Wetlands - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

• s x ~aof3.1 p r ant in cost-per-acre fOreach l0~ereentincrease rigs costs and lo~~ success rates fnrson-agricultural rtstora- in project size (see figure two). Economies. of scale fol' rigs projects are opposite sides of the same coin and );oth . agricultural conversion projects are significantly lower with reflect tha-fuiiarerof-rogulators to densand suecessas much cost-per-acre declining by only .6 percent foC each 10 per- as the failure of restoration sciettre to pro+•idc success. cent ine:case in project size. Differences in the ehacac- Wetlands restoration cost Information and an under- teristics ofdifferent size projtcts needs furtltcr investigation standing ~f the incentives faced ty purchasers at)d suppliers before these preliminary estimates of ecoa0mies of strife can of mitigal ion services is becoming more important as rage- , be properly c+•aluated. forges explore altcmatives to traditional on-site mitigation ..Canciusions and begin planning in a watershed context_'T'he future of . wetland restoration as an applied science tend the potential • ~n the basis of our analysis of wetland rescorarion costs, of +vetland mitigation banking Fill depend ott how rcgtlla- view of ~•hat is known about the success Of these pro- tors manage.the incentives in mitigation markets. Only by jeers, and the tconomic and. regulatory conditions under malting the buyers and sellers of mitigation services quality which they wen undertaken. we reached some general con- conscious will regulators be able to improvz on the past_ elusions. Without accurate information about the cost of high quality t~eaily, t$~funetions and,valuts provided bya~trtitigation restoration, and a clear pcrttption of what motivates differ- projcctas well ns the probability.of~chievirig specify ant pameipants in the mitigation market. the promise of toratioa goals depend, •in patt.'on t}le time and r~sq~rt.C,t:sy mitigation banlinr Dill not be realized. tit invested in thc•restomtion.effort Histoticallyt-low ~estora- )ice Mme. 1985. 'Ccidque.q(prascnt a'ttl3nds [nitigacion policies in the • Footnotts United Sratu based on an analysis of past reswr~dort proj~YS in 5aa Fran- ' ctsca Say ° Enrironmenral Manage?nrnr 9 (1) 7l -SZ some care Must be 1. we rarer in this p=per to we~aad restoradoet. 7lre analysi3 oa which the pa- used Its intetptedng these stsidirs because'success" h*s been defined in dis- pel is based, howe.'GS. dealt with a miz of case studies that also included partite ways (see ){arvey, FLT, anJ M.Ti. Jossd}•n. 1936. "~?retlands Rcstvra- some wetland et~tlon and wetland enhaneemcert projeeCt, qun sad Midgauon Policies;.Comment." Enrt?trnrncnrol Alartagemcnr 10 (S) 2 These pmgratns w~cre designed to eneovtage the eonvetsion of marginal 567-9 veld Kesler, and bI.E. Kentula. 193v. Isirlrtrrrls Cn<ariea urd Res• , agriwlturrl land to uedaad: the t1SriA Dater Bank program was firstplc- rarrt?ivp: Tire Srorrrs ojrhe Seienee)- mented in 1972, end covert 509,000 acres, A similar Department of Interior d, 'iltc nine ptegotlui o(u errand projrxts ttllcei (I) whalter of not the pzo- progcam. the Small «'etlat+ds Aequlsision Program rovers 1.2 million acres. feet is a (non-regulatory) aoticaltur.+l eonvcrsion, gird (2) tits hydrolnoy oed ' '(he 1990 Farm Bill e~orblishes a Worland Restive Progrrrri with the ;cal of segoCttinn suvcturr of tht wcdanJ being tr>lratid. The projca~ eale4o~es fn• restoring one mihioa acres of aedaads by 1995. The Fish and yV(ldlire Sees- . elude (l) Agvadc bctls-tidal or npntidai eotnnwnttics of'pzr++?ancndr or ice also targeu a'edand rtrarion and tYStotstiop through die Private Lands nearly petmanensl; submersed plants: CvAtpltX pntjects lacorprtrating Program and Wildlife Exteruion Agrceroents. three or store wetland types in a single pro~cck t3) I'eesl+w:tt~v mi><ed pru- Several stpotts on the C1te of successful vredtrnd miGgatioa are now a~il• Jests. consisting of fsontldal projatz in a loch b.th for~•ctcd and erncrrncnt - able. (i) 8ernsteln, G, and R.L. Sapp, Jn 1990. Evalrarion pj5eleered Wcr- vedegt(ort Is pteduced; (d) Freshwater, aantidal projects establishing fur- land taearian prof ears wrrrhori:ed ThrousA the Gains ojEnginccrY Scerian cstcd wetlands: (5) Frahyatee pvnddal prajcet• establishing emergent wet- d0Q Frogmen. U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service. AnnstpoCu Fie1J Ogee, An- IandS: (ti) Projeeu peodueing tidal Ueshu'alec ardandx: (7) PiojcCts estab- napolis, MD. (2) Cobb. R.A. 1987. F)ohda Department orEnvironmeatal lishing salt marshes anti odter marine or estt.•adne wvdands dominated by Regulation. 1991. Reperr on tlrc F„(jeerivcners ojPannitrid •tfttigarinrc l~e• emergent vegclaGoa. (8) Projeet3 establishing nustgrore cosnrnuniUcs: and natiment of E.nhronmtntal Regulation, Tallahasset, FL; (3) Erwin, K.t.. (9) agrlwiwe.?l eoavcrsions. 1. An E-oirrarlon ojWirlandr Mitigation wirhie the South Florida tYorer S. PrcconstNCdon tasl-s Include, foe eXampla, site sela:tion. site~analysis. aaergenr Dlsrrit:. South~Plorida WatvMturagemeRl District. WeBt Palm .and proje_t design. Constntetion ~tasls include gntJin6. dispel of fill nlate- • .<h, FL; (d) Crcwz 0.ii; and R.R. Lewis III. t 991. An Eralrror;ve ojlils• riot, planting, and so un. Yost constrvttion lacks inel?tde monitoring and rorleaf Aaerrtprs ta.Esi biish F,Srre?aear Vesemrlan in Marlnt lYcrlmrds in mainlCnanee aeti~•Ides Florida. Florida Sea Grant Colleve. Uni~•. of Florida. GaincsYille. FL: (S) 8 NA710NA1 WFTI AI~'Ilc NFWCI FTTF~