National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Glossary
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Index

A

Abiotic components, 299

Activity, completing compensatory mitigation before permitting, 7, 139, 167

Advance identification (ADID), 146, 299

Agency technical capacity, 158–160

Agricultural uses, wetland losses due to, 57–58

Alnus, 32

Amphibians, major component of wetland biodiversity, 40

Analyses

of 404(b)(1) guidelines, for processingDepartment of the Army permit applications, 253–254

of compliance for 17 mitigation projects with field investigation in Western Washington, 120

scope of, in processing Department of the Army permit applications 241–242

of soil, plant, and animal communities for mitigation sites compared with reference sites, 211–216

Animal communities present in a wetland, 39–40

analyses of, for mitigation sites compared with reference sites, 211–216

Animal dispersal corridors, in watersheds, wetlands as, 51–53

Application, in processing Department of the Army permit, 247

Approaches

floristic, 129–130

to the nationwide permit process, 77

third-party compensation, 9, 93, 168

watershed, 3–5, 45, 59, 140–149, 273

Area basis compliance, for mitigation that was attempted based on field inspection or monitoring reports, 119

Army Corps of Engineers. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Assessment of function, over broad range of performance conditions 136

Atlantic coast, coastal wetlands on, 41

Authority, discretionary, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 246

Avoidance, 299

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

B

Baltimore District's Guidelines, 227–228

Basin Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan, 210

Biological dynamics, evaluating in terms of regional reference models 5, 45

Biological opinion (BO), 257–258

BO. See Biological opinion

Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, 20

Bogs, 26–27

Bush, George W., 156

C

California Coastal Act, 299

California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Region, guidelines for wetland mitigation, 217–218

California Department of Transportation, 203, 205

Carolina bays, 52

Case studies, 199–210

Coyote Creek mitigation site, 201–208

Everglades National Park, 34, 199–201

North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program, 208–210

CEQ. See Council on Environmental Quality

Channelization, 58

Chicago District Mitigation Guidelines, 229–230

Cladium jamaicence, 30

Clean Water Act (CWA), 1–4, 6, 60, 299.

See also Section 404 permits

objective of, 11–13, 15, 53, 240

Clinton Administration Wetland Plan, 145

Coastal wetlands, on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, 41

Coastal zone management, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 255–257

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 252, 255–256, 264–265

Code of Federal Regulations, 65

Commanders, memorandum for, 234–238

Commercial mitigation banks, 86

Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, 2, 12–13, 20–21

Community structure, setting goals addressing, 7, 45

Comparative studies, of mitigation and natural wetlands, 189–198

Compensation

in-kind, 301

out-of-kind, 302

permittee-responsible, 8, 167

self-sustaining, 53–57

third-party, 9, 93, 168

Compensation wetland planning, 146–147, 300

Compensatory mitigation, 300

in California, parameters measured in, 107

completing before permitting activity, 7, 139, 167

defined, 14

designing and constructing individual sites on watershed scale, 7, 139, 167

establishing long-term stewardship for, 8, 168

guidelines for implementing, 9, 93

initiation of, 150

performance standards from selected Section 404 permits requiring 222

in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 265–268

Compensatory mitigation mechanisms under Section 404, 82–93

legal responsibility for the mitigation, 86–88

location of the compensatory mitigation action, 83–86

MBRT process, 91

recommendation, 93

relationship of mitigation actions to permitted activities, 88–91

stewardship requirements, 91–92

a taxonomy, 92

Compliance, 94–122

based on area, for mitigation that was attempted based on field inspection or monitoring reports, 119

based on permit number, for when the mitigation plan was fully implemented 118

improving monitoring of, 8, 168

inspection and enforcement of, 156–157

with mitigation design standards, 97– 101

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

in mitigation planning, 95–97

with mitigation ratios, 108–110

monitoring duration of, 112–113

monitoring of, 110–112

in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 270

in project implementation, 101–103

recommendations, 122

record of, 113–121

with requirements for permittee-responsible compensation, 8, 167

Compliance with permit conditions, 103–108

design standards and detailed performance standards, 104–108

Compliance workload terms, 282–284

Conditioning permits, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 264–265

Conduit for groundwater, soil in wetlands as, 32

Connectivity, 300

Conservation. See Wetland conservation

Constructed salt marshes

at a mitigation site in North Carolina, 42

in natural sites in Paradise Creek, Southern California, 115

in San Diego Bay, long-term data for, 43

Constructed wetlands, 300

defined, 13

Contaminants, from soil in wetlands, 32

Continuous parametric scale, creating, 136

Corps of Engineers. See U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Corridors. See Animal dispersal corridors

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 62, 266, 300

Cowardin system. See Wetland classification system

Coyote Creek mitigation site, 201–208

duration of monitoring, 205–207

long-term success criterion, 205

monitoring and site development, 205– 207

monitoring parameters, 204

short-term success criterion, 204–205

site installation and postinstallation site review, 205

Craven County, N.C., comparison between observed and DRAINMOD simulated water-table depths for a wetland restoration site in, 55

Creation of wetlands, 22–27.

See also Constructed wetlands

wetland types that are difficult to create, 24–27

wetland types that have been created, 22–24

Creation of wetlands that are ecologically self-sustaining, 123–128

adopting a dynamic landscape perspective, 124–125

attending to subsurface conditions, 127

avoiding overengineered structures in the wetland's design, 126

choosing wetland restoration over creation, 125–126

conducting early monitoring, 128

considering complications in degraded or disturbed sites, 128

considering the hydrogeomorphic and ecological landscape and climate 123–124

incorporating appropriate planting elevation, depth, soil type, and seasonal timing, 126–127

providing appropriately heterogeneous topography, 127

restoring or developing naturally variable hydrological conditions 125

Credits, wetland, 67

Cropped wetlands (CW), 300

CWA. See Clean Water Act

CWA Section 404 program. See Section 404 permits

CZMA. See Coastal Zone Management Act

D

DA. See Department of the Army

Data

long-term, for salt marshes constructed in San Diego Bay, 43

quality assurance measures for entry of, 3, 122

Degraded sites, 44

considering complications in, 128

Denials, 278

Denitrification, 27

Department of the Army (DA) permitapplications, policies and procedures for processing, 240–271

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Depth factors, incorporating as appropriate, 126–127

Design reference manual, developing to help projects achieve permit requirements, 8, 168

Design standards, 104–108

Discretionary authority, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 246

Dispersal corridors. See Animal dispersal corridors

District commands, memorandum for, 234–

238

Disturbed sites, considering complications in, 128

Documentations, EA/SOF/guidelines compliance, in processing

Department of the Army permit applications, 258–264

DRAINMOD (hydrological model)

simulated water-table depths, compared with observed water-table depths, 55

Duration

of inundation or saturation, 29

of monitoring, 112–113

of monitoring, at the Coyote Creek mitigation site, 205–207

of permits, in processing Department of the Army permit applications 268

Dynamic landscape perspective, adopting, 124–125

E

EA. See Environmental assessment

Early monitoring, conducting, 128

Echinochloa crusgalli

, 230

Ecological functionality

percentage of permits meeting various tests of, 117

of small, isolated wetlands, 52

Ecological parameters

landscape and climate, 123–124

in paired replacement and reference wetlands, 116

Ecoregional perspectives

in setting wetland project priorities, encouraging states to use, 9, 167

on where a wetland occurs, 38

Effect on Wetlands review, factors considered in, 293

EIS. See Environmental Impact Statements

Emergency procedures, 245

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

general mitigation requirements of, 62, 101, 249

in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 257–258

Enforcement

in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 270

in regulatory program priorities, 274

Enforcement workload terms, 282–284

Enhancement. See Wetland enhancement

Environmental assessment (EA), 245, 249

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), 261–263

Environmental Protection Agency. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ephemeral wetlands, 300

Equivalency, functional, for constructed salt marshes in relationship to natural sites in Paradise Creek, Southern California, 115

ESA. See Endangered Species Act

Evaluation days, 278–280

Evaluation workload terms, 276–278

Everglades National Park, case study at, 34, 199–201

Excavation Rule, 243

Exotics, 300

Expectations for the permittee, 149–154

initiation of compensatory mitigation projects, 150

monitoring for performance, 151–152

permit compliance conditions for permittee-responsible mitigation 153–154

permit conditions, 150–151

transfer of long-term responsibility, 152–153

Expectations for the regulatory agency, 154–160

agency technical capacity, 158–160

compliance inspection and enforcement, 156–157

long-term stewardship and management, 157–158

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

recognizing temporal lag, 155

recognizing watershed needs, 154–155

F

Federal actions, regarding wetland permit and mitigation requirements 61

Federal Register, 69–70, 74, 76

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 64

Federal wetland program, expanding state wetland programs to fill gaps in, 9, 168

FEDR. See Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Fens, 25–26

Field inspection, area basis compliance for mitigation that was attempted based on, 119

File maintenance, in processing Department of the Army permit applications 270–271

Financial assurances, ensuring for long-term site sustainability, 7, 139, 167

Findings, 1–10

advantages of third-party compensation approaches, 9, 93, 168

advantages of watershed approach, 3–5, 45, 59

goal of no-net-loss-of-wetlands, 2–3, 122, 168

inadequate support for regulatory decision making, 8–9, 167–168

problems with Section 404 permits, 45, 137, 139, 167–168

Findings of no significant impact (FONSI), 259, 261

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 63–64, 74, 300

general mitigation requirements of, 61

Fish and Wildlife Service. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Flood-control practices, wetland losses due to, 58

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FEDR), 125–126

Floristic Quality Assessment, 130

FONSI. See Findings of no significant impact

Food Security Act (FSA), 1, 17, 300

general mitigation requirements of, 62

Forested wetlands, 23

Forms of permits, in processing Department of the Army permit applications 244–245

40 CFR 230, 299

Frequency of monitoring for permits that required mitigation, 111

Freshwater emergent marshes, 22–23

Function. See Wetland functions

Functional assessment, 132–136

of all recognized functions, 136

creating a continuous, parametric scale, 136

defined, 14

of function over broad range of performance conditions, 136

including reliable indicators of important wetland processes, 136

integrating over space and time, 136

selected attributes of 40 common procedures, 285–291

Functional equivalency, for constructed salt marshes, in relationship to natural sites, 115

