Title: Status Report on the Assessment of Wetland Creation for Mitigation in the SJRWMD: Site Mitigation Form
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001308/00001
 Material Information
Title: Status Report on the Assessment of Wetland Creation for Mitigation in the SJRWMD: Site Mitigation Form
Physical Description: Photograph
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Status Report on the Assessment of Wetland Creation for Mitigation in the SJRWMD: Site Mitigation Form
General Note: Box 8, Folder 3 ( Vail Conference, 1993 - 1993 ), Item 22
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001308
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

SITE mitigation


Date inspected / /
Inspected by __ (use three initials)
r>.


Mitigation
Mitigation TYpe
MITY CReation
MITY REstoration
MITY ENhancement


CR RE
FW FH
FW FH
HY EX


DEsign (plans and permit)
DE Contig to exist Wetland
DE STormwater treat. area
DE Littoral Zone

permit COmpliance (site)
CO Mitigation construction
COMI STarted
COMI STart DaTe:
COMI COmpleted
COMI COmpleted DaTe:

CO As Designed
COAD correct GRade
COAD correct Size (acres)
COAD correct TYpe
COAD correct SPecies
,COADSP Size
f ,OADSP NUmbers
COADSP SPacing
COAD correct Planting Elev
COAD site STabilized


EN
SW SH
SW SH
PL OT


Permit # -(no "A")
Site ID
Data entered / / by

SI coverage by ALgae
none:N <5%:L 5-10%:M 10-50%:H >50%:XH
SI coverage by EXotics/nuisance species
none:N <5%:L 5-10%:M 10-50%:H >50%:XH


SI Mulch Used
SI HYdrologic problems


Y N


Y N
/ /
Y N
/ /


Site Information


SI PLanting survival
SIPL HErbaceous
0-50%: L 50-80%: M >80%: H
SIPL WOody
0-50%: L 50-80%: M >80%: H

SIPL evidence of Normal Growth
SIPLNG HErbaceous plantings
SIPLNG WOody plantings


NP NR

NP NR


Y N NA
Y N NA


SI COverage (recolonization or total)
SICO HErbaceous
0-10%: L 10-50%: M 50-80%: H >80%: XH NA
SICOHE TYpe REColonization TOTal
SICO WOody
0-10%: L 10-50%: M 50-80%: H >80%: XH NA
SICOWO TYpe REColonization TOTal

jACO evidence of Woody Recolonization Y N
SICO evidence of UPland invasion Y N


Y N
Y N


SI similar to ReFerence wetland
SIRF GRade H MH M ML
SIRF HYdroperiod H MH M ML
SIRF HErb spp H MH M ML
SIRF WOody spp H MH M ML

SI similar to ADjacent wetland
SIAD GRade H MH M ML
SIAD HYdroperiod H MH M ML
SIAD HErb spp H MH M ML
SIAD WOody spp H MH M ML

SI mitigation SUccess
SISU CRiteria met Y N NI
SISU POtential to meet success criteria
SISUPO W/O action H MH M ML
SISUPO W/ Action H MH M ML

SI wildlife VAlue & similarity
SIVA CUrrent value & similarity
SIVACU with LandUse H MH
SIVACU in a BoX (w/o lu) H MH
SIVACU Similarity H MH
SIVA 20-yr POtential value & similarity
SIVAPO with LandUse H MH
SIVAPO in a BoX (w/o lu) H MH
SIVAPO Similarity H MH


ACtion measures (see back)
AC RePlanting
AC ReGrading
AC REmove exotics
AC Control Access
AC STabilize
AC other Maint. Necessary

CO Site compliance
COSI Maint. Performed
COSIMP DaTe
COSI In Compliance
COSI Schedule Revisit
COSISR DaTe


A NS


NS
NS



ML L
ML L
ML L

ML L
ML L
ML L


Y N
/ /
Y N
Y N
/ /






VISIT LOG date / / staff names


Site ID: Must exactly match the ID's used in the area section of the PERMIT form.
','odes: H: high, L: low, M: moderate, MH: moderately high, ML: moderately low, N: no, NA: not applicable, NP: not planted,
'NR: not required, NS: not specified, R: required, Y: yes.
Unknown & unable to determine: see PERMIT form.
Mitigation: See permit form for code abbreviations.
COmpliance of this site with permit and plans.
COMI: has mitigation site construction started or been completed?
COAD: based on a file review and visual inspection, is the site in compliance with the permitted plan and conditions.
COADST: are there any erosion/sedimentation problems
SI: use best judgement based on visual inspection
SIPL: survival of required herbaceous and woody plantings.
SICO: site herbaceous and woody coverage, either total or by recolonization.
SICOTY: specification of type (recolonization or total) of coverage recorded for the herbaceous or woody component above.
SICOWO: Is there seedling evidence of woody recolonization even if the woody coverage is "zero."
SIEX: site coverage by exotic/nuisance species.
SIMU: is there field or file evidence that mulch was used?
SIHY: are there external problems with hydrology, i.e., drought, excess rain or runoff.
SIRF: use if a reference wetland was designated, otherwise circle NA
SIAD: use if there is an adjacent wetland site, otherwise circle NA
SISUCR: have specified success criteria been met? If success criteria were not specified circle NS. Circle NA if the time
frame has not been met.
SISUPO: rate the potential of the site to succeed (meet success criteria), with and without any enforcement action.
SIVACULU: rate the current wildlife value of the site with consideration of surrounding landuse.
SIVACUBX: rate the current wildlife value of the site without consideration of surrounding landuse..
SIVACUSI: rate the current similarity of the wildlife value to that expected at this point in the permitting process.
SIVAPOLU: rate the potential wildlife value regardless of permit intent, after 20 years of succession, with landuse changes.
SIVAPOBX: rate the potential wildlife value regardless of permit intent, after 20 years of succession, without consideration of
surrounding landuse changes.
SIVAPOSI: rate the potential to provide habitat similar to that intended in the permit, after 20 years.
AC: measures necessary to make the site viable; circle yes if necessary but not required by permit condition; circle R if
necessary to bring the site into compliance with permit condition.
ACMN: is maintenance, other than listed above, necessary now.
COSIMP: has any maintenance (planting, trash removal, etc.) ever been performed?
COSIIC: is the creation site in compliance with the permitted plan and permit conditions?
COSISR: is a follow-up visit necessary to determine if the site is in compliance with the permit?NOTES: (reference bold letters
for each comment)

















