other agencies, including the Division of State Land's examples. Various state agency restoration DSI ! 650,000 acres of uplands and waterways, projects include tidelands restoration in the South and the Department of Forestry's DOF! 650,000 SloughNational Estuarine ResearchReserve and acres of farest lands. the Oregon Department of numerous ODFW restoration and enhancement Fish and Wildlife ODFW! owns about 200,000 projects on its wildlife management areas. acres of land it manages directly for wildlife and One of the principal recommendations in the an additional 15,000 acres of other lands. Local public lands section of Oregon,'sWetland Conser- governments also own and manage many small Uation Strategy was to develop and implement a parcels of land, mostly as open space and parks, formal memorandum af understanding MOU! Although some of these public lands have been between state and federal agencies to improve inventoried for wetlands, it is not known exactly wetland management on public lands. What mo- how much wetland in aggregate there is. But it is tivated this recommendation was a recognition no doubt significant and could amount to roughly amongagency staFinvalved in the work group that half of the remaining wetlands in Oregon. while they were doing good things with respect to Although former and degraded wetlands in wetland restoration and enhancement, their ef- public ownership with restoration potential have forts were poorly coordinated and too narrowly not been systematically inventoried, many wet- focused on their own lands or missions. In late

73 74 Recommendation 7

1993, such an MOU was finalized between DSL, included data and information sharing on wet- ODFW, DOF, and the Oregon Parks and Recre- lands and lessons learned from management ef- ation Department at the state level and the USFS, forts; promoting joint funding of data collection BLM, National Parks Service, Corps, and USFWS and restoration projects; and identifying policy at the federal level. The intent of the MOU was to options to facilitate these activities. The MOU was identify common regional priorities for wetland to be implemented through an Interagency Wet- restoration; establish compatible goals, objectives, land Work Group that would meet bimonthly to and management approaches; promote a common accomplish these tasks and objectives. DSL was understanding of wetland functions and values; to provide leadership and coordination of the develop a common inventory of wetlands; and iden- group, but it has not met or otherwise been active tify opportunities for coordinated wetland resto- since the Wetland Conservation Strategy process ration or protection projects. Specific objectives ended in 1993

Implementation Actions 7-1. Fold the existing xnemorandum of under- ~ Update the list of authorities to include the stand.ing on managexnent of wetlands on Clinton White House Wetlands Policy, par- public lands into the mission of the proposed ticularly noting its emphs.sis on achieving Oregon Wetland Restoration Advisory Coun- a long-term net gain in wetlands through cil, with emphasis on fostering interagexxcy restoration. and public-private partnerships to improve the cost-effectiveness of projects. 7-2. Identify and restore former and de- The interagency group established by the 1993 graded wetlands on public lands, consistent MOU for public lands restoration should be folded with regional and watershed priorities for into the Oregon Wetland Restoration Advisory ixxcreasing hydrologic, water quality, and Counci l OWRAC! proposed in Recommendation habitat functions of wetlands. 1. OWRAC should develop a strategic plan for car- The inventory of wetlands and wetland resto- rying out the restoration and enhancement objec- ration opportunities on public lands recommended tives of the original MOU, including specific in the existing MOU should be developed using actions, responsibilities, timing, and costs. the procedures for historical analysis and OWRAC should reevaluate and update the provi- hydrogeomorphic HGM!-based assessmentmeth- sions in the original MOU, based in part on the ods suggestedin overall Recommendations2 and other recomxnendations in this report. Specific 3 of this report. In the interim, until such meth- suggestions for updating include the following: ods are available, public land managers should ~ Add nonlandowning state and federal inventory potential restoration sites, using the best agencies that have restoration-related information available. These and already com- wetland management responsibilities as pleted restoration projects should be included in ex-of5cio members of the interagency work the Wetland Restoration Site Inventory proposed group, including the Department of Land in Recomxnendation 8. Conservation and Development, the Or- The objective of promoting a common under- egon Emergency Management Division, standing of wetland functions should be ap- the Oregon Department of Agriculture, the proached through participation or support of all Oregon Department of Environmental land-owning agencies in the development of a re- Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protec- gional HGM classification system as outlined in tion Agency, and the Natural Resources overall Recommendation 2 of this report. Subse- Conservation Service. Opportunities for quent inventories based on HGM could be more work group participation should also be easily integrated and multiple-objective restora- extended to other public agencies that own tion opportunities facilitated by using a common and manage wetlands, including counties, functional assessment method. The multiple-func- cities, port districts, and local SWCDs. tion project planning that would result would also Recommendotion 7 75 provide the basis for justifying cost-sharing ar- wetland restoration planning process outlined in rangements among landowning agencies and Recommendation 3, should be strongly factored among them and funding agencies, in to direct restoration toward regional problem- Priorities for wetland restoration and enhance- solving and ecosystemintegrity. Interagency and ment on public lands need to be consistent with public-private coordination mechanisms, such as individual agency authorities and missions, over- the Joint Venture or the proposed OWRAC, should all responsibilities to manage natural resources be used to establish partnerships for improved in the public trust, and the rights of adjacent pri- project cost-effectiveness. vate landowners. However, ecoregion- and watershed-level priorities, once developed through the

78 Recommendation 8

recent studies Jones and Stokes Associates 1988; 1993; Coulton and others 1996! document Lebovitz 1992; PCJV 1994; Simenstad and Feist Willamette Valley sites. Many more completed and 1996! document other coastal and Columbia River potential restoration project descriptions can likely restoration projects or sites with restoration po- be found in the files of agency and nongovernmen- tential. Other recent studies Gabriel 1993; LCOG tal organizations throughout the state.