Functionality, percentage of permits meeting various tests of, 117

Funds, for staff professional development,committing, 8, 168

FWPCA. See Federal Water Pollution Control Act

FWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

G

General Accounting Office (GAO), 162

General permits (GP), 76, 244, 300

Geographical information system (GIS) data, 48, 52

Germination medium, soil in wetlands as, 32

GIS. See Geographical information system data

Global positioning system (GPS) technology, 48

Goals

addressing both community structure and wetland functions setting 7, 45

of no-net-loss-of-wetlands, 2–3, 122– 137, 168

GP. See General permits

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

GPS. See Global positioning system technology

Groundwater withdrawals, wetland losses due to, 58

Gulf of Mexico (GOM) coast, coastal wetlands on, 41

H

Habitat evaluation procedures (HEPs), 131

Habitat support

for fauna, 31

for mycorrhizae and symbiotic bacteria, 32

for soil macrofauna, 32

Headquarters, Operations, Construction, and Readiness Division, 19, 83

HEPs. See Habitat evaluation procedures

Herbaceous wetlands, 22–23

Heterogeneous topography, providing, 127

HGM. See Hydrogeomorphic Method

Hole-in-the-Donut, 34, 199–201

Hydric soils, 300

Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM), 114– 115, 131–136, 159–160, 301

landscape and climate, 123–124

Hydrological continuum, 29

Hydrological function of wetlands, 28–29, 35–36, 301

restoring or developing naturally variable, 125

Hydrological variability, incorporating into wetland mitigation design and evaluation, 5, 45, 135

Hydrology, effect of wetland function and position in the watershed on, 48–49

Hydroperiods, 301

Hydrophytic vegetation, 301

I

Impact sites

area permitted, as a result of permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19

evaluating with same tools as mitigation sites, 7, 137

In-kind compensation, 301

In-lieu fees, 87, 301

Inadequate support, for regulatory decision making, 8–9, 167–168

Indicators of important wetland processes, reliability of, 136

Individual permits, 301

Installation review, at the Coyote Creek mitigation site, 205

Institutional reforms for enhancing compensatory mitigation, 138–168

expectations for the permittee, 149–154

expectations for the regulatory agency, 154–160

guidelines for, 9, 168

improvements in permittee-responsible mitigation, 149–154

introduction, 138–140

recommendations, 166–168

support for increased state responsibilities, 165–166

third-party mitigation, 160–164

watershed-based approach to compensatory mitigation, 140–149

Interagency Wetland Plan, 146

Internal coordination, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 250

Inundation, duration and timing of, 29

Invasion of Schinus terebinthifolius, conceptual model of factors facilitating the, 200

Invasive species, 301

Iva frutescens, 228

J

Juncus roemerianus, 228

Jurisdictional issues, 53

in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 242–243

L

Legal assurances, ensuring for long-term site sustainability, 7, 139, 167

Legal compliance, defined, 15

Legal responsibility for the mitigation, under Section 404, 86–88

Letter of permissions (LOPs), 244–245

Local watershed plans (LWPs), 208–210

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Location of the compensatory mitigation action, under Section 404 83–86

Long-term data, for salt marshes constructed in San Diego Bay, 43

Long-term effects of wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration, research into, 9, 168

Long-term responsibility, transfer of, 152– 153

Long-term site sustainability, ensuring legal and financial assurances for, 7, 139, 167

Long-term stewardship

establishing for compensatory mitigation sites, 8, 168

and management, 157–158

LOPs. See Letter of permissions

Los Angeles District's Proposed Guidelines for Riparian Habitat, 229

Losses, by cause and acres lost, 18

Losses of wetland area and functions. See also No-net-loss-of-wetlands goal

due to agricultural uses, 57–58

due to flood-control practices, 58

due to groundwater withdrawals, 58

due to urbanization, 57

tracking, 3, 122

Ludwigia peploides, 206

LWPs. See Local watershed plans

Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife), 30, 230

M

Major subordinate, commands for, 234–238

Management-oriented wetland planning, 145–146, 301

Manual. See Design reference manual

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 240, 243

Massachusetts, ecological parameters in paired replacement and reference wetlands in, 116

MBRT. See Mitigation Banking Review Team

Measurable performance standards, in permits, writing, 7, 122

Measured parameters, in compensatory wetland mitigation projects in California, 107

Memorandum for commanders, major subordinate commands, and district commands, April 8, 1999, 101, 234– 238

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), 12, 65, 71, 90–92, 108, 141, 241



Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 63, 160, 162–163

Metapopulations, 52, 301

Method for Assessment of Wetland Function (MDE method), 133

Minimization, 301

Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions 133

Mitigation, 301

approaching on a watershed scale, 4, 59

California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Region guidelines for, 217–218

design standards for, 97–101

federal actions regarding, 61

incorporating hydrological variability into design and evaluation 5, 45

initiating, 102

permittee-responsible, 149–154

proposed, 95, 97

in regulatory program priorities, 275

relationship to permitted activities under Section 404, 88–91

required as a result of permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19

sequencing, 66

specified but not carried out, 101–103

Mitigation banking, 301

Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT) process under Section 404, 68–70, 82, 88, 91, 151, 160–164

Mitigation compliance, 94–122

with design standards, 97–101

keeping record of, 113–121

with permit conditions, 103–108

in planning, 95–97

and project implementation, 101–103

recommendations, 122

Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), 12, 65, 71, 125

Mitigation monitoring, 110–112

at the Coyote Creek mitigation site, 204–207

of duration, 112–113

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Mitigation performance standards, 301

Mitigation permits, with special conditions, 101

Mitigation planning, 95–97

area to be lost and proposed mitigation, 95, 97

Mitigation projects, monitoring of, 110–112

Mitigation ratios, 108–110

and achievement rates for differentwetland types in southern California 109–110

Mitigation requirements, 61–63

defined, 15

Endangered Species Act, 62

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 61

Food Security Act, 62

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 62

Mitigation site performance

ecoregion in which a wetland occurs, 38

factors that contribute to, 35–45

hydrological regime, 35–36

kinds of animals present, 39–40

kinds of plants present, 38–39

time factors, 40–44

wetland place in the landscape, 37–38

wetland size, 36–37

Mitigation sites

compared with reference sites, analyses of soil, plant, and animal communities for, 211–216

evaluating with same tools as impact sites, 7, 137

Mitigation wetlands, making self-sustaining, 4–5, 45

MOA. See Memorandum of agreement

Monitoring

conducting early, 128

duration of, 112–113, 205–207

frequency of, for permits that required mitigation, 111

for performance, 151–152

Monitoring reports, attempting area-based compliance with mitigation based on, 119

MOU. See Memorandum of Understanding

Mycorrhizae, 302

habitat for, 32

N

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 248, 254, 257, 302

general mitigation requirements of, 62

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 252, 257

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 62, 249

National Mining Association v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 72

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 50, 68, 70

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 302

National Research Council (NRC)

Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, 2, 12–13, 20–21

defining wetland hydrology, 35

Nationwide permits (NWPs), 70, 76–79, 267

approach to process for, 77

listing of current, 78

Natural recruitment, seeding versus, 39

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 50, 68, 131

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 165

Naturally variable hydrological conditions, 125

Nature Conservancy, 87

NCWRP. See North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program

NEPA. See National Environmental Policy Act

New England District's Guidelines, 226– 227

NHPA. See National Historic Preservation Act

Nitrate reduction, 50

NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service

No-net-loss-of-wetlands goal, 2–3, 122–137, 168, 217

establishing watershed organizations for tracking, monitoring, and managing wetlands, 3, 168

expanding and improving quality assurance measures for data entry 3, 122

floristic approach, 129–130

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

habitat evaluation procedures and the hydrogeomorphic approach, 131– 132

HGM as a functional assessment procedure, 132–136

operational guidelines for creating or restoring wetlands that are ecologically self-sustaining, 123–128

recommendations, 136–137

and the Section 404 program, 16–20

technical approaches toward achieving, 123–137

tracking wetland area and functions lost and regained, 3, 122

wetland functional assessment, 128–129

NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Nonriverine systems, 28

Norfolk District's Guidelines, 227

North Carolina, created salt marsh constructed as a mitigation site in, 42

North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP), 147, 208–210

NPDES. See National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWPs. See Nationwide permits

O

Observed water-table depths, compared with DRAINMOD simulated water-table depths, 55

Ohio, permit conditions and compliance for replacement wetlands investigated in, 114

Oligotrophic conditions, 26

Operational guidelines for creating or restoring wetlands that are ecologically self-sustaining, 123–128

adopting a dynamic landscape perspective, 124–125

attending to subsurface conditions, 127

avoiding overengineered structures in the wetland's design, 126

choosing wetland restoration over creation, 125–126

conducting early monitoring, 128

considering complications in degraded or disturbed sites, 128

considering the hydrogeomorphic and ecological landscape and climate 123–124

incorporating appropriate planting elevation, depth, soil type, and seasonal timing, 126–127

providing appropriately heterogeneous topography, 127

restoring or developing naturally variable hydrological conditions 125

Organizations. See Watershed organizations

Out-of-kind compensation, 302

Outcomes of wetland restoration and creation, 22–45

factors that contribute to the performance of mitigation sites, 35– 45

five wetland functions, 27–34



possibility of restoring or creating wetland structure, 22–27

recommendations, 45

replaceability of wetland functions, 27

Overengineered structures, avoiding in the wetland's design, 126

P

Paired replacement and reference wetlands, ecological parameters in, 116

Palustrine nonriverine systems, 28

Paradise Creek, Southern California, functional equivalency for constructed salt marshes in relationship to natural sites in, 115

Parameters, measured in compensatory wetland mitigation projects in California, 107

Parametric scale, creating a continuous, 136

PC. See Prior converted cropland

PCNs. See Preconstruction notifications

PDNs. See Predischarge notifications

Peltandra virginica, 228

Percent loss, by cause and acres lost, 18

Percent plant cover, on created or restored coastal wetlands on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, 41

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Performance conditions, assessing function over broad range of, 136

Performance of mitigation sites

ecoregion in which a wetland occurs, 38

factors that contribute to, 35–45

hydrological regime, 35–36

kinds of animals present, 39–40

kinds of plants present, 38–39

time factors, 40–44

wetland place in the landscape, 37–38

wetland size, 36–37

Performance standards

an approach to developing, 219–233

defined, 15

detailed, 104–108

in permits, writing measurable, 7, 122

from selected Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation 222

for wetland creation and restoration in Section 404 permits, 219–233

Permit applications. See Processing Department of the Army permit applications

Permit conditions, 150–151

and compliance for replacement wetlands investigated in Ohio, 114

compliance with, 103–108

for permittee-responsible mitigation, 153–154

Permit evaluation

in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 250–253

in regulatory program priorities, 273

Permit modifications, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 269

Permit number, compliance based on, 118

Permit process, approach to the nationwide, 77

Permit-specific mitigation, 88

Permits, percentage meeting their requirements and percentage meeting various tests of ecological functionality or viability, 117

Permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program, results of, 19

Permitted activities (timing), relationship to mitigation actions under Section 404, 88–91

Permittee compensation, using watershed perspective in establishing 7, 167

Permittee expectations, 149–154

initiation of compensatory mitigation projects, 150

monitoring for performance, 151–152

permit compliance conditions for permittee-responsible mitigation 153–154

permit conditions, 150–151

transfer of long-term responsibility, 152–153

Permittee-responsible compensation, enforcing clear compliance requirements for, 8, 167

