The Illusion of Wetlands "Restoration"

Wetlands were once seen as wastelands -– swampy, mosquito-ridden barriers to economic development good only for draining and filling.

But during the latter half of the 20th century, scientists began to discover that wetlands are actually among the most productive places on earth.  They are breeding grounds for birds and fish. Wetlands filter water; absorb carbon dioxide and other pollutants; and protect shorelines from storms and floods.

Federal and state laws since the 1980s have granted some protections to wetlands. But federal and state agencies routinely permit developers to destroy wetlands under the condition that they pay for the construction of artificial wetlands to replace the acres that will be paved.

But do these wetlands replacement schemes really work?

A new study concludes that manmade wetlands are almost never as good as the real thing. Artificial wetlands produce, on average, 26 percent less plant life than natural wetlands even a century after they’re built, according to a study by Dr. David Moreno Mateos the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University and Dr. Mary Power of Berkeley.  An example of a failed wetlands restoration project can be seen in the picture at top of a "Wetland Protection Area" sign in the middle of dry, mowed grass and rocks beside a road in Frederick County, Maryland.  

Half of the wetlands around the world have vanished over the last century, according to the report.  In an attempt to reverse this trend, a national “no net loss” of wetlands policy was initiated by President George H.W. Bush in 1989.

Dr. Power said apparent progress in expanding wetlands under this “no net loss” program is deceptive, because of the frequent failure of what is called wetlands mitigation.

 “It’s as if you take a wound in the Earth, and covered it up with water,” Dr. Power said. “Now it looks nice, but that wound doesn’t have the organic content under the sediments to do the biogeochemical services that we need.  And the plants are sensitive to that, so they don’t come back with the same species composition that we need.”

To hear my WYPR public radio program with this and other interviews about wetlands, click here.

Looking at one state in the Chesapeake Bay region as an example, Maryland lost 740 acres of wetlands to permitted construction from 1991 to 2009, according to state figures.  But because developers built 1,417 acres of wetlands mitigation projects, the state claims it actually gained 677 acres of wetlands during this time period.

Dr. Andrew Baldwin, a past president of the Society of Wetlands Scientists who teaches wetlands ecology at the University of Maryland, said it is unlikely that the amount of wetlands in Maryland actually grew during this time period.  Losses due to rising sea levels are not included in the state’s wetlands figures, nor are unreported losses.

Moreover, artificial wetlands often built to replace natural wetlands lost to construction often die in droughts because they do not have the necessary underground water circulation, Dr. Baldwin said.

“Perhaps the thing to keep in mind is that natural wetlands have developed over periods of hundreds or thousands of years, and so they really can be viewed as geological features. It’s very difficult for humans to create something, in a year or two or five years that can really be that similar to a natural ecosystem,” Dr. Baldwin said.

Dr. Baldwin, an expert in wetlands "restoration," said he is cautious about even using this word, because it can be seen as misleading.

"Some people argue that we shouldn't use the word 'restoration' because it's very rare that a wetland is actually restored," Dr. Baldwin said.  "It's construction.... 'Restoration' implies that you are going back to some pre-disturbance state -- maybe pre-settlement state, which is really unlikely.  You're really building a new ecosystem."

A 2007 study by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) found that only half of 641 wetlands restoration projects in the state were successful.

Despite this relatively low rate of success, Maryland approves 99.8 percent of applications by builders and developers for permits and authorizations to build in wetlands, according to state figures for the last three years.  In 2011, for example, the state granted 2,285 approvals for wetlands destruction permits and issued 5 denials.  In 2010, the numbers were 1,794 approvals and no denials.  And in 2009, the state granted 1,794 approvals and 5 denials.  Wetlands destruction permits are approved in Virginia and Pennsylvania at similar high rates, according to federal and state figures.

Gary Setzer, administrator of Maryland's wetlands and waterways program, said the state tries to work with applicants to allow building projects to move forward while simultaneously limiting damage to wetlands.

“The process is kind of geared to getting to yes,” Setzer said. “We look at what’s being proposed by the applicant, and we do our best to make the applicant’s project feasible, while reducing the impacts.”

Jay Apperson, spokesman for MDE, said the state also works with builders to try get them to change their projects to protect the environment before they even submit applications for permits to build in wetlands.

“The wetlands and waterways program works closely with every applicant to avoid and minimize their proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Consequently, very few applications are actually denied by MDE," Apperson wrote in an email. "But many projects are modified to lessen their impact on the state's water resources.  It is also important to note that last year MDE instituted a pre-application program that provides an opportunity for its project managers to meet with prospective applicants to answer questions and provide guidance on how to avoid and minimize impacts before they submit an application.”

After the 2007 study, the badly-understaffed Maryland wetlands program –- which was down to about 40 employees, compared to about 70 in the 1990s -– hired 34 employees in 2009 and 2010, including 10 enforcement and compliance inspectors, 23 people in permitting, and an attorney, according to the state agency.

“With the additional staff, we are able to do a better job,” Setzer said.

Evidence of increased vigilance  can be seen in a November decision by the state to deny a wetlands destruction permit for a highway through a forested area in Charles County. The Cross County Connector would have encouraged suburban sprawl and polluted a fertile fish breeding grounds, the Mattawoman Creek.

If this denial shows a change in direction, Maryland finally may be on the right road through wetlands.

By Tom Pelton

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

(Photos by author)  

Comments

[Waddell Robey]

It is saddening to read of the loss of REAL wetlands, but it is encouraging to read that some states are taking a more positive role in both protection and enforcement. What is missing is an abiding public appreciation for wetlands. The old view that they are marshy messes of pests and smelly air dominates and until we can bring wetland education into the elementary level school programs we run the risk of never really dispelling the wrong view of wetlands and an appreciation for their key role in our healthy survival.

The family too plays a key role in that hunter/fisher parents need to introduce their offspring to the wetlands environment in a positive and supportive way. An appreciation for the complete ecology of a wetland is vital and it also creates a unique bond between humans and one of natures greatest assets. So let's reach out not just to schools, but to parents as well. The sooner the better.

[Tom Pelton]

Well said! Too often wetlands protection laws and actions are painted as bad for the economy -- but wetlands are enormously valuable (even in an economic sense) for tourism, fishing, clean water, and protecting real estate. Ask duck hunters and crabbers and other people who live on the Eastern Shore in part because of the quality of life enhanced by ducks and crabs.

Beyond this, of course, wetlands have an even greater value ecologically.

[J]

some of those "destruction permits" are actually for living shorelines, etc. just an FYI