implementation Actions

8-1. Develop and implement a flexible frame- data through the World Wide Web; and on-line work for a Wetland Restoration Site Inven- data entry forms for newly completed projects, also tory database. available through the Web. DSL should contract with one or more third In collaboration with other agencies and orga- parties, such as the Joint Venture or The Nature nizations involved in wetland restoration and en- Conservancy, to develop and possibly maintain the hancement projects, DSL should develop a flexible proposed Wetland Restoration Site Inventory. Pos- framework for an Oregon Wetland Restoration Si te sible funding sources include the state's watershed Inventory database. Initial emphasis should be enhancement program or the Environmental Pro- given to accounting for already completed wetland tection Agency's state grants program. restoration and enhancement projects, Locatio~ data, ownership, prior use, wetland habitats, project goals, functional attributes, and other data 8-2. Maintain a similar, interrelated database might be included table 6 is a prototype!. Tables for wetland compensatory mitigation. for potential restoration or enhancement sites DSL and the Army Corps of Engineers should would include similar, but probably less detailed maintain a separate but related wetland compen- data, focusing on the potential functional capac- satory mitigation WCM! database as part of their ity and other site factors table 5!. Other possible regular regulatory record keeping. For permits features of the proposed inventory include inte- requiring WCM, applicants could be required to gration of the database with easy-to-use Geo- submit needed data as part of their permit appli- graphic Information System viewing software, cation and "as-built" WCM plans. such as ARCVIEW; broad public availability of the Recommendtxttott8 79

Table 6. Initial recommendations for Wetland Restoration Site Inventory database fields.

1. COMPLETED WETLtQVD RESTORATION 2. POTENTIAL WETI LND RESTORATION OR ENHxtENCEMENT PROJECTS OR ENIKKNCEMENT PROJECTS location: geographic UTM, state plane location:geographic UTM, state plane coordinates,or latitude/longitude for GIS! coordinates,or latitude/longitude for GIS! location: political city, county, UGB, UUC! location:political city, county,UGB, UUC! location; street address location: street address location: ecoregion Level III/IV! location: ecoregion Level III/IV! location: watershed HUC, name! location; watershed HUC, name! location: PLSS T, R, S, SS, 1/4! location: PLSS T, R, S, SS, 1/4! landownership:type type public,private! landownership:type type public,private! landownership: name & address landownership:name & address local watershed council code! local watershed council code! current land use code! current land use code! former land use code! former land use code! easement code! easexnent code! Cowardin classification s! potentialCowardin classifiication s! HGM classification class/subclass! potentialHGM classification class/subclass! HGM functions for class code! potentialHGM functionsfor class code! total area potential total area functional capacity index x area! potentialfunctional capacity index x area! Cowardin class es! area s! potentialCowardin class es!area s! HGM class es! area s! potentialHGM class es!area s! buffer to disturbance potential buffer to disturbance buffer size, and length/area potentialbuffer size,and length/area typeof site prior formerwetland, degraded type of site formerwetland, degraded wetland, wetland, never wetland! never wetland! if former wetland, when and how altered? if former wetland, when and how altered? hydrology snd water rights potentialhydrology and water rights restoration actions coded! restoration actions required coded! actual cost of restoration potential cost of restoration year restored,created, or enhanced year s!of subsequentwork adaptive! monitoring program code! desired monitoring prograxn code! monitoring entity monitoring costs potential xnonitoringcosts actual annual maintenance costs potential annual maintenance costs long-term xnanager potential long-terxnmanager

Key: UBG = urbangrowth boundary UTM = universal transverse Mercator GIS = GeographicInformation System HGM = hydrogeornorphic HUC = hydrologic unit catalog PLSS= publiclands survey system T =- township R -- range S ==section $$ = subsection UUC urban unincorporatedcommunities

Recommendation 9

RECOMMENDATION9: Integrateregional wetland restorationpriori- ties into the wetiand cornpensatop mitigation process.*

Findings

itigation of the adverse impacts of wet- on-site, in-kind mitigation. Because former or de- land alterations is required in Oregon graded wetlands with potential for restoration under the state Removal-Fill Law and rarely fit the on-site and in-kind replacement under two federal laws, Section 404 of the Clean model, a preponderance of WCM projects are wet- Water Act and the "swampbuster provision of the land enhancement or creation, as opposed to res- Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. Mitiga- toration. Although someWCM projects have been tion under the Removal-Fill law and Section 404 large and carefully monitored for performtnice, is a sequential process for each permit applica- there have been literally hundreds of small wet- tion. First, wetland impacts must be avoided if lands enhanced or created for WCM. Few of them possible,usually by maximizing use of nonwetland are adequately monitored or evaluated for success. on or off the property. Next, on-site wetland im- Those that have been examined suggest that WCM pacts must be minimized, Finally, unavoidable projects often do not get built to specifications. wetland losses must be compensated by restoring, Further, they lack adequate water supply or other creating, or enhancing wetlands a processknown critical features and often end up not meeting the as wetland compensatorymitigation WCM!. Miti- area and functional goals of Oregon and federal gation is thus the principal link between regula- no-net-loss policies. Several studies confirm this. tory programs and wetland restoration activities. In one that examined the 1977-87 period, of the Most WCM occurs on a project-by-project ba- 74 hectares of wetlands lost, only 42 hectares were sis, a processthat has led to mixed results. When created in return, a net loss of 43 percent Kentula permit applicants cannot avoid wetlands, they and others 1992!. A more recent study in Oregon propose a compensatory mitigation action. Regu- examined 72 WCM projects permitted and built latory and environmental review agencies over- between 1980 and 1990 Shaich and Franklin seeing the mitigation process generally prefer 1995!. The fill permits allowed 52 acres of wetland to be altered in return for 37.5 acres of WCM 8 percent net loss!. However, two-thirds of the projectshad complianceviolations in the "as-built" condition; the net result was that only 21.8 acres *Although this report deals primarily with nonregulatory wetland restoration issues, there are of WCM were constructed 8 percent net loss!. necessary linkages that need to be made with regula- This pattern is not unique to Oregon, as reported tory programs. This recommendation and its imple- recently in a national summary Race and Fonseca mentation actions address some of those linkages. 1996!. 82 Recommendation 9

Wetland compensatory miti gation projects, such as this an-site, in-kind praj ect adj acent to a shopping center parking lot near Portland, have little functional value J'im Good photo!.