Permittee-responsible mitigation, improvements in, 149–154

PGP. See Programmatic general permits

Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass), 30, 230

Phragmites australis/communis (giant reed grass), 30, 50, 230

Planning and measuring tools for wetland function, broadening, 7, 45

Plant communities

analyses of, for mitigation sites compared with reference sites, 211– 216

present in a wetland, 38–39

Plant cover, on created or restored coastal wetlands on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, 41

Planting. See Wetland planting

Planting elevation, incorporating as appropriate, 126–127

PNs. See Public notices

Poa compressa, 230

P. pratensis, 230

Pogogyne abramsii (mesa mint), 25

Policies and procedures for processing Department of the Army permit applications, 240–271

appropriate level of analysis, 404(b)(1) guidelines for, 253–254

compensatory mitigation, 265–268

complete application, 247

conditioning permits, 264–265

discretionary authority, 246

documentations, EA/SOF/guidelines compliance, 258–264

duration of permits, 268

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Endangered Species Act, 257–258

enforcement/compliance, 270

file maintenance, 270–271

forms of permits, 244–245

internal coordination, 250

jurisdiction, 242–243

permit evaluation/public hearings, 250–253

permit modifications and time extensions, 269

pre-application meetings, 246–247

preparing public notices, 249–250

project purpose, 247–249

public interest determination, 254–255

reporting, 271

scope of analysis, 241–242

Section 401 certification and coastal zone management, 255–257

wetland delineations, 244

Postinstallation review, at the Coyote Creek mitigation site, 205

Prairie potholes, 49, 58

Pre-application meetings, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 246–247

Preconstruction notifications (PCNs), 76–77

Predischarge notifications (PDNs), 279

Prior converted cropland (PC), 302

Problems with Section 404 permits, 6–8, 45, 137, 139, 167–168

assessing wetland function using scientific procedures, 7, 136–137

broadening wetland function planning and measuring tools, 7, 45

completing compensatory mitigation before permitting activity, 7, 139, 167

designing and constructing individual compensatory mitigation sites on watershed scale, 7, 139, 167

enforce clear compliance requirements for permittee-responsible compensation 8, 167

ensuring legal and financial assurances for long-term site sustainability 7, 139, 167

establishing long-term stewardship for compensatory mitigation sites 8, 168

evaluating impact sites with same tools as mitigation sites, 7, 137

improving compliance monitoring, 8, 168

setting goals addressing both community structure and wetland functions 7, 45

using a watershed perspective in establishing permittee compensation 7, 167

writing measurable performance standards in permits, 7, 122

Procedures. See Policies and procedures for processing Department of the Army permit applications

Processing of Department of the Army permit applications, 240–271

appropriate level of analysis, 404(b)(1) guidelines, 253–254

compensatory mitigation, 265–268

complete application, 247

conditioning permits, 264–265

discretionary authority, 246

documentations, EA/SOF/guidelines compliance, 258–264

duration of permits, 268

Endangered Species Act, 257–258

enforcement/compliance, 270

file maintenance, 270–271

forms of permits, 244–245

internal coordination, 250

jurisdiction, 242–243

permit evaluation/public hearings, 250–253

permit modifications and time

extensions, 269

pre-application meetings, 246–247

preparing public notices, 249–250

project purpose, 247–249

public interest determination, 254–255

reporting, 271

scope of analysis, 241–242

Section 401 certification and coastalzone management, 255–257

wetland delineations, 244

Professional development, commiting funds for, 8, 168

Program administration, in regulatory program priorities, 275

Programmatic general permits (PGP), 276, 302

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Project design standard, defined, 15

Project implementation, 101–103

mitigation permit with special conditions, 101

mitigation specified but not carried out, 101–103

Project purpose, in processing Department of the Army permit applications 247–249

Proposed mitigation, area to be lost and, 95, 97

Protection-oriented wetland planning, 146, 302

Public hearings, in processing Department of the Army permit applications 250–253

Public interest determination, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 254–255

Public Interest review, factors considered in, 292

Public notices (PNs), in processing Department of the Army permit applications, preparing, 244, 249–250

Public outreach, in regulatory program priorities, 274

Q

Quality assurance measures for data entry, expanding and improving 3, 122

Quarterly Permit Data System (QPDS) definitions, 271, 276–284

enforcement/compliance workload, 282–284

evaluation days, 278–280

evaluation workload terms, 276–278

staffing, 282

workload items, 280–282

R

RAMS. See Regulatory Analysis and Management System database

Ranking of compliance for sites in San Francisco Bay that were issued Section 404 permits, 120

Rapid Assessment Procedure, 133

Recommendations.

See also Findings

for compensatory mitigation mechanisms under Section 404, 93

for institutional reforms for enhancing compensatory mitigation, 166–168

for mitigation compliance, 122

for outcomes of wetland restoration and creation, 45

for technical approaches toward achieving no-net-loss-of-wetlands goal, 136–137

for watershed setting, 59

Record keeping, 121

Reference models, evaluating biological dynamics in terms of regional 5, 45

Reference sites.

See also Design reference manual

compared with mitigation sites, analyses of soil, plant, and animal communities for, 211–216

Reference wetlands, paired, ecological parameters in, 116

Regained wetland area and functions, tracking, 3, 122

Regional general permits (RGP), 246, 276

Regional reference models, evaluating biological dynamics in terms of, 5, 45

Regulatory agency expectations, 154–160

agency technical capacity, 158–160

compliance inspection and enforcement, 156–157

long-term stewardship and management, 157–158

recognizing temporal lag, 155

recognizing watershed needs, 154–155

Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) database, 3, 121–122

Regulatory decision making

commiting funds for staff professional development, 8, 168

developing design reference manual to ensure projects are likely to achieve permit requirements, 8, 168

encouraging states to use ecoregional perspectives in setting wetland project priorities, 9, 167

inadequate support for, 8–9, 167–168

researching long-term effects of wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration, 9, 168

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Regulatory Guidance Letters (RGLs), 67, 241

Regulatory program priorities, 272–275.