cc emtfieC\P-\DC--\MTIE.OH~1~9


CA\WP51\BD CS\MIT\MITSITE2.FOR 5/15/92


cc: permit file








APPENDIX B

Examples

There are a number of interesting creation sites which illustrate the inherent

complexity of wetland mitigation. These examples are included solely to illustrate the

complexity of wetland mitigation and the assessment effort and should not be the

basis for decisions or judgements about the program.

Within a single project there may be both successes and failures. An example

is Permit No. 4-031-0170 in Duval County which was issued on May 12, 1987. This

permit, one of the first to include a significant creation effort, is generally lacking the

detailed plans or permit conditions which are standard today. The plan basically

involves three creation areas excavated from uplands adjacent to existing wetlands.

One of the areas was to have been a one-acre forested wetland but was then

relocated and expanded to be a 4.6 acre herbaceous wetland planted with a mixture

of saw-grass (Cladium jamaicense) and soft rush (Juncus effusus). Although a

detailed planting scheme was not submitted there was a verbal understanding

between the design consultant and the permitting staff that the plantings would be

evenly intermixed throughout the area. The planting contractor apparently planted

one-third of the area with saw- grass, one-third with soft rush, and did not plant the

remaining third. Today the area has attained suitable coverage by herbaceous

vegetation and has reasonable evidence of wildlife usage despite its un-natural

appearance.

The second area was to be a series of small forested creation areas constructed








from pine flatwood "islands" adjacent to an existing trail road through a larger pine

and cypress system. The area was over-excavated and today exists as a series of

turbid ponds. Off-road vehicle use of the old trail road appears to be compounding

the turbidity problems. The trees which were planted in the ponds have survived, for

the most part, however their growth rate is so minimal that they are today essentially

the same size as when planted. Oddly there has been virtually no herbaceous

recruitment, possibly due to the compounded effect of the turbidity limiting light

penetration and the substrate (possibly being the original flatwoods spodic horizon)

being inhospitable to plant growth.

The third area was planted with the same forested species as the turbid ponds.

No herbaceous plantings were employed, however it appears that there may have

been some transfer of organic mulch (topsoil) to the area. The hydrology appears to

mimic that of the adjacent wetland and the area is expected to eventually succeed to

a forested wetland of a similar type. Very high wildlife use has occurred at this site.

The minor differences in grading elevations allowed for establishment of diverse

herbaceous communities, some of which are dominated by low growing or

submerged species (such as Eleocharis flavescens) and provide feeding pools for a

number of wading birds whereas other areas are dominated by dense taller species

such as Scirpus cyperinus, and provide good cover. The area also provided ideal

conditions for the establishment of crayfish which have been consumed by river otter

and other predators.

At one point it appeared that the area would be overtaken by cattail (Typha








sp.) however, control of nuisance species was not required by the permit. Although

no maintenance was performed by the permitted the cattails were successfully

outcompeted by other species notably wooly bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus) and

Tuncus effusus and today they occupy only a small portion of the creation area. Tree

growth has been normal and is expected to continue and eventually provide enough

shade for establishment of a more typical forest groundcover.

Although no permit modifications were applied for or received, no monitoring

reports were ever submitted, no maintenance performed and no corrective actions

undertaken, two of the three areas (comprising 97.8% of the permitted creation size

and a 1.23:1 ratio for the original impact) are reasonably successful. The District later

permitted the third area of turbid ponds to be eliminated and mitigated for by the

City of Jacksonville for a public roadway project unrelated to the original permit.

More typically, the lack of follow-up by the permitted in the upkeep and

maintenance of the created system is the cause of wetland creation site failure. An

example of this is Whitemark Permit (# 4-117-0181) issued on February 9, 1988. This

permit required the creation of 1.5 acres of herbaceous wetland and 2.09 acres of

littoral zone within a wet detention pond as mitigation for forested wetland loss

associated with a residential development. The wetlands were created in August of

1988. The District inspected the site on November 29, 1988 and noted several

deficiencies with the sites. These included plantings which were not as specified in

the approved mitigation plan; the planted vegetation was dead or dying, possibly

due to higher than anticipated water levels; and significant amounts of trash and








construction debris in the pond. The District contacted the permitted to inform them

of the non-compliance at the time of the initial inspection. However, no corrective

action was taken by the permitted and the wetland has become dominated by cattail.

The case has been transferred to the District Office of General Counsel for

enforcement action. The case is still pending.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs