Wetland Mitigation Research Articles

Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program

In the United States, stream restoration is an increasing part of environmental and land management programs, particularly under the auspices of compensatory mitigation regulations. Markets and regulations surrounding stream mitigation are beginning to mirror those of the well-established wetland mitigation industry. Recent studies have shown that wetland mitigation programs commonly shift wetlands across space from urban to rural areas, thereby changing the functional characteristics and benefits of wetlands in the landscape. However, it is not yet known if stream mitigation mirrors this behavior, and if so, what effects this may have on landscape-scale ecological and hydrological processes. This project addresses three primary research questions. (1) What are the spatial relationships between stream and wetland impact and compensation sites as a result of regulations requiring stream and wetland mitigation in the State of North Carolina? (2) How do stream impacts come about due to the actions of different types of developers, and how do the characteristics of impacts sites compare with compensation sites? (3) To what extent does stream compensation relocate high-quality streams within the river network, and how does this affect localized (intrawatershed) loss or gain of aquatic resources? Using geospatial data collected from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the Army Corps of Engineers' Wilmington District, we analyzed the behavior of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program in providing stream and wetland mitigation for the State of North Carolina. Our results suggest that this program provides mitigation (1) in different ways for different types of permittees; (2) at great distances (both Euclidean and within the stream network) from original impacts; (3) in significantly different places than impacts within watersheds; and (4) in many cases, in different watersheds from original impacts. Our analysis also reveals problems with regulator data collection, storage, and quality control. These results have significant implications given new federal requirements for ecological consistency within mitigation programs. Our results also indicate some of the landscape-scale implications of using market-based approaches to ecological restoration in general.

Trajectories of vegetation‐based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress

Temporal trends in attributes of restored ecosystems have been described conceptually as restoration trajectories. Measures describing the maturity or ecological integrity of a restoration site are often assumed to follow monotonically increasing trajectories over time and to eventually reach an asymptote representative of a reference ecosystem. This assumption of simple, predictable restoration trajectories underpins federal and state policies in the United States that mandate wetland restoration as compensation for wetlands damaged during development. We evaluated the validity of this assumption by tracking changes in 11 indicators of floristic integrity, often used to determine legal compliance, in 29 mitigation wetlands. Each indicator was expressed as a percentile relative to the distribution of that indicator among > 100 naturally occurring reference wetlands. Nonlinear regression was used to fit two alternative restoration trajectories to data from each site: an asymptotic (negative exponential) increase in the indicator over time and a peaked (double exponential) relationship. Depending on the particular indicator, between 48% and 76% of sites displayed trends that were at least moderately well described (R2 > 0.5) by one of the two models. Floristic indicators based on species richness, including native richness, number of native genera, and the floristic quality index, rapidly increased to asymptotes exceeding levels in a majority of reference wetlands. In contrast, indicators based on species composition, including mean coefficient of conservatism and relative importance of perennial species, increased very slowly. Thus, some indicators of restoration progress followed increasing trajectories and achieved or surpassed levels equivalent to high-quality reference sites within five years, whereas others appeared destined to either not reach equivalency or to take much longer than mitigation wetlands are typically monitored. Finally, some indicators of restoration progress, such as relative importance of native species, often increased over the first five to 10 years and then declined, which would result in a misleading assessment of progress if based on typical time scales of monitoring. Therefore, the assumption of simple, rapid, and predictable restoration trajectories that underlies wetland mitigation policy is unrealistic.

Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks

Biodiversity offsets seek to compensate for residual environmental impacts of planned developments after appropriate steps have been taken to avoid, minimize or restore impacts on site. Offsets are emerging as an increasingly employed mechanism for achieving net environmental benefits, with offset policies being advanced in a wide range of countries (i.e., United States, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa). To support policy development for biodiversity offsets, we review a set of major offset policy frameworks-US wetlands mitigation, US conservation banking, EU Natura 2000, Australian offset policies in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, and Brazilian industrial and forest offsets. We compare how the frameworks define offset policy goals, approach the mitigation process, and address six key issues for implementing offsets: (1) equivalence of project impacts with offset gains; (2) location of the offset relative to the impact site; (3) "additionality" (a new contribution to conservation) and acceptable types of offsets; (4) timing of project impacts versus offset benefits; (5) offset duration and compliance; and (6) "currency" and mitigation replacement ratios. We find substantial policy commonalities that may serve as a sound basis for future development of biodiversity offsets policy. We also identify issues requiring further policy guidance, including how best to: (1) ensure conformance with the mitigation hierarchy; (2) identify the most environmentally preferable offsets within a landscape context; and (3) determine appropriate mitigation replacement ratios.

Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: A Florida case study

With the recent Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule by the US Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency, wetland mitigation banking has been designated as the preferred means of compensatory mitigation after avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Permits and supporting documents were reviewed and site visits conducted at 29 Florida wetland mitigation banks to assess their permit-based success. Just over half of the banks included three or more ecological criteria in permit success requirements. Release of a majority of potential credits (60–75%) was strongly based on completion of activities (e.g. conservation easement, financial assurance, ditch filling). A review of bank compliance suggested that over 40% of banks had reached final success criteria or were clearly trending towards success, but that 17% of the banks were not trending towards success. Most banks were deemed successful according to permit criteria and compliance considerations, although permit criteria were not explicitly tied to ecological considerations. While permit success criteria may have been met, it was unclear what level of functional performance wetland mitigation banks provided.

The Influence of Microtopography on Soil Nutrients in Created Mitigation Wetlands

AbstractThis study explores the relationship between microtopography and soil nutrients (and trace elements), comparing results for created and reference wetlands in Virginia, and examining the effects of disking during wetland creation. Replicate multiscale tangentially conjoined circular transects were used to quantify microtopography both in terms of elevation and by two microtopographic indices. Corresponding soil samples were analyzed for moisture content, total C and N, KCl‐extractable NH4–N and NO3–N, and Mehlich‐3 extractable P, Ca, Mg, K, Al, Fe, and Mn. Means and variances of soil nutrient/element concentrations were compared between created and natural wetlands and between disked and nondisked created wetlands. Natural sites had higher and more variable soil moisture, higher extractable P and Fe, lower Mn than created wetlands, and comparatively high variability in nutrient concentrations. Disked sites had higher soil moisture, NH4–N, Fe, and Mn than did nondisked sites. Consistently low variances (Levene test for inequality) suggested that nondisked sites had minimal nutrient heterogeneity. Across sites, low P availability was inferred by the molar ratio (Mehlich‐3 [P/(Al + Fe)] < 0.06); strong intercorrelations among total C, total N, and extractable Fe, Al, and P suggested that humic–metal–P complexes may be important for P retention and availability. Correlations between nutrient/element concentrations and microtopographic indices suggested increased Mn and decreased K and Al availability with increased surface roughness. Disking appears to enhance water and nutrient retention, as well as nutrient heterogeneity otherwise absent from created wetlands, thus potentially promoting ecosystem development.

English

This paper presents the restoration design process and construction activities associated with the Big Hanaford Creek restoration project. The project was completed as part of required wetland mitigation to compensate for adjacent plant and mine activities requiring state and federal wetland permits. Big Hanaford Creek is a tributary to the Skookumchuck River in Lewis County, Washington, with its headwaters in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains, and with lower reaches in low gradient floodplain valleys. Within its lower reaches, a 4800-meter portion of the creek was straightened and deepened approximately 90 years ago when the valley was drained for agricultural purposes. Most recently, the floodplain surrounding the creek was used for grazing and mowing of pasture grasses for hay production. In an effort to rehabilitate in-stream habitat, reconnect the creek to the floodplain, and return native floodplain vegetation to the valley, a 61-hectare restoration project is underway. The project includes excavating 63,460 cubic meters of soil to relocate 2,286 linear meters of the stream back to a historical channel alignment; installing in stream wood structures for fish habitat; creating a new channel cross section with a bench at spring water surface elevations; planting willows along the reconfigured channel; creating low lying floodplain swales, and planting over 290,000 native trees, shrubs, and sedge plugs in the floodplain. Aerial photographs were used to identify a past historical meander pattern to serve as the new stream alignment and Government Land Survey Office field notes from 1867 were used to identify the historical wetland floodplain plant community. Construction occurred over an 18-month period to allow for channel excavation and included construction of approximately 150 in- stream wood structures during the dry season; and installation of plants the following spring. A 10-year monitoring program is being developed to monitor hydrologic performance and establishment of the native vegetation. This project is located immediately west of the TransAlta Centralia Generation Plant and Mine operations on land currently owned by the TransAlta Corporation.

