Transcript Environmental Perspective on Restoration and Creation

Environmental Perspective
on Creation and Restoration
Carol W. Witham, VernalPools.Org
www.vernalpools.org
Special Considerations
pertaining to California vernal pools
 87% of this ecosystem has already been lost
 On-site avoidance results in highly fragmented
“postage stamp” preserves that are difficult to manage
 “No net loss” mitigation often results in unnatural
vernal pool densities
 Loss of the upland matrix can cause adverse impacts
to critical ecosystem functions
 We can create puddles, but are they really vernal pools?
www.vernalpools.org
Brief Regulatory History
on vernal pool related issues

The need to mitigate in-kind for vernal pool losses began 16 years ago.
 1994 – Listing of the large branchiopods
 2001 – National Research Council Report
 2001 – Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter
 2007 – Rapanos Guidance
 2008 – EPA Mitigation Rule
 2005 – Vernal Pool Ecosystems Recovery Plan
www.vernalpools.org
National Research Council
on wetland creation and restoration

In June 2001, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a report entitled:
Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. Some of the
important conclusions from this report include:
 Some wetland types are difficult to recreate
 Mitigation wetlands are often designed “too wet”
 Mitigation often fails to consider watershed function
 Decreases in available land may lead to conflict
www.vernalpools.org
Regulatory Guidance Letter
Corps’ response to the NRC report

On October 31, 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Regulatory
Guidance Letter (RGL) addressing the need to increase the effectiveness and
compliance of mitigation through:
 An ecosystem approach that considers watersheds
 Mitigation as functional “debits” and “credits”
 Preservation of threatened wetlands as mitigation
 Off-site and out-of-kind mitigation may be appropriate
 Codified in 2008 EPA Mitigation Rule
www.vernalpools.org
Endangered Species Act
FWS frowns on out-of-kind mitigation

Despite the Corps’ Regulatory Guidance
Letter suggesting that off-site and
out-of-kind mitigation may be appropriate
for to (re)create wetlands, vernal pools are
endangered species habitat:
www.vernalpools.org
Recent Improvements
in approach and design

Since 2001, regulators have moved away from the on-site mitigation and
consultants have worked hard to create more natural looking landscapes:
 Fewer “postage stamp” preserves with the pools
“packed in” like sardines
 Improvements in design have lead to more “natural”
looking mitigation wetlands
 Off-site mitigation and banking allows for larger
landscapes and enhanced management
www.vernalpools.org
More Improvements Needed
to ensure that mitigation is effective

Right now we are still operating on a wish and a prayer that the restored and
created vernal pools are recreating what is being lost.
 No one is gathering sufficient information about the
impact site
 Mitigation success criteria are too vague and
monitoring is too short
 Translocation of species may be a genetic “ticking time
bomb”
www.vernalpools.org
Insufficient Baseline Information
about the impact and mitigation sites

We don’t know enough about what is being lost to make any reasonable
determination of whether or not mitigation is working or adequate.
 Species distribution – abundance and persistence
 Vegetation communities – not just plants
 Hydrology – vernal pools are usually in complexes
 Ecosystem processes – functions and values
 Metapopulation dynamics – local extirpation and
recolonization mechanisms
www.vernalpools.org
Simplistic Success Criteria
in a very complicated ecosystem

Because we have not taken the time to study the dynamics of the vernal pool
ecosystem, success is generally based on a few superficial factors.
 Does it hold water in the winter time, dry down in the
spring and become desiccated in the summer?
 Does it have a predominance of plants associated with
vernal pools and an absence of marsh plants?
 Does it contain one or more of the listed vernal pool
crustaceans?
www.vernalpools.org
Inappropriate Monitoring Timeline
to ensure that the mitigation is successful

Generally, the required monitoring period to determine if the mitigation is
successful is only 5 to 10 years.
 Vernal pool organisms have a persistent seed/cyst bank
 Current practice is to inoculate the (re)created pools
 5 or even 10 years is not enough time to tell whether
the populations are sufficiently viable to be replacing
the seed/cyst bank, or whether it is just being depleted
 Most mitigation sites have declined over time
www.vernalpools.org
Translocation Issues
vernal pools are like clusters of islands

