W&M ScholarWorks Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Wetlands Reports (CCRM) Summer 7-1-1997 The Virginia Wetlands Report Vol. 12, No. 2 Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccrmvawetlandreport Part of the Environmental Education Commons Recommended Citation Virginia Institute of Marine Science, "The Virginia Wetlands Report Vol. 12, No. 2" (1997). Virginia Wetlands Reports. 28. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccrmvawetlandreport/28 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM) at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Virginia Wetlands Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Summer 1997 TheThe VirginiaVirginia Vol. 12, No. 2 WetlandsWetlands ReportReport Wetlands Mitigation Banks: Creating Big Wetlands to Compensate for Many Small Losses Carl Hershner etlands mitigation banking is a acres each year. When you realize that wetland if at all possible. Relocating relatively new tool for wetlands new tidal wetlands are not appearing development on a parcel of land, or managers.W It is finding increasing naturally at a rate anywhere close to redesigning a project can often pre- application in the struggle to achieve a the rate of loss caused by man and serve the existing resource. When “no net loss” goal for our remaining nature, this “preventable” loss becomes avoidance is not possible, minimizing wetland resources. The concept of a concern. the area of impact is always the second creating wetlands and thus establish- The problem confronting resource objective. When an unavoidable loss ing a “resource bank account” against managers, such as Virginia’s local of wetlands occurs, managers begin to which one can make withdrawals has wetlands boards, evaluate methods to compensate for tremendous appeal, particularly in is how what has been destroyed. rapidly developing areas such as Tide- Compensation for tidal wetlands water, Virginia. losses has routinely involved some The goal of preserving and sort of replacement. Grading up- protecting tidal wetlands in lands down to intertidal elevations Virginia has become both and planting native wetland easier and more difficult over the plants is the accepted method of past several decades. Compared to building a new marsh. Replac- the 1960’s and 1970’s, fewer people ing a natural marsh with a are proposing large scale projects to man-made marsh has always drain or convert wetlands to other to raised questions of type, uses. This situation is a consequence ac- amount and location. of growing public awareness of the commo- Which of the twelve value of wetlands. It is also a conse- date the types of vegetated tidal quence of the vigorous efforts of re- necessary wetlands recognized in source managers to keep development develop- Virginia should be used to replace out of these valuable areas. In combi- ment al- a loss? Generally managers have tried nation, these factors have almost elimi- lowed by to require the created marsh to be of nated the threat of wholesale destruc- law, while the same type as the destroyed marsh, tion of large tidal marshes. still preserving as much of the resource replacement “in-kind.” In reality, On the other hand, the burgeoning as possible. Most wetland board mem- some types of wetlands are easier to population crowding into coastal areas, bers can recite from memory the miti- establish than others. Additionally, means small losses to shoreline devel- gation “sequencing” process all wet- some types of wetlands are recognized opment are a constant threat. Indi- land managers attempt to employ: by the Virginia Wetlands Guidelines vidually these losses seem insignifi- avoid, minimize, compensate. The cant, but cumulatively they amount to first objective is always to avoid the Continued on page 2 Wetlands Mitigation Banks How much man-made marsh is increase the odds of successful replace- continued from page 1 required to replace an area of natural ment? One solution is a wetlands miti- marsh is a debate which continues gation bank. A mitigation bank is as inherently more valuable than oth- even today. It is generally recognized established by creating a large area of ers. As a consequence, replacement that the entire suite of functions pro- wetlands where none existed before. “in-kind” is not always the preferred or vided by a natural wetland cannot be The new wetland can be considered a optimal approach. easily or speedily replaced by a created “resource account” which is then used wetland. It takes many, many years for to offset losses occurring elsewhere. wetland soils to develop the chemical The key characteristic of a wet- The Virginia Wetlands Report is a and biological conditions which allow lands bank is that it is established in quarterly publication of the Wetlands natural marshes to play an important advance of any losses it will balance. Program at the Virginia Institute of role in water quality for example. As a From