‘Mitigation banks’ for wetland conservation: a major success or an unmitigated disaster?

First developed in the USA in the early 1970s, ‘wetland mitigation banks’ provide a framework for conservation activities that are designed to offset residual, unavoidable damage to the natural environment caused by development activities. The concept is now a worldwide phenomenon. In this paper I consider the level of success of wetland mitigation banks in the USA for biodiversity conservation with a view to informing ‘best practice’ in Australia. I conclude that although the concept has merit, even in the USA where the processes have been evolving for over 30 years, the outcomes frequently fall short of the target of a ‘like for like’ swap of habitat. While the outcome for wetland mitigation may not be an ‘unmitigated disaster’ it is, at best, apparently only modestly successful.

Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands for mitigation of ametryn-contaminated water

The feasibility of using constructed wetlands (CWs) for the mitigation of pesticide runoff has been studied in the last decade. However, a lack of related data was verified when subsurface flow constructed wetlands (SSF CWs) are considered for this purpose. In the present work, SSF CWs were submitted to continuous ametryn addition and evaluated during an 11-week period, with the aim of determining the feasibility of these systems for mitigation of contaminated water. Ametryn was not added to one CW cell in order to provide a control for the experiments. Monitoring of treatment performance was executed by standard water quality parameters, ametryn chromatography quantification and macrophyte (Typha latifolia L.) nutritional and agronomic property analysis. Results indicated that 39% of the total initially added amount of ametryn was removed, transferred or transformed. Herbicide metabolism and mineralisation were carried out by chemical and biological mechanisms. No statistic differences were observed in nutritional contents found in the T. latifolia crops of the CWs after the experimental period. Moreover, the biomass production (one valuable source of renewable energy) was equal to 3.3 t·ha-1 (dry matter) in wetland cells. It was concluded that constructed wetland systems are capable of mitigating water contaminated with ametryn, acting as buffer filters between the emission sources and the downstream superficial water bodies.

Management of Acid Mine Drainage within a Wetland in the Tarkwa Area

Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is an environmental phenomenon that is being experienced by some surface mining companies in Ghana. Consequently, there is the need to generate information and expand local expertise base in handling this phenomenon. This work explored the sustainable anaerobic wetland mitigation method for the management of this phenomenon. Results of water analysis showed that the pH at the acidic effluent discharge area is 4.4 but then it increased gradually to pH of 7.5 in the wetland. The study identified a sulphate reducing bacterium (Desulfovibrio desulfuricans) in the wetland, whose activity produced OH- ions that raised the pH of the acidic effluent resulting in the precipitation of heavy metals like iron, lead and nickel. Consequently, if the natural anaerobic remediation is engineered, the effluent from the AMD can be treated and discharged without causing any significant adverse impact to the geo-environment

Soil bacterial community structure and physicochemical properties in mitigation wetlands created in the Piedmont region of Virginia (USA)

Wetland creation is a common practice for compensatory mitigation in the United States. Vegetation attributes have been used as a quick measure of mitigation success in most post-creation monitoring, while little attention has been paid to soils that provide the substrate for flora and fauna to establish and develop. Created wetland soils are often found not indicative of ‘hydric soil’ with a lack of development of physicochemical properties (i.e., bulk density, moisture content, and carbon and nitrogen contents) comparable to those in natural wetlands. Moreover, soil bacterial communities are rarely examined though they are integrally involved in biogeochemical functions that are critical for ecosystem development in created wetlands. We analyzed soil physicochemistry and profiled soil bacterial community structure using amplicon length heterogeneity polymerase chain reaction (LH-PCR) of 16S ribosomal DNA in three relatively young wetlands (<10 years old) created in the Piedmont region of Virginia. We examined the data by site and by specific conditions of each site (i.e., induced microtopography and hydrologic regime). Multidimensional scaling (MDS) and analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) showed clear clustering and significant differences both in soil physicochemistry (Global R = 0.70, p = 0.001) and in soil bacterial community profiles (Global R = 0. 77, p = 0.001) between sites. Soil physicochemistry (Global R = 1, p = 0.005) and bacterial community structure (Global R = 0.79, p = 0.005) of soils significantly differed by hydrologic regime within a wetland, but not by microtopography treatment. A significant association was found between physicochemistry and bacterial community structure in wetland soils, revealing a close link between two attributes ( ρ = 0.39, p = 0.002) . C/N (carbon to nitrogen) ratio was the best predictor of soil bacterial community patterns ( ρ = 0.56, p = 0.001). The diversity of soil bacterial community (Shannon's H′) differed between sites with a slightly higher diversity observed in a relatively older created wetland, and seemed also fairly determined by hydrologic regime of a site, with a relatively dry site being more diverse.