In recent years, mitigation 6anking, at least Nonregulatory wetland restoration planning in concept, has become a popular alternative to and priority setting, as envisioned in this report, small wetland creation projects undertaken as will yield several products that might aid the WCM WCM. Mitigation banking involves the restoration process. The first product is an inventory of po- or creation! of large wetland areas for future use tential wetland restoration sites that, would list as WCM. As needed, WCM credits are sold to per- former or degraded wetlands that in general may mit applicants in lieu of requiring separate WCM have good potential for successful mitigation. At projects. Despite the considerable administrative some time in the future, after a hydrogeomorphic and technical challenges posed by mitigation HGM!-based, wetland functional assessment banks, they are being developed in a number of method has been developed, the inventory might states, including Oregon, and being considered in also include the second product assessments for others Ei I 1993; Kusler and others 1992!. There each of these sites that estimate functional capac- are a variety of initiatives to improve WCM ef- ity following restoration. The third product is re- forts throughout the United States, including miti- gional and watershed wetland restoration gation banking, from which we are learning a great priorities that, if followed, will help reduce spe- deal. However, the long-term success of the WCM cific ecosystem and community problems for that process, particularly wetland creation projects, is region, such as fisheries habitat degradation, flood- still open to debate. ing, and nonpoint source pollution.

Implementation Actions

9-1. Use wetland restoration priorities and be given equal weight to priorities suggested by sites identified at the ecoregion level, in analysis of functional lass associated with a given watershed action programs, and in local development project. Second, as Wetland Restora- comprehensive plans as a basis for wetland tion Site Inventories are completed for a region or compensatory mitigation actions and for es- watershed, regulatory agencies and permit ap- tablishment of mitigation banks. plicants! should use sites on the list as a guide to WCM project selection, The WCM process will be The WCM process should be used as one means further facilitated as HGM is implemented in regu- of implementing Oregon's nonregulatory wetland latory programs in the next few years, because restoration program. First, functional restoration sites on the Wetland Restoration Site Inventory will priorities established by the state and by local be HGM classified and their potential functional watershed councils should serve as the principal capacity estimated. This should speed the site-se- priorities for WCM in regulatory processes, At the lection process by quickly identifying those sites very least, regional or watershed priorities should Recommendat/on 9 83 that have the highest probability of successful Another advantage of using Wetland Restora- habitat and function replacement. Finally, sites tion Si te Inventori ee developed through on the Wetland Restoration Site Inventory should nonregulatory wetland restoration planning is be used as a guide for locating and establishing that to do so may create an economic market for mitigation banks. restoration of sites that otherwise would not be Implementation of these recommendations is available for restoration. Especially in rapidly contingent on initiating the restoration policies developing urban areas, this may be an incentive and framework outlined in Recommendations I for private parties owning sites on a Wetland Res- through 3. Once that process is underway, Re- toration Site Inventory to hold them as open space moval-Fill Law administrative rules could be until they are needed for restoration. Added in- changed to provide for the alternative WCM pro- ducement might be provided by tax deferrals that cess outlined above. Where there is no Wetland could be repaid once the site is used for WCM or Restoration Site Inventory, the process could fol- as a mitigation bank. low the traditional route. Where there is a Wet- In another scenario, a landowner, working with land Restoration Site Inventory, the new the Division of State Lands and the Corps, might procedures could be followed. Implementation at restore his or her former or degraded wetlands the federal level through the 404 process would with the intent of marketing it as mitigation credit needto be pursued through changesin Army Corps at some future time essentially, a future mitiga- of Engineers Corps! and Natural ResourcesCon- tion bank. Registering such sites on the Wetland servation Services procedures.Resistance to such Restoration Site Inventory would make the pro- changescan be expected,particularly from review cessof finding a buyer a developer who needs to agenciesand environmental groups, but the rec- find a mitigation site much easier. The Wetland ommended procedures would simplify the WCM Restoration Site Inventory would thus facilitate a process, speed up decision making, and be more "market" in completed restoration projects. It beneficial to wetland ecosystems. If the state as- would also allow for more accurate area and func- sumes the 404 program or has a state program- tion trade-offs using HGM models see Recommen- matic general permit, this may be easier, dation 2! or some other assessment approach,

Recommendation 10

RECQMMENDATIQN 10: Integrate wetland restoration into the Oregon lancf Useand wetland conservation planning programs.'

