Since 1990 Massachusetts has maintained a policy of no net loss of wetland habitat and has
a long term goal for a net gain.

How does this translate into regulation?
answer:    "Wetlands destruction should be avoided whenever possible, and any wetland loss which does
                 occur should be offset by restoration of degraded wetlands or by new wetland creation."
                 (Foote-Smith et al. 1991).

What does this translate into?
answer: Wetland mitigation

 
Wetland Mitigation

  The mitigation banking concept: A developer can apply wetland restoration resources (funds) as mitigation to enhance or restore an existing wetland (on-site or off-site), or create a new wetland. Any of these three compensatory methods serve as credit in the mitigation bank when a developer wants a current project to occur on a site that has an existing wetland.

  There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding wetland mitigation. It has been documented by the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA Wetlands Research Program, that mitigation projects have not successfully restored all natural functions and values wetlands that are destroyed. Thus the fundamental problems with mitigation is its very low success rate and ergo no guarantee we will get back what we lost in terms of wetland function and value. Furthermore, areas that once benefited from a targeted wetland generally will not receive benefit from the mitigation site. Therefore, understanding the value of remaining wetlands, their function as an ecosystem (e.g. how wetlands purify polluted runoff and reduce flood damages), potential wetland restoration areas, and sensitive, threatened or endangered habitat should be required before a mitigation plan is accepted.

  There is additional concern that mitigation will result in the consolidation of wetland habitat into one area, thereby increasing the vulnerability of a single ecological wetland unit. In response conservationists have suggested that perhaps mitigation banks could be planned as large wetland complexes, combining both large and small wetlands within one bank, rather than one large wetland. Today many small wetlands are impacted without being mitigated. Creating wetland complexes could potentially allow for more mitigation of these small wetland impacts. Furthermore these wetland assemblages are believed to be better for maintaining diversity and the habitat needs of many species, particularly migratory animals.
 

Restoration

  Restoration of already damaged wetlands has not yet succeeded in completely restoring natural wetland function. Even so it does provide an opportunity to rebuild our depleted "stock" of wetlands. Some wetland proponents strongly advocate restoration only "as a means of revitalizing areas that have already been damaged" and not justification for more destruction (Archie 1992).

  Urban areas often contain the most heavily impacted wetland sites. Concentrating restoration projects on these wetlands could lead to improved public access and, in turn, may provide greater opportunities to educate the public about the many benefits to preserving wetland habitats.

  The question of whether to restore is not always an easy one. A plan to restore the Belle Isle salt marsh was proposed in the early 1990’s. A tidal restriction had allowed Phragmites australis to invade a high percentage of the restricted area. A restoration plan was developed to restore the marsh to its natural state and remove the Phragmites. After careful assessment by Massachusetts Audubon, however, the Phragmites was found to be beneficial to some of the local wildlife, particularly several bird species. As a result the restoration plan was not carried out since Mass Audubon concluded that the existing Phragmites dominated marsh had significant habitat value (Buchsbaum 1992).
 

Reducing tidal restrictions

  Today several salt marshes in the Boston area and around the New England area are either undergoing restoration or are being studied for the possibility of restoration. In many of these sites managers and scientists are looking at ways to reduce tidal restrictions. An atlas of Tidally Restricted Marshes; North Shore of Massachusetts has been compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in conjunction with the Massachusetts Wetlands & Restoration Banking Program (WRBP). This atlas identifies a number of tidally restricted salt marshes. Greater detail on many potentially restorable marshes on the north shore was collected by the Tidal Crossings Inventory and Assessment conducted by the Parker River Clean Water Association. This assessment provides information on approximately 150 tidal restrictions in that area.

  Many of the proposed restoration projects include widening culverts and bridge openings to allow for unrestricted tidal flow and in many cases installing self regulating tidal gates that theoretically will allow for both flood control and controlled tidal flooding (personal communication Chris Cornelisen)