Succession of a Southern Appalachian Mountain Wetland Six Years following Hydrologic and Microtopographic Restoration

Abstract Microtopography, which is known to play a key role in the structure and function of wetland communities, is receiving increasing attention in wetland restoration projects. One goal of the Tulula Wetlands Mitigation Bank, which was the first large‐scale wetland restoration project in the Blue Ridge Province, was to restore the microtopography in a degraded swamp forest–bog complex. This wetland type has become increasingly rare in the southern Appalachians and is characterized by a distinct microtopography of depressions and low ridges. We examined vegetation and soils in depression and ridge plots over a 6‐year period, during which the hydrology and microtopography of the floodplain were restored. Our results showed that the flora of the depression and ridge plots differed, with greater coverage by obligate wetland species in the depression plots but greater overall taxonomic richness in the ridge plots. The edaphic characteristics that we measured varied very little during the study period. Creating microtopographic relief during the restoration of this wetland seems to have provided a variety of niches and may have increased the likelihood that the site will succeed back to a swamp forest–bog complex, rather than as a forested terrace of Tulula Creek.

Wetlands Mitigation Banking and the Problem of Consolidation

A mitigation bank is a large wetland or wetland complex that is restored or created for the sake of selling credits to private developers or government agencies to compensate for the loss of natural wetlands. Mitigation banking is now emphasized within federal environmental policy. Proponents of banking claim that banking is beneficial to the environment, but studies have shown that this practice threatens biodiversity. The problem is consolidation. With banking, wetlands in a broad geographical area are collapsed into a relatively small area. Wetlands within banks tend to be larger and they are less diverse in type than the wetlands that are lost. Studies have shown that consolidation threatens the diversity and abundance of amphibians and wetland birds. Mitigation banking actually rests, not on arguments concerning its environmental benefits, but on arguments concerning the benefits it provides to humans.

Why You Should Pay Attention to Stream Mitigation Banking

tream mitigation banking is rapidly becoming a major driver of the stream restoration industry, particularly in the Southeast. Like other types of mitigation banking regulated by the Clean Water Act Section 404 program, stream mitigation banking (SMB) gives developers the option to offset construction impacts by purchasing “credits.” These credits are generated by for-profit companies that restore damaged streams on a speculative basis and are approved by federal regulatory agencies. In states such as North Carolina, SMB has now eclipsed wetlands banking in terms of number of credits bought and sold. SMB is becoming a major private-sector source of stream restoration funding, perhaps presaging a major shift in what has been until now a predominantly publicly funded market. In addition to its growing eco-nomic importance, the emerging practice of SMB is worth attention because many of the tensions and debates that have been settled in the more established practice of wet-lands mitigation banking are still unresolved, and thus potentially open to input from practitioners and scientists. The most important of these are the proper amount and location of compensation, and how stream credits should be certified and measured.Mitigation banking began in the early 1990s, when private developers frustrated with the slow pace of Section 404 permitting and the high cost of creating new on-site wetlands proposed the creation of large consolidated areas of constructed wetlands as advance compensation to the Chicago, Savannah, and Jacksonville Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Working together, developers and local Corps and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff developed the regulatory rules necessary to define, create, and maintain a market in a new commod-ity: wetlands credits (Robertson 2006). As will by now be familiar to most