Findings S everalofOregon's statewide planninggoals Goal 5 is structured to emphasize protection addressprotection of significant wetland re- of "significant" resources those determined to be sources, but there is little to n.o consider- the most important or most functional. Former ation of wetland restoration needs or opportuni- wetlands are not identified at all, and severely ties. Statewide Planning Goal 5: Natural degraded wetlands, many of which may be prime Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open candidates for restoration, are very unlikely to be Spaces and its administrative rules OAR 660-23!, designated significant and therefore are not given amended in June 1996, require local governments any special land use planning protection, A sec- to conduct a local wetlands inventory LWI! and ond shortcoming of Goal 5 is that the different protect significant wetlands within urban growth urban vs, rural requirements are based upon ju- boundaries UGBs! and urban unincorporated risdictional boundaries rather than landscape or communities UUCs!. Outside of UGBs and VUCs, watershed boundaries, which makes evaluation counties have two options. They may follow the and protection of significant wetland resources same process as required for areas within UGBs somewhat fragmented. oi UUCs, or, if not, they must adopt the statewide Two coastal goals, Goal 16 Estuarine Re- wetland inventory SWI! and regulations that resources! and Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands!, require quire county notification to the Division of State identification and protection of wetlands. Goal 16 Lands DSL! for certain development actions that has been particularly effective in this regard. Es- would affect wetlands on the inventory. The SWI tuary plans developed in the late 1970s and 1980s is based on the National Wetlands Inventory.! Pro- resulted in natural designation zones for 64 per- ceduresfor developing LWIs are stipulated by DSL cent of tidal wetlands and conservation designa- in OAR 141-86-180 et seq. Wetlands are also ad- tion zones for 34 percent Cortright, Weber, and dressed through the riparian corridors require- Bailey 1987!. Major freshwater marshes within ments of Goal 5. coastal shoreland boundaries are also required to be protected under Goal 17. Goal 16 required state and federal agencies to assist local governments *Although this report deals primarily with nonregulatory wetland restoration issues, there are in identifying wetland restoration sites, which important linkages with planning and regulatory mostly turned out to be diked tidelands currently programs that need to be made. This recommenda- used as pasture land. Local governments were tion and its implementation actions address some of required under Goal 17 to protect restoration sites those linkages, needed for future estuarine wetland compensatory 86 Recommendation 10 mitigation. Many sites mostly diked tidelands opportunities beyond those required for compen- were identified, but few have actually been used satory mitigation are not required, but are facili- for compensatory mitigation, in part becauselittle tated by development of the WCP. The other estuarine wetland area has been alter ed in recent mention of restoration sites is in ORS 196.674 9!, years. The coastal goals did not explicitly address which requires DSL, when compiling and updat- restoration in a nonregulatory context, ing the SWI, to identify opportunities for wetland The other principal planning authority deal- creation, restoration, and enhancement when the ing with wetland protection and restoration in information is available. Such an inventory has Oregon is the 1989 state wetland conservation law not yet been compiled. ORS 196.668 et seq.! that primarily addressed Several changes are necessary in wetland plan- wetland inventories and wetland conservation ning procedures under Goals 5 and 17 and the plans WCPs!. This legislation gave DSL the re- state wetland conservation law ORS 196.668 et sponsibility to develop and maintain the statewide seq.! to better integrate wetland restoration into wetlands inventory and establish appropriate in- the state's land use planning framework. Because ventory standards. WCPs were established as an the Goal 5 amendment process was recently com- optional alternative to addressing wetlands un- pleted and additional changes are unlikely for der Goals 5 and 17. Jurisdictions developing a some time see ODSL 1997 for a brief overview of WCP must conduct a more detailed wetlands in- changes!, most of these recommendations do not ventory, evaluate historical wetland losses, set require rule changes or address provisions under wetland planning goals, and develop a wetlands the jurisdiction of DSL, including inventories and compensatory mitigation plan that helps to fur- wetland conservation plans. ther the goals of the plan. Wetland restoration

Implementation Actions

10-1. Revise wetland inventory requirements 10-2. Incorporate identified wetland restora- to include potential restoration sites. tion or enhancement sites into the Wetland Restoration Site Inventory. DSL should amend its administrative rules for LWIs and wetland conservation plan inventories Inventoried wetland restoration and enhance- WCPIs! to require identification of former wet- ment sites should be integrated into the statewide lands with restoration potential and a wetland Wetland Restoration Site Inventory database, as restoration site data layer that would include both outlined in Recommendation 8. The Wetland Res- former and degraded wetlands. Former wetlands toration Site Inventory would fulfill the require- with restoration potential should be identified ments of ORS 196.674 9!, which requires DSL, through historical analysis and field work and be when compiling and updating the SWI, to iden- included on final inventory maps. Degraded wet- tify opportunities for wetland creation, restoration, lands would be evaluated during functional analy- and enhancement when the information is avail- sis, using the Oregon Freshwater Assessment able. Methodology OFWAM! according to current administrative rules, but eventually with quantita- 10-3. Establish wetland restoration elements tive methods such as hydrogeomorphic HGM!. In for Goals 5, 16, and 17 and wetland conser- addition to identifying Cowardin wetland classes vation plans. for existing wetlands, LWIs and WCPIs should also As discussed above, the Goal 5 framework es- identify HGN classes of existing and former wetlands, as soon as such classes have been devel- tablishes a two-tier system emphasizing protection of the most functional "significant"! wetlands, oped, as suggested in Recommendation 2. The leaving little opportunity to incorporate land use potential functional capacity of former wetlands planning protection for former or degraded wet- should also be assessed, although OFWAM would lands with significant restoration potential. How- need to be modified for this purpose, as outlined ever, the riparian corridor element of Goal 5 in Recommendation 2, until HGM is developed. provides an opportunity ta protect potential wet- Potential water sources for restoration should also land restoration sites that fall within identified be identified. Recommendation 10 87 riparian corridor boundaries, particularly within sponsoring wetland restoration. This should be urban areas where LWIs and detailed wetland closely coordinated with cities, counties, and ports. planning is required. This could be readily accom- WCPs provide the best opportunity for incor- plished in urban areas by encouraging jurisdic- porating wetland restoration into land use plan- tions to ning. WCP requirements call for analysis of historical wetland alterations and losses, devel- 1. simultaneously conductwetland and ripar- opment of plan goals that can incorporate land- ian inventories and planning activities scape-scale wetland protection and restoration 2. identify and assess former or degraded objectives limited by jurisdictional boundaries as wetlands with good restoration potential noted above!, and development of a compensa- during the wetland inventory process as tory mitigation program that helps to fulfill plan described in Implementation Action 10-1 goals. The West Eugene WCP provides an excel- 3. develop riparian corridor criteria, under lent example. WCP rules should be revised to place the "standard" riparian inventory process, more emphasis on identification of wetland resto- that include, as appropriate, potential wet- ration opportunities that meet landscape-scale, land restoration sites watershed-based restoration goals beyond what 4. include the potential functions and services may be required for compensatory mitigation. of restored wetlands in the economic, so- WCP rules should also be revised, based upon ex- cial, environmental, and energy analysis; perience gained since their initial adoption, to if conducted these will automatically be make WCPs a more feasible planning alternative included in the "safe harbor" standard cor- to Goal 5. ridor setback! 5. develop and adopt overlay zoning and or- 10-4. Use a watershed approach for wetland dinances that restrict alterations consistent and riparian corridor planning in Goal 5 and with Goal 5 rules wetland conservation plans. These restoration sites within riparian corri- Planning areas for WCPs and Goal 5 wetland dors would thus be identified and protected and planning are distinctly not watershed or landscape would be potentially available for restoration based; instead, they follow political or other arti- should the opportunity arise. In rural areas, spe- ficial boundaries. This is in part becauseit is cit- cific wetland restoration opportunities within pro- ies and counties that have general-purpose tected riparian corridors will need to be identified planning authority in the state, and historically through other watershed restoration planning ef- there has been little regional planning outside the Portland metro area and coastal estuaries. forts. Goal 17 also provides for riparian protection A watershed approach to inventory and plan- and restoration within "coastal shorelands;" in ning should be incorporated into Goal 5 andWCPs. many cases, wetland restoration is an appropri- While the urban area focus of these programs is ate form of riparian restoration. The information not inappropriate, the programs should at least obtained through the Goal 5 LWI and planning deal with the additional portions of subwatersheds process may also be used to address Goal 17 re- needed to apply ecological land. scape planning quirements, although the specific planning re- principles within the planning area. A multijurisdictional, collaborative planning ap- quirements vary. As noted in the findings, Goal 16 requires an proach should be encouraged or required. Only in inventory of potential estuarine wetland restora- this manner can wetland functional significance tion sites for future use as mitigation. Many sites be understood in a landscape context and consid- so identified and others may have potential for ered in protection schemes.Where there are local restoration in a nonregulatory context. An inven- watershed councils in place, these groups could tory of such sites should be undertaken and pro- help provide the coordination; where there are not, vided to local watershed councils for inclusion in citizen advisory committees could play that role. watershed action programs, and to other groups

A endix: WetlandRestoration Policy Work Group Membersand Participants

Brad Hales Allen Makinson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Resources Conservation Service Greg Benoit John Marshall Marine Resource Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department Ken Bierly Janet Morlan Governor' s Natural Resources Once Division of State Lands Roger Borine Aubrey Neas Natural Resources Conservation Service Water Resources Department

Richard Clark Jim Pease EPA Region 10 OSU Department of Geosciences Craig Cornu Narc Peters South Slough NERR Department of Agriculture Frank Flynn Emily Roth Stoel Rives Metro

Robert Frenkel Cal Sawyer OSU Department of Geosciences NOAA Coastal Services Center

Jim Good Joel Shaich OSU Extension Sea Grant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jim Goudzwaard Maureen Smith U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mike Graybill Patty Snow South Slough NERR Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Ken Hale Phil Stalhngs Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental and Geologic Resources,Inc, Shane Hughes Bruce Taylor Environmental and Geologic Resources, Inc. Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture Brian Lightcap John van Staveren U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pacific Habitat Services

Neal Maine North Coast Land Conservancy

References

Adarnus, P. R. 1983. A method for wetland functional 1995. Guidebook for application of assessment: vol. II, Report to the Federal High- hydrogeomorphic assessments of riverine wet- way Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- lands, Technical Report WRP-DE-ll. U.S. Army portation, Washington, D.C. Corpsof Engineers,Waterways Experiment Sta- Adamus, P, R., and L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A method tion, Vicksburg, MS. for wetland functional assessment: vol L Report Clarke, S. E., D. White, and A. Schaedel, 1991. Or- to the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. egon, USA, and ecological regions and subregions Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. for water quality management. Environmental Adamus, P. R., L. T. Stockwell, E. J. Clairain, Jr,, M. Management 15!:847 856. E. Morrow, L. T. Rozas, and R. D. Smith. 1991. CREST Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce!, Wetland evaluation technique WET!; vol I: lit- 1979. Mitigation and restoration plan. In Colum- erature review and evaluation rationale. Wet- bia River estuary regional inanagement plan. lands Research Program Technical Report Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, WRP-DE-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wa- Astoria, OR. terways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. CSCC California State Coastal Conservancy!. 1994. Applegate River Watershed Council. 1994.Applegate Options for wetland conservation: a guide for watershed assessment, Prepared for the State California landowners. California State Coastal of Oregon Watershed Health Program and Stra- Conservancy, Oakland, CA. tegic Water Management Group, n.p. CSRI Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative Task Anthony, L., and M. Grenbemer.1995, Little Butte Force!. 1997. Coastal salmon restoration initia- Creek watershed action plan, Little Creek Wa- tive, Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative Task tershed Council, n.p. Farce, Salem, OR, Benner, P, A,, and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Historical re- Caquiile Watershed Association. 1994. Preliminary construction of the Coquille River and surround- watershed condition assessment and restoration ing landscape.In Near coastal waters national strategy for the Coquille River, Technical Advi- pilot project: the Coquille River, Oregon.Action sory Group Draft Working Paper. plan for Oregon coastal watersheds, estuary and Cartright, R., J. Weber, and R. Bailey. 1987. Oregon ocean waters, 1988 91. Report prepared by the estuary plan book. OregonDepartment of Land Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Conservation and Development, Salem, OR. for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coulton, K. G., P, Goodwin, C. Perala, and M. G. Unpublished manuscript. Scott, 1996, An evaluation of flood management Benner, P. A., and J, R. Sedell. 1997. Upper benefits through floodplain restoration on the Willamette River landscape: a historic perspec- Willamette River, Oregon, USA. Phillip Williams tive. In River quality: dynamics and restoration. Associates, San Francisco. Eds. A, Laenen and D.A. Dunnette. Lewis Pub- Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, lisher, Boca Raton and New York. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater Brinsan, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classifica- habitats of the United States. United States Fish tion for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta- Daggett, S. 1994. Stage 1 Watershed assessment: fi- tion, Vicksburg, MS. nal report, OregonDivision of State Lands. . 1995. The HGM approach explained. Na- Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States tional Wetlands Newsletter 17!:7 13. 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department af Interior, . 1996. Assessing wetland functions using Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. HGM. National Wetlands Newsletter 18!:10 ELI Environmental Law Institute!. 1993. Wetland 16. mitigation banking. Environmental Law Insti- Brinson, M. M., F. R, Hauer, L. C. Lee, W, L, Nutter, tute, Washington, DC. R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, and D. Whigham.