See also Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program

enforcement, 274

mitigation, 275

permit evaluation, 273

public outreach, 274

staff support/program administration, 275

watershed approaches, 273

Replacement wetlands

paired, ecological parameters in, 116

permit conditions and compliance for, 114

Reporting, in processing Department of the Army permit applications 271

Required mitigation, as restoration, creation, and enhancement for permits issued under permitting programs, 96

Research, into long-term effects of wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration, 9, 168

Restoration. See Wetland restoration

Review of Corps permits issued nationwide, 98

Revised Quarterly Permit Data System (QPDS) definitions, 276–284

enforcement/compliance workload, 282–284

evaluation days, 278–280

evaluation workload terms, 276–278

staffing, 282

workload items, 280–282

RGLs. See Regulatory Guidance Letters

RGP. See Regional general permits

RHA. See Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Riparian wetlands, 48

giving special attention and protection

to, 5, 59

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) Section 10 of, 63, 240, 243, 302

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 62

Rooting medium, soil in wetlands as, 32> S

Salix, 32

S. interior, 230

Salt marshes, 23.

See also Constructed salt marshes

San Diego Bay, salt marshes constructed in, 43

Saturation, duration and timing of, 29

Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper)

deterring invasion by, 34

factors facilitating invasion of, 199–200

Scientific procedures, assessing wetland function using, 7, 136–137

Scirpus spp., 50

S. robustus, 228

SCWRP. See Southern California Wetland Recovery Project

Sea-level rise, and wetlands placement, 56

Seagrasses, 23

Seasonal timing, incorporating as appropriate, 126–127

Seattle District's Guidelines for Freshwater Wetlands, 228–229

Section 401 certification, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 255–257

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 302

Section 404 permits, 2, 10, 15, 73–79, 303

assessing wetland function using scientific procedures, 7, 136–137

broadening wetland function planning and measuring tools, 7, 45

compensatory mitigation mechanisms under, 82–93

completing compensatory mitigation before permitting activity, 7, 139, 167

designing and constructing individual compensatory mitigation sites on watershed scale, 7, 139, 167

enforce clear compliance requirements for permittee-responsible compensation 8, 167

ensuring legal and financial assurances for long-term site sustainability 7, 139, 167

establishing long-term stewardship for compensatory mitigation sites 8, 168

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

evaluating impact sites with same tools as mitigation sites, 7, 137

factors considered in the Effect on Wetlands reviews, 293

factors considered in the Public Interest review, 292

general permits, 76

implementing, 12

improving compliance monitoring, 8, 168

performance standards for wetland creation and restoration in, 219–233

problems with, 6–8, 45, 137, 139, 167– 168

processing flow chart for, 75

setting goals addressing both community structure and wetland functions 7, 45

standard permits, 73–74

using a watershed perspective in establishing permittee compensation 7, 167

writing measurable performance standards in permits, 7, 122

Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA, 65, 140, 303

level of analysis guidelines, in processing Department of the Army permit applications, 253–254

Sedge meadows, 23

Seed banks, soil in wetlands as, 32

Seeding, versus natural recruitment, 39

Self-design, wetland planting aiding, 39

Self-sustaining compensation projects, watershed position and, 53–57

Self-sustaining mitigation wetlands, 4–5, 45

Sequencing, 66, 303

Shrub swamps, 23

Sierra Club v. Alexander, 61

Simulated water-table depths, by DRAINMOD, compared with observed water-table depths, 55

Site review, installation and postinstallation, at the Coyote Creek mitigation site, 205

SOF. See Statement of findings

Soil communities, analyses of, for mitigation sites compared with reference sites, 211–216

Soil Conservation Service. See Natural Resources Conservation Service

Soil functions in wetlands, 31–34

conduit for groundwater, 32

germination medium, 32

habitat for mycorrhizae and symbiotic bacteria, 32

habitat for soil macrofauna, 32

rooting medium, 32

seed bank, 32

source of contaminants, 32

source of water and nutrients for plants, 32

water-quality functions, 32

Soil macrofauna, 303

habitat for, 32

Soil type, incorporating as appropriate, 126–127

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 12, 71

SOPs. See Standard operating procedures

Source-sink, 303

Southern California Wetland Recovery Project (SCWRP), 146–147, 303

SP. See Standard permits

Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), 23, 126, 228

S. foliosa, 24

S. patens, 228

Special conditions, mitigation permit with, 101

Sphagnum moss, 26

St. Paul District's Guidelines, 226

Stable-water ponds, 106

Staff support

commiting funds for professional development, 8, 168

in regulatory program priorities, 275

Staffing terms, 282

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program, 101–103, 148, 151, 156, 239–284

policies and procedures for processing Department of the Army permit applications, 240–271