the resource manager’s perspec- Marine Science of the College of result of this potential inequality in tive this factor significantly increases William and Mary. Subscriptions are function, managers generally require the probability that the created wetland available without charge upon written replacement for lost areas at a ratio will succeed in developing some im- request to: Wetlands Program, Virginia greater than one. Two or three acres of portant features. Newly created wet- Institute of Marine Science, P.O. Box created wetlands for every lost acre of lands typically take several years for 1346, Gloucester Point, VA 23062 natural wetlands are a typical require- the vegetative community to become USA. ment in the search for some equitable established. Until that time, managers Address corrections requested. compensation. and/or developers can not be certain Finally, where should the newly that either the hydrologic conditions or Program Director: created wetland be placed? For many the type of vegetation are appropriate Dr. Carl Hershner years, managers preferred to have to allow the marsh to sustain itself. Head, Wetlands Advisory Program: compensation take place as close to the With a wetland bank, these questions Thomas A. Barnard, Jr. area of loss as practical. The rationale can be answered before the first loss is Produced by: was that replacement “on-site” was offset. VIMS Publication Center most likely to preserve whatever ben- The one thing that even a well es- efits had originally been derived from tablished wetland bank cannot over- In this Issue: the natural marsh. Increasingly, how- come is the effective restructuring of ever, this practice has become less the landscape caused by development. Wetlands Mitigation Banks: common. There are two reasons. It is possible to carefully select loca- Creating Big Wetlands First, losses along the shoreline often tions for wetland banks which will to Compensate for Many occur in areas where there are no truly maximize their potential to serve im- Small Losses ..................................... 1 suitable areas for creation of a new portant roles in water quality and habi- Brown Pelican .................................. 3 marsh. Second, we now understand tat processes. Even the best location, Spot ................................................... 3 that many of the processes which make however, represents a repositioning of Peat: Use Through the Centuries ..... 4 wetlands valuable are heavily influ- those services on the landscape. GIS as a Tool for Planning and enced by conditions on the adjacent At this time we are still unable to Evaluating Wetland Mitigation upland. If development alters the adja- fully assess the long-term conse- Compensation Sites .......................... 5 cent upland, a wetland’s ability to pro- quences of rearranging our landscape Wondering About Wetlands ............. 6 vide habitat and water quality func- with methods like wetlands banking. Calendar of Upcoming Events ......... 7 tions can be significantly degraded. As a result enthusiasm for this man- 1997 VIMS Wetland As a consequence, managers increas- agement tool must be tempered by our Education Programs ......................... 8 ingly consider “off-site” wetland cre- continuing uncertainty. The most pru- This report was funded, in part, ation a desirable option. dent approach for managers remains by the Virginia Institute of Given the problems of assuring that the original mitigation “sequencing” Marine Science and by the a created wetland will succeed in be- which calls for avoidance of loss as the Virginia Coastal Resources coming a functioning part of the land- first and most desirable step. Management Program of the Depart- ment of Environmental Quality through Grant scape, how can a resource manager #NA57OZ0561-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies or DEQ. Printed on recycled paper 2 VWR Brown Feathers Pelican & FinsSpot (Pelecanus occidentalis) Leiostomus xanthurus Julie G. Bradshaw Lyle Varnell ave you noticed that there are more pelicans than there he spot is a common Chesapeake Bay inhabitant which used to be around the Chesapeake Bay and the beaches is highly significant to both the commercial and recre- ofH Virginia and North Carolina? (As I am writing this col- ationalT fisheries. It ranges along the Western Atlantic from umn in late April, a group of about 30 just flew over my approximately Cape Cod, Massachusetts to the Bay of office on our Gloucester Point campus.) The East Coast Campeche, Mexico; but is primarily concentrated in the brown pelican population has made an impressive recovery Mid-Atlantic region, which includes the Chesapeake Bay. from lows earlier this century. In the 1930’s, pelicans along L. xanthurus is a member of the family Sciaenidae. the Gulf Coast were destroyed by commercial fishermen who Sciaenids are commonly saw them (incorrectly) as serious competitive fishing threats.