91 92 References

Euphrat, F. D., and B. P. Warkentin. 1994. A water- Hey, D. L. And N. S. Philippi. 1994. Reinventing a shed assessment primer. Oregon Water Re- flood control strategy. The Wetlands Initiative, sources Research Institute, Oregon State Chicago, University. EPA 910/B-94/005. V.S. Environmen- ICWRC Interagency Committee on Wetlands Res- tal ProtectionAgency, Seattle, WA. toration and Creation!. 1992. A National Program Federal Register 62, no. 119 0 June 1997!. for Wetlands Restoration and Creation. FEMAT Forest EcosystemManagement Assessxnent Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, 1996. Febru- Team!, 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ary 1996 flooding, landslides, and stream ero- ecological,economic and social assessxnent.Re- sion in the state of Oregon. DR-1099-OR. Federal port of the Forest Ecosystem Management As- ExnergencyManagement Agency,Region 10. sessment Team. USFS, BLM, NOAA, USFWS, Jones and Stokes Associates.1988, Restoration po- NPS, and EPA. tential of diked estuarine wetlands in Washing- Foote-Snuth, C. 1996. Restoration in a watershed ton and Oregon. Phase I: inventory of candidate context. National Wetlands Newsletter 21!: 10 sites. EPA 910/9-88-242. U.S. Environmental 13, Protection Agency,Region 10, Seattle, WA. Frenkel, R. E., and J. C. Morlan. 1990. Restoration Karr, J. R., and D. R. Dudley. 1981, Ecological per- of the SalmonRiver salt marshes:retrospect and spective on water quality goals. Environmental prospect.Final Report to the U.S. Environmen- Management 5:55 68. tal Protection Agency,Region 10, February 15, Kentula, M. E., J. Sifneos,J. W. Good,M. Rylko, and 1990, K Kunz. 1992. Trends and patterns in section Frisseii, C. A., W. J, Liss, E, E. Warren, and M. D. 404 permitting requiring compensatorymitiga- Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for tion in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environ- stream habitat classifxcation.viewing streams in xnental Managexnent 16 l!:109 119. a watershed context. Oak Creek Laboratory of Kentula, M. E., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C.C. Hol- Biology, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. land, A. Sherman, and J. C. Sifneos. 1993. An Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. approach to improving decisionxnaking in wet- Gabriel, J. T. 1993. The status of Oregon'sWillamette land restoration and creation. Island Press, Valley wetlands. Master of Science Research Washington, DC. Paper. Department of Geosciences,Oregon State Keystone Center. 1995. The Keystone dialogue on University, Corvallis, OR. incentives for private landowners to protect en- Gersib, R. 1996. Evaluation of a watershed-based dangered species.Final Report. wetland restoration initiative for Washington's Kusler, J.A., C. Ray, M. Klein, and S. Weaver. 1992. Puget Sound region, Pages 520-524 in Proceed- State wetland regulation: status of programsand ings of the 15th Conferenceof The Coastal Soci- emerging trends. Association of State Wetland ety. The Coastal Society,Seattle, WA. Managers, Berne, NY. Gersib, R,, G. Broadhurst, P. Cagney, M. Rylko, C. I COG Lane Council of Governments!, 1993. West Saxnuelson,C. Tanner, F. Weinmann, B. Ziegler. Eugene wetlands plan. Eugene, Oregon. 1994. Workingtogether: a nonregulatorywetland Lebovitz,A. 1992. Oregonestuarine conservationand restoration plan for Puget Sound basins. Work- restoration priority evaluation: opportunitiesfor ing Draft. WashingtonState Departxnentof Ecol- salmonid habitat and wetlands functions en- ogy,Olyxnpia. hancement in Oregon'sestuaries. M.E.S. thesis, Good,J. W., J. W. Weber, J. W. Charland, J. V. Olson, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. and K A. Chapin. 1997. State coastal zone man- Yale University, New Haven, CT. agementeffectiveness in protectingestuaries and Magee, D. W. 1996. The hydrogeomorphicapproach: coastal wetlands: a national overview. Review a different perspective. SWS Bulletin 13!:12 draft for NOAA, 0%ce of Ocean and Coastal Re- 14. sources Management. Oregon Sea Grant, Corv allis, OR. Mitsch, W. J. and J, G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New Granger, T., T. Hruby, and A. McMillan, 1996. The York, WashingtonState Wetland Function Assessment Project. Funded by USEPA and coordinated by Montgomery, D. R., G, E. Grant, and K. Sullivan. the Shorelands and Water ResourcesProgram, 1995. Watershed analysis as a framework for WashingtonState Department of Ecology,Olym- implementing ecosystem management, Water Resources Bulletin 31!:369 386, pia. References 9Q