regulatory program priorities, 272–275

revised Quarterly Permit Data System definitions, 276–284

Standard permits (SP), 73–74, 244–245

State responsibilities, support forincreased, 165–166

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

State Revolving Loan Fund, 164

State wetland programs

encouraging use of ecoregional perspectives in setting project priorities 9, 167

expanding to fill gaps in federal wetland program, 9, 168

Statement of findings (SOF), 245, 258

Stewardship requirements, under Section 404, 91–92

Stream order, 47

Subordinates, commands for, 234–238

Subsurface conditions, attending to, 127

Success criteria at the Coyote Creek mitigation site

long-term, 205

short-term, 204–205

Support

for increased state responsibilities, 165– 166

for regulatory decision making, 8–9, 167–168

of vegetation by wetlands, 30–31

Swampbuster program, 17, 303

Symbiotic bacteria, habitat for, 32

T

Taxonomy

of compensatory mitigation mechanisms, 84

under Section 404, 92

Technical approaches toward achieving no-net-loss-of-wetlands goal 123–137

floristic approach, 129–130

habitat evaluation procedures and the hydrogeomorphic approach, 131– 132

HGM as a functional assessment procedure, 132–136

operational guidelines for creating or restoring wetlands that are ecologically self-sustaining, 123–128

recommendations, 136–137

wetland functional assessment, 128–129

Temporal lag, recognizing, 155

Terminology, 13–16

compensatory mitigation projects, 14

constructed wetlands, 13

functional assessment methods, 14

legal compliance, 15

mitigation requirements, 15

performance standard, 15

project design standard, 15

treatment wetlands, 13

watersheds, 15

wetland creation, 13

wetland enhancement, 13

wetland functions, 14

wetland preservation, 13–14

wetland restoration, 13

wetland structure, 14–15

wetland types, 14–15

wetlands, 13

Thalassia testudinum, 24

Third-party compensation approaches advantages of, 9, 93, 168

expanding state wetland programs to fill gaps in federal wetland program, 9, 168

guidelines for implementing compensatory mitigation, 9, 93

guidelines for modifying institutional systems for, 9, 168

Third-party mitigation, 160–164

33 CM 331, 299

Time factors

extensions in processing Department of the Army permit applications 269

in wetland restoration and creation, 40– 44

Timing

incorporating appropriate seasonal, 126–127

of inundation or saturation, 29

toward equivalency for soil, plant, and animal components in wetland restoration projects compared with that of natural reference wetlands 42

Topography, providing appropriately heterogeneous, 127

Topography-based flow models, 49

Tracking wetland area and functions lost and regained, 3, 122

Transportation Equity Act, 69

Treatment wetlands, defined, 13

Typha spp. (cattails), 30, 50, 230

T. augustifolia, 228

T. domingensis, 30

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

U

Unified Federal Policy for Ensuring a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management, 140

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 11

United States v. Wilson, 165



Urbanization, wetland losses due to, 57

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1, 7–9, 60–77, 80–81, 125

enforcement chart for inspection and noncompliance, 81

Headquarters, Operations, Construction, and Readiness Division, 19, 83

policies and procedures for processing Department of the Army permit applications, 240–271

Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) database, 3

regulatory program priorities, 272–275

results of permits issued by, 19

revised Quarterly Permit Data System (QPDS) definitions, 276–284

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the regulatory program, 239–284

Wetland Delineation Manual, 29, 227

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 50

Swampbuster program, 17, 303

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2, 9, 65–72, 83, 108, 125, 243

Interagency Wetland Plan, 146

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 3, 16–18, 20, 62, 249, 257–258

wetland classification system of, 14, 133

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 48

U.S. Supreme Court, 11, 71

Values considered in Section 404 permit reviews, 292–293

V

Vernal pools, 25

Viability, percentage of permits meeting various tests of, 117

W

Washington State Department of Transportation, 230–231

Water and nutrients for plants, from soil in wetlands, 32

Water quality

effect of wetland function and position in the watershed on, 49–51

function of soil in wetlands, 32

improving in wetlands, 29–30

Water Quality Certification (WQC), 255– 256

Water Science and Technology Board, 20

Water-table depths, comparison between observed and DRAINMOD simulated 55

Water-table position and duration of root zone saturation for wetland site that satisfies the jurisdictional hydrology criteria, 105

Watershed approach, 15, 46–59, 303

advantages of, 3–5, 45, 59

approaching wetland conservation and mitigation on a watershed scale 4, 59

avoiding wetlands that are difficult or impossible to restore, 4, 45

basing wetland restoration and creation on broad range of sites, 5, 45

evaluating biological dynamics in terms of regional reference models 5, 45

giving special attention and protection to riparian wetlands, 5, 59

implications of, 141–144

incorporating hydrological variability into wetland mitigation design and evaluation, 5, 45

making all mitigation wetlands self-sustaining, 4–5, 45

recommendations, 59

in regulatory program priorities, 273

watershed organization and landscape function, 46–47

watershed template for wetland restoration and conservation, 58–59

wetland function and position in the watershed, 47–57

Watershed approach to compensatory mitigation, 140–149

compensation wetland planning, 146–147

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

implications of the watershed approach, 141–144

management-oriented wetland planning, 145–146

protection-oriented wetland planning, 146

Watershed needs, recognizing, 154–155

Watershed organizations, for tracking, monitoring, and managing wetlands 3, 168

Watershed-scale perspective, 57–58

designing and constructing individual compensatory mitigation sites on, 7, 139, 167

on losses due to agricultural uses, 57–58

on losses due to groundwater withdrawals, 58

on losses due to urbanization, 57

using in establishing permittee compensation, 7, 167

on wetland losses due to flood-control practices, 58

Wegener Ring, 40

Western Washington, analyses of compliance for 17 mitigation projects with field investigation in, 120

Wet meadows, 23

Wet prairies, 23

Wetland area, anticipated gain as a result of permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19

Wetland biodiversity, amphibians a major component of, 40

Wetland classification system, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 14, 133