North American wetland mitigation and restoration policies

Like wetlands themselves, the legal and policy regimes that govern wetland mitigation in North America are not static. They have evolved over time, in both Canada and the United States, often encompassing the mitigation sequence or hierarchy of ‘‘avoid, minimize, and compensate’’ (Cox and Grose 2000; Gardner 2005). Yet, the manner in which compensatory mitigation is provided, and its level of effectiveness, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This special issue of Wetlands Ecology and Management consists of five papers examining different aspects of wetland mitigation and restoration policies. It illustrates the cross-disciplinary focus of the journal, aiming to cover key issues that link wetland science, management, policy, and economics. The contributing authors have long been involved in developing, applying, and/or studying mitigation policies. Clayton Rubec and Alan Hanson open the special issue by providing an overview of mitigation policies of the 14 jurisdictions in the Canadian federation (its ten provinces, three territories, and the federal government). While some jurisdictions have adopted a ‘‘no net loss’’ policy, others have embraced a stricter ‘‘no loss’’ approach for certain wetlands. For example, New Brunswick is committed to no loss of provincially significant wetland habitat. The authors note, however, that Canada lacks an effective means to evaluate the extent to which mitigation contributes to the objective of no net loss of wetland area and functions. Palmer Hough and Morgan Robertson then provide an extensive history of the development of mitigation policies under the U.S. Clean Water Act. They explain how the mitigation debate now tends to focus on compensatory mitigation, the last step in the sequence, and trace the expansion of mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs as alternatives to traditional approaches to offset wetland impacts. It is a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the historical context of the aquatic resources mitigation regulation published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in April 2008 (Department of Defense and Environmental Protection Agency 2008). The growing reliance on entrepreneurial wetland mitigation banks is a unique feature of U.S. mitigation policy. In the next paper, Morgan Robertson offers two case studies of entrepreneurial wetland mitigation banks, as they attempt to navigate economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges. The reality on the ground can be quite different from the economic theory typically proffered about marketbased environmental policies. In-lieu fee mitigation is another aspect of U.S. mitigation policy, and Jessica Wilkinson expands upon a 2006 Environmental Law Institute study. She examines 38 in-lieu fee programs and identifies the R. C. Gardner (&) Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy, Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, FL, USA e-mail: gardner@law.stetson.edu

A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy

Since 1980, U.S. regulations have required compensatory mitigation for wetland losses, often through wetland creation or restoration. In 1987, the National Wetlands Policy Forum recommended that federal policy should aim to achieve overall “no net loss” of the country’s remaining wetland acreage and function. Controversy has surrounded recent reports that laud the achievement of no net loss while citing the virtual elimination of certain types of wetland losses in certain areas. However, little discussion in this debate has centered on the dynamic nature of wetland loss and restoration. Evidence has shown that temporal lags in wetland restoration can temporarily reduce wetland function and impose high costs on society. This paper analyzes wetland loss and compensation as dynamic processes that include temporal lags prevalent in various mitigation techniques. Here, a system dynamics model of the mitigation process is used to explore wetland alteration and mitigation data collected between 1993 and 2004 for the Chicago, IL region. This model includes vital factors associated with mitigation policy, including mitigation failure rates, varying mitigation ratios, and the temporal lags and head starts inherent in mitigation banking, permittee responsible mitigation, and in-lieu fee mitigation programs. Results demonstrate that delays in initiating and completing restoration activities mean that frequent, temporary wetland losses can easily contribute to a consistent and considerable net functional loss over time. I conclude by discussing methods for minimizing net temporary losses and reducing wetland restoration lag costs.

Mitigation of two pyrethroid insecticides in a Mississippi Delta constructed wetland

Constructed wetlands are a suggested best management practice to help mitigate agricultural runoff before entering receiving aquatic ecosystems. A constructed wetland system (180 m x 30 m), comprising a sediment retention basin and two treatment cells, was used to determine the fate and transport of simulated runoff containing the pyrethroid insecticides lambda-cyhalothrin and cyfluthrin, as well as suspended sediment. Wetland water, sediment, and plant samples were collected spatially and temporally over 55 d. Results showed 49 and 76% of the study's measured lambda-cyhalothrin and cyfluthrin masses were associated with vegetation, respectively. Based on conservative effects concentrations for invertebrates and regression analyses of maximum observed wetland aqueous concentrations, a wetland length of 215 m x 30 m width would be required to adequately mitigate 1% pesticide runoff from a 14 ha contributing area. Results of this experiment can be used to model future design specifications for constructed wetland mitigation of pyrethroid insecticides.