NCDEHNR North Carolina Department of Environ- Race, M. S, and D. R. Christie. 1982, Coastal zone ment, Health, and Natural Resources!, 1994. A development: mitigation, marsh creation, and wetland functional assessxnentprocedure for the decision-making. Environmental Management North Carolina coastal area. Coastal Zone En- 6:317 328. hancement Giants Program, Raleigh, NC. Race, M. S. 1985. Critique of present wetlands miti- Noss, R, 1995. Biodiversity and landscape ecology: a gation policies in the United States based on backgroundpaper for wetland restoration policy. analysis of past restoration projects in San Fran- Unpublished report to the Wetland Restoration cisco Bay. Environmental Managexnent 9:71 82. Policy Work Group. Race, M. S. and M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing com- NRC National Research Council!. 1992. Restoration pensatory mitigation; what will it take? Ecologi- of aquatic ecosystems:science, technology, and cal Applications 6!:94 101. public policy. National Academy Press, Washing- Roth, E, R. Olsen, P. Snow, and R. Sumner. 1996. ton, DC. Oregonfreshwater assessmentmethodology. 2nd . 1995. Wetlands: characteristics and bound- edition, Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, aries, Comxnittee on the Characterization of Wet- OR. lands, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, Sedell, J. R. and J. L. Froggatt. 1984. hnportance of Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous streamside forests to large rivers: the isolation United States. Annals of the Association of of the Willamette River, Oregon, USA &om its American Geographers 77 l!:118 125. floodplain by snagging and streamside forest Omernik, J. M. and G. E. Griffith. 1991. Ecological removal. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. regionsversus hydrologic units: frameworks for 22: 1828-1834. managing water quality, Journal of Soil and Shaich, J.A. and K T. Franklin. 1995. Wetland Com- Water Conservation 46!:334 340. pensatory mitigation in Oregon: a program evalu- ODSL Oregon Division of State Lands!. 1995. ation with a focus on Portland metro area Oregon's wetland conservation strategy. Division projects. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, of State Lands, Salem, OR. OR. . 1997. The new goal 5: how has it changed Sixnenstad, C. A. And B. E. Feist. 1996. Restoration wetland planning? Wetlands Update 8!:1-3. potential of diked estuarine wetlands: inferring fate and recovery rate of historically-breached OregonProgress Board. 1994.Oregon benchmarks: sites. EPA 910/R-96-005. Region X, V. S. Envi- Standax'dsfor measuring statewide progress and ronmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA, institutional performance. Report to the 1995 legislature, Salem, OR. Sxnith, R. D. 1993. A conceptual framework for assessing the functions of wetlands. Technical Re- OWCA Oregon Wetlands Conservation Alliance!. port, WRP-DE-3. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 1995. The Oregon wetlands conservation guide: Experixnent Station, Vicksburg, MS. voluntary wetlands stewardship options for Oregon's private landowners. Oregon Wetlands Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. M. Conservation Alliance, Portland, OR. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using the hydrogeomorphicclas- OWRD OregonWater Resources Departxnent!. 1995. sification, reference wetlands, and functional Watershed health status report, number 8, Re- indices, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Sta- port summary to the Oregon legislative assexn- tions, Technical Report TR WRP-DE-9, Final bly. Report, Vicksburg, MS. Pacific Rivers Council, 1995. Prioriti zing watersheds SRI/Shapiro. 1993. Wetland areal estimates for the and wild salmon restoration: a summary of the State of Oregon. Oregon Division of State Lands, framework. Pacific Rivers Council, Portland, OR. Salem. . 1996. Healing the watershed: a guide to res- SWMG Strategic Water Management Group!. 1992. toration of watersheds and native fish in the Proposal:a watershedxnanagement strategy for West. Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR Oregon.Final report and recommendationsof the PCJV Pacific Coast Joint Venture!. 1994. Strategic SWMG Policy Work Group. Strategic Water Man- Plan. Oregon Coastal Wetlands Joint Venture, agement Group, Salem, OR. Lake Oswego, OR. TCF The Conservation Foundation!. 1988. Protect- Philippi, N. S. 1994,Revisiting flood control in light ing America's wetlands: an action agenda.The of the 1993 Mississippi flood event. Wetlands Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC. Research, Chicago. 94 Referencex