Wetland conservation, approaching on a watershed scale, 4, 59

Wetland creation, 303

defined, 13

research into long-term effects of, 9, 168

Wetland credits, 67

Wetland Delineation Manual, 29, 227

Wetland enhancement, 303

defined, 13

research into long-term effects of, 9, 168

Wetland functions, 12, 27–34

assessing using scientific procedures, 7, 136–137

broadening planning and measuring tools, 7, 45

considered in Section 404 permit reviews, 292–293

defined, 14

effect on hydrology, 48–49

effect on water quality, 49–51

groundwater recharge, 12, 27–29

habitat support for fauna, 31

hydrological function, 28–29

and position in the watershed, 47–57

provision of a unique environment, 12, 27

replaceability of, 27

setting goals addressing, 7, 45

shoreline stabilization, 12

soil functions, 31–34

support of vegetation, 30–31

water-quality improvement, 12, 27, 29–30

water retention, 12

watershed position and self-sustaining compensation projects, 53–57

wetlands as animal dispersal corridors in watersheds, 51–53

Wetland hydrology, NRC definition of, 35

Wetland mitigation. See Mitigation

Wetland permits, 60–81

Clean Water Act and the goal of no-net-loss-of-wetlands, 70–73

data on implementation, compliance, ecological success, and monitoring frequency, 121

evolution of compensatory mitigation requirements in the Section 404 program, 60

federal actions regarding, 61

general Corps mitigation requirements, 63–64

general mitigation requirements, 61–63

in-lieu fees, 69–70

inspection and enforcement, 80

mitigation banking, 67–69

Section 404 mitigation requirements, 64–67

Section 404 permit process, 73–79

Wetland planning

management-oriented, 145–146

protection-oriented, 146

Wetland planting, aiding self-design, 39

Wetland preservation, 304

defined, 13–14

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

Wetland processes, reliable indicators of, 136

Wetland programs. See Federal wetland program; State wetland programs

Wetland restoration, 22–27, 304.

See also Mitigation

basing on broad range of sites, 5, 45

choosing over creation, 125–126

defined, 13

factors that contribute to the performance of mitigation sites, 35– 45

outcomes of, 22–45



possibility of restoring or creating wetland structure, 22–27

recommendations, 45

replaceability of wetland functions, 27

research into long-term effects of, 9, 168

site in Craven County, N.C., 55

types that are difficult to restore, 24–27

types that have been restored, 22–24

Wetland Restoration Fund (WRF), 209, 304

Wetland types

bogs, 26–27

defined, 14–15

fens, 25–26

forested wetlands, 23

freshwater emergent marshes, 22–23

herbaceous wetlands, 22–23

salt marshes, 23

seagrasses, 23

sedge meadows, 23

shrub swamps, 23

that are difficult to restore or create, 24– 27

that have been restored and created, 22–24

used in processing Department of theArmy permit applications, 244

vernal pools, 25

wet meadows, 23

wet prairies, 23

Wetlands, 303. See also Coastal wetlands;

Constructed wetlands;

Creation of wetlands;

Cropped wetlands;

Ephemeral wetlands;

Forested wetlands;

Herbaceous wetlands;

Mitigation wetlands;

No-net-loss-of-wetlands goal;

Reference wetlands;

Regained wetland area and functions;

Replacement wetlands;

Riparian wetlands;

Treatment wetlands

defined, 13

giving special attention and protection to riparian, 5, 59

losses due to agricultural uses, 57–58

losses due to flood-control practices, 58

losses due to groundwater withdrawals, 58

losses due to urbanization, 57

losses of, 17

paired replacement and reference, ecological parameters in, 116

place in the landscape, 37–38

size of, 36–37

structure of, 14–15

that are difficult or impossible to restore, avoiding, 4, 45

Wetlands placement, sea-level rise and, 56

Wetlands restoration fund (WRF), 147

Workload terms, 280–282

compliance, 282–284

enforcement, 282–284

evaluation, 276–278

WQC. See Water Quality Certification

WRF. See Wetland Restoration Fund; Wetlands restoration fund

Writing measurable performance standards, in permits, 7, 122

Y

Year-to-year variation

in the longest period that wetland hydrological criteria are satisfied 107

in water-table depth and duration of root zone saturation, 106

Z

Zabel v. Tabb, 62

Zostera marina (eelgrass), 23

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 322
Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $68.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Recognizing the importance of wetland protection, the Bush administration in 1988 endorsed the goal of “no net loss” of wetlands. Specifically, it directed that filling of wetlands should be avoided, and minimized when it cannot be avoided. When filling is permitted, compensatory mitigation must be undertaken; that is, wetlands must be restored, created, enhanced, and, in exceptional cases, preserved, to replace the permitted loss of wetland area and function, such as water quality improvement within the watershed.

After more than a dozen years, the national commitment to “no net loss” of wetlands has been evaluated. This new book explores the adequacy of science and technology for replacing wetland function and the effectiveness of the federal program of compensatory mitigation in accomplishing the nation’s goal of clean water. It examines the regulatory framework for permitting wetland filling and requiring mitigation, compares the mitigation institutions that are in use, and addresses the problems that agencies face in ensuring sustainability of mitigated wetlands over the long term.

Gleaning lessons from the mixed results of mitigation efforts to date, the book offers 10 practical guidelines for establishing and monitoring mitigated wetlands. It also recommends that federal, state, and local agencies undertake specific institutional reforms. This book will be important to anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the “no net loss” issue: policy makers, regulators, environmental scientists, educators, and wetland advocates.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!