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
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
self-sustaining, 53–57
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
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
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–
238Disturbed 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
EEA. See Environmental assessment
Early monitoring, conducting, 128
Echinochloa crusgalli
, 230Ecological 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ludwigia peploides, 206
LWPs. See Local watershed plans
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife), 30, 230
MMajor 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
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
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
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
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
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
PPaired 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
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
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
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
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
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
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, 32S. 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
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
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
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
Symbiotic bacteria, habitat for, 32
T
Taxonomy
of compensatory mitigation mechanisms, 84
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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