Determining the feasibility and cost of an ecologically-based design for a mitigation wetland in central Pennsylvania, USA

Studies indicate that mitigation wetlands are structurally and functionally different, not only from the wetlands they are intended to replace, but also from wetlands they ought to resemble based upon their position in the landscape. The objective of this study was to revisit a single wetland mitigation project to determine if a different, ecologically-based, design could have been developed in place of the original, at comparable cost. We selected a wetland in Pennsylvania (one of several built as mitigation totaling more than 12 ha) built during mitigation efforts for a major highway based upon available background data, the construction document package, and itemized costs. We prepared an alternative design using the original pre-construction site survey as a base map and local reference wetlands to inform the design process. We anticipated that the alternative design would cost less than the original, but due to site conditions and the objective of mimicking a natural wetland, much more earth needed to be excavated in the alternative design than anticipated. The cost of excavation, coupled with the added expense of hauling surplus fill off site, proved to be expensive. Nevertheless, other design differences, such the absence of water control structures, lack of instant habitat improvement devices, omission of an impermeable soil layer, and application of a simpler planting strategy, allowed for considerable cost savings.

Wetlands Mitigation Rules Finalized

The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (PL 108‐136) required development of regulations consistent with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 that establish equivalent standards and criteria for permittee‐responsible mitigation, mitigation banks, and in‐lieu fee programs. On March 27, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced proposed revisions to compensatory mitigation regulations. The purpose of the proposed revisions was to improve the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation, expand public participation, and increase the efficiency and predictability of the regulatory process. The proposal also complemented efforts to implement the 2002 National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, as well as respond to the recommendations of the 2001 National Research Council (NRC) comprehensive report evaluating wetlands compensatory mitigation (2001). On Apr. 10, 2008, USEPA and the Corps published a final rule that improves and consolidates existing regulations and guidance and establishes equivalent standards for all types of mitigation under the CWA Section 404 regulatory program. The new rule, which goes into effect June 9, 2008, is intended to promote greater consistency, predictability, and ecological success of mitigation projects. The rule does not change when compensatory mitigation is required, but it does change where and how it is required. This article discusses required mitigation plans and selecting the best mitigation option.

What wetland bankers think about mitigation banking

I n this issue we report on the results of the first national study of US wetland bankers. Most previous studies have focused on ecological, economic, and policy analyses based on data collected by or from the regulatory agencies charged with permitting and overseeing wetland banks. We used in-depth, semistructured interviews of 140 wetland mitigation bank managers (bankers) to shed light on how the nation's mitigation banks having been working from the perspective of those individuals who own and operate them. The use of in-depth interviews enabled us to collect a rich set of data on the experiences, perceptions, and understanding of a wide array of the nation's wetland bank managers. The results reveal that wetland bank managers are knowledgeable regarding their banks and the wetland mitigation banking process. Bankers, in general, seem concerned with making positive environmental contributions with their wetland mitigation banks and seem concerned with current industry practices. The nation's wetland banks are composed mainly of private entrepreneurial banks. While the results show that most wetland bankers that manage private banks are male and have some educational experience related to their banking industry, there are others types of bankers as well. On average, managers reported having worked in …

Wetland mitigation banking: The bankers' perspective

This paper reports results based on the first national study of the perceptions, experiences, and characteristics of US wetland mitigation bank managers (wetland bankers). Most previous studies have focused on ecological, economic, and policy analyses based on data collected by or from the regulatory agencies charged with permitting and overseeing wetland banks. Our in-depth, semi-structured interviews of 140 wetland bankers shed light on how the nation9s mitigation banks have been working from the perspective of the individuals who own and operate them—wetland bank managers. The results indicate that wetland bankers are knowledgeable regarding their banks and the banking process. Most wetland bankers who manage private banks are male and have education and experience related to the banking industry, although there are exceptions. Many wetland banks appear to be located in highly populated wet areas of the country and are of various sizes and ecological types. The results also show a possible decline in the growth rate of the banking industry with a high number of private bankers planning no new banks or expansions and with most banks in the monitoring phase. These findings offer a new perspective on the wetland banking industry that should complement existing studies.