Thiele, S., D. E. Pater, T, D, Thorson, J. Kagsn, C. , 1992b, Designing wetlands preservation pro- Chappell, and J. M. Omernik, 1996. Level III and grams for local governments: a guide to non-regu- IV ecoregians for Oregon and Washington. Map. latory protection, Publication 92-18. Washington U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Department of Ecology, Olyxnpia, WA. NHEERL, Corvallis, OR. . 1993. Restoring wetlands in Washington: a USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!. 1995. Mas- guidebook for wetland restoration planning and sachusetts wetlands restoration study site iden- implementation. Publication 93-17. Washington tification and evaluation report. New England State Department of Ecology, Olyxnpia, WA. Division, U,S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wellman, K . F. 1995. The potential role of economic Waltham, MA. valuation in wetlands restoration policy and USEPA U.S, Environmental Protection Agency!. planning. Unpublished report to the Wetland 1994. Partnerships and opportunities in wetland Restoration Policy Work Group, restoration. EPA 910/R-94 003, WHOEP White House OfHce of Environmental USEPA, Region X U.S. Environmental Protection Policy!. 1993. Protecting America's wetlands: a Agency, Region X!. 1994, Willamette Basin Stra- fair, flexible, and effective approach. White House tegic Initiative: overview. Seattle: U.S. Environ- Office of Enviroxunental Policy, Washington, DC. mental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. Wilen, W. 1992. Use of national wetlands inventory USGS U.S. Geological Survey!. 1996. National wa- maps to predict the occurrence of wetland func- ter sumxnary on wetland resources. USGS Wa- tions/services, Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and ter Supply Paper 2425, U.S. Governxnent Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Printing OfHce, Washington, DC. Williams, P, B, 1995, Considerations of historic func- Washington Forest Practices Board. 1993. Standard tions and conditions In wetland restoration plan- methodology for conducting watershed analysis. ning. Unpublished report to the Wetland Version 2.0. Washington Forest Practices Board, Restoration Policy Work Group. Olympia, WA. Williaxns, C. E., And M. E. Lathbury. 1996. Economic WDOE Washington State Department of Ecolagy!. incentives for habitat conservation on private 1986. At home with wetlands: a landowner's lands: application to the inland Pacific North- guide. Publication Number 90-31. Washington west. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24!:187 191. State Department of Ecology, Olyxnpia, WA. Zedler, J, 1987. Mitigation problexns on the south- . 1991, Washington state wetlands rating sys- ern California coast. California Waterfront Age tem-western Washington. Publication 91-58. 3!:32 33. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olym- Zedler, J. 1996. Coastal mitigation in southern Cali- pia, WA. fornia: the need for a regional restoration strat- . 1992a. Wetland buyers: use and effective- egy. Ecological Applications 6:84-93. ness. Publication 92-10. Washington State De- partment of Ecology, Olyznpia, WA, Glossar biodiversity. The compositioa e,g., kinds aad evapotranspiration. Loss of water by both number of species!, structure e.g., vegetation evaporation from the soil and by transpiration layering, snags, and down logs!, aad fuactioa of water from the plants growing on the soil. e.g., habitat and food web support, hydrologic, fringe wetland. Wetland near a large body of aad biogeochemical! of an ecosystem Noss water, most typically the ocean, that receives 1995!. frequent aad regular two-way tidal flow or bog. A nutrient-poor, acidic, peat-accumulating wind-driven fluctuations in water level. wetland. geomorphology. Study of characteristics, origin, channelize. Hydromodification in which the bed and development of landforms. or banks of a stream or river are artificially groundwater. Water found at aad beneath the straightened. water table in the zones of saturation. compensatory mitigation. The restoration, cre- habitat. The environment in which the require- ation, or enhancement of "equivalent" wetland ments of a specific plant or animal are met. area and function as replacement for unavoid- hydric soil. Soil that is saturated, flooded, or able wetland loss associated with the regula- poaded long enough during the growing sea- tory permit process. son to develop anaerobic conditions in the up- degraded. Lowered in quality from adverse im- per layer. pacts such as vegetation removal, invasion of hydrogeomorphic. Of or pertaining to an aggre- nonnative species, or hydromodifications. gate of the geomorphic setting, the water depressional wetland. Wetland occurring in a source and its transport, and hydrodynamics depression in the landscape so that the catch- Brinson 1993!. ment area for surface runoff is generally small. hydrophyte. Any plant growing in water or oa a ecological integrity. The capability of support- substrate that is at least periodically deficient ing and maintaining a balanced, integrated in oxygen as a result of excess water. Plants community of adaptive organisms, having a typically found ia wetland habitats. species composition, diversity, and functional indicator. Organism, ecological community, or organization comparable to that of natural structural feature so strictly associated with habitats in the region. a particular environmental condition that its ecoregion. Geographic areas of ecosystem simi- presence indicates the existence of the condi- larity, including structure, processes, function. tions, aad the type, quantity, and quality of marsh. Wetland characterized by frequent or con- natural resources Omeraik 1987!. Ecoregioas tinual inundation, emergent herbaceous veg- are defined by their characteristic geomorphol- etation, and mineral soils. ogy, soils, climate, land use or land cover, and dominant vegetation. mitigation banking. Restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands undertaken ex- ecosystem. An organic community of plants and pressly for the purpose of providing compen- animals, viewed within its physical environ- sation for wetland losses from future ment. The ecosystem results form the inter- development activities. It includes only that action between its individual components, such activity which takes place prior to elimination as soils, climate, vegetation, aad animal life. of another wetland as part of a credit system. enhancement. The alteration, maintenance, or nonregulatory restoration, creation, or en- management of existing wetlands for loag- hancement. Any restoration, creation, or en- term improvement of particular functions or hancement of wetlands that is undertaken services, often to the detriment of other func- voluntarily for its inherent value and benefit, tions or services.

95 96 Ctoao

rather than as part of a compensatory mitiga- wet meadow. Any type of wetland dominated by tioii process associated with a state Removal- herbaceous vegetation and with waterlogged Fill or federal Section 404 permit. soil near the surface but without standing restoration. The return of a former or degraded water for most of the year. ecosystem to a close approximation of its con- wetland {scientific definition!. An ecosystem dition prior to disturbance. In restoration, both that depends on constant or recurrent, shal- the structure and the functions of the ecosys- low inundation or saturation at or near the tem are recreated, and ecological damage to surface of the substrate. The essential charac- the resource is repaired. The goal is to emu- teristics of a wetland are recurrent, sustained late a natural, functioning, self-regulating sys- inundation or saturation at or near the sur- tem that is integrated with the ecological face and the presence of physical, chemical, landscape in which it occurs. and biological features reflective of recurrent, riparian ecosystem. Ecosystemthat has a high sustained inundation or saturation. Common water table because of its proximity to an diagnostic features of wetlands are hydric soils aquatic system, either surface or subsurface and hydrophytic vegetation. These features water, will be present except where specific physico- chemical, biotic, or anthropogenic factors have riverine wetland. Wetland system exposed to removed them or prevented their development channelized flow regimes; can be tidal waters, NRC 1995!. slow-moving waters with well-developed floodplains, fast-moving waters with little fiood- wetland regulatory definition!. Those areas plain, and intermittent systems. that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration suf- surface runoff. Water that flows over the sur- ficient to support, and that under normal cir- face of the land as a result of rainfall or snow- cumstances do support, a prevalence of melt: it enters streams and rivers to become vegetation typically adapted to life in satu- channel flow. rated soil conditions. Wetlands generally in- swamp. Emergent wetland in which the upper- clude swamps, marshes, hogs,or similar areas most stratum of vegetation is primarily com- 3 CFR 323.2[c]: 1977 U.S. Army Corps of posed of trees. Engineers definition!, water table. The upper level of groundwater be- wetland creation. To intentionally convert a low which all interstitial spaces are saturated nonwetlaiid area into a wetland area. This with water. definition presumes the site has not been a watershed. The entire physical area or basin wetland within recent times 00 to 200 years!. drained by a distinct stream or river system, Significant manipulation or active mainte- physically separated from other watersheds by nance may be required to develop and main- ridgetop boundaries. tain such a site as wetland.