The further apart they are, the more their resident populations may have
evolved unique genetic traits.
 The practice of translocating seeds/cysts from one area
to another could have significant consequences
 Genetic swamping of closely related species
 Crossbreeding that leads to mortality/extirpation
 We have no idea how far is “too far” to be moving these
organisms around
www.vernalpools.org
Innovative New Ideas
to overcome some of the problematic issues
 Study the soils and aquatard of the mitigation site
 Design pools as hydrologically interconnected
complexes
 Use local inoculum to preserve genetic integrity
 Use only small amounts of inoculum
 Base success criteria on demonstrating that the plant
and animal populations are increasing over time
 Manage for ecosystem function, not individual species
www.vernalpools.org
California Vernal Pools
an ecosystem in peril
Difficult to recreate
all functions
www.vernalpools.org
An Environmentalist’s Perspective
increase preservation ratios

Vernal pool (re)creation is an inexact pseudoscience and will remain so into
the foreseeable future. In the mean time we are losing natural vernal pools.
 94,000 acres converted between 1997 and 2005
 >80% of those losses were unregulated
 13,000 acres in some stage of the planning process in
Sacramento County alone
 It just makes more common sense to preserve the real
thing instead of assuming that mitigation is adequate
www.vernalpools.org
Advantages of Preservation
instead of in-kind mitigation

Large-scale preservation of vernal pool landscapes in lieu of current in-kind,
“no net loss” mitigation provides numerous environmental advantages.
 Takes a holistic, watershed approach to mitigation
 Preserves full complement of ecosystem values
including critical upland matrix functions
 Larger area-to-edge ratio helps maintain integrity
 “No net loss” can be achieved through out-of-kind
(i.e. seasonal marsh) wetland buffers
www.vernalpools.org
Disadvantages of Preservation
over the status quo

Large-scale preservation of vernal pool landscapes will also provide new
challenges for regulators, land use authorities, developers, planners,
environmentalists, and consultants.
 Requires long-term and large-scale planning
 Can be more expensive than on-site mitigation unless
third party preservation banks are available
 Will result in the overall loss of some vernal pools and
the species that occupy them
www.vernalpools.org
How much Preservation?
current vernal pool mitigation ratios

Vernal pools are typically subject to both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation requirements. For “smaller projects
in fragmented or degraded habitat” the usual mitigation requirement is:
 2:1 preservation of vernal pool wetted acres, and
 1:1 (or greater) recreation to satisfy “no net loss”
 These rations are being applied to very large projects
 May result in the loss of 33% of all natural vernal pools
and indirect degradation of the remaining 67%
www.vernalpools.org
Preservation Ratios
how much more can we afford to lose?
2:1
10 : 1
3:1
4:1
The Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of
California and Southern Oregon (USFWS 2005)
calls for protection of 85 or 95% of vernal pool
habitat within numerous large core recovery units.
That translates to 6.5:1 and 19:1.
www.vernalpools.org
A Conservation Strategy
for California vernal pools

Given the current condition of only 87% remaining, and the speculative nature
of (re)creation, it is imperative to formulate a vernal pool mitigation and
preservation strategy that maximizes protection of the remaining vernal pool
landscapes in California. To achieve vernal pool conservation, we must strive
toward:
 A comprehensive vernal pool classification system that
includes quantitative assessment of function and value
 Knowledge and distribution of locally rare vernal pool
types and special status vernal pool endemic species
www.vernalpools.org
A Conservation Strategy
for California vernal pools (continued)
 An understanding of larger scale watershed function
and value with respect to vernal pool preservation areas
 Increased knowledge of landscape-scale vernal pool
hydrology and how disruptions might impact long-term
ecosystem viability
 What is the balance between the desire to preserve
wetlands and endangered species habitat with the need
to feed and house our growing population?
www.vernalpools.org
New Research, Regs & Practices
converging to address some issues
 Statewide vernal pool vegetation classification
 California Rapid Assessment Monitoring (CRAM) for
vernal pools and vernal pool systems
 Just one more tool in the box
 Rewrite of “Appendix B” to reflect knowledge gained
to date on mitigation and monitoring
 More appropriate monitoring
 Continuing research on adaptive management
www.vernalpools.org
VernalPools.Org
dedicated to saving California’s vernal pool landscapes
For additional information, contact:
Carol W. Witham
VernalPools.Org
[email protected]
www.vernalpools.org