The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 10-32

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 10... ... 10 2.1 Introduction In 2008, the USEPA and the USACE prepared and released the document Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (USACE 2008) Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... Regulatory Issues 11 coastal zone resources, floodplains, surface water quality, hazardous waste, and historical and archaeological resources, that may constrain the successful development of mitigation sites. Brief discussions of federal regulations and additional sources of information are included below. Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... 12 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports CEs are categories of actions that "do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required" (40 CFR § 1508.4) Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... Regulatory Issues 13 • Prepare a Draft EIS that is released for public review and comment for at least 45 days. After the review period, ensure that all substantive comments are considered, and appropriate changes are made to the document; and • Publish a Final EIS and Notice of Availability on the Federal Register that informs the public of a 30-day waiting period during which the documents can be further reviewed. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... 14 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports Environmental Policy Act (CEQ Regulations) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... Regulatory Issues 15 Act' became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972." Section 404, Section 401, and to a lesser extent, Section 402 are particularly relevant to federally funded projects affecting wetlands and are summarized in the following sections. 2.2.3.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... 16 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports In many states the USACE uses nationwide permits (NWPs) , which are general permits that are issued on a national level. Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... Regulatory Issues 17 In other states, the USACE administers regional general permits (RGPs) instead of NWPs. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 18 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports in an increase in wetland area but results in a gain of a specific function or functions. Establishment/creation involves the development of a new aquatic resource in an upland area, resulting in both a gain in wetland area and functions. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... Regulatory Issues 19 2.2.3.4 CWA Section 402 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 20 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports • Personnel training; • Preparation and upkeep of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ; • Coordination with the USFWS regarding the possible presence of federally Threatened or Endangered Species; and • Coordination with the state's historical preservation authority. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... Regulatory Issues 21 "should, whenever possible, be included in documents prepared to satisfy the NEPA. This should be done in coordination with appropriate signatory agencies to inform the public and federal decision makers about important ecological factors that may affect aviation. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 22 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports comment on NEPA and CWA documents that evaluate impacts on marine, estuarine, or anadromous fish or their critical habitat, wetlands that support these species, and critical habitat for certain species listed on the ESA (NOAA 2009) Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... Regulatory Issues 23 states implement wetland permits and mitigation jointly with the USACE, using individual permits, nationwide permits, regional permits, and programmatic general permits. 2.3.2 Wetland Types and Their Relative Importance Factors that must be assessed when evaluating the relative importance of individual wetlands include the functions and values they serve and the ability to replicate them, how common that type of wetland is, and their proximity and connectivity to other wetland resources. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 24 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports Alabama Wetland Functions and Values -Flood Control -Erosion Control -Water Quality and Availability -Atmospheric Benefits -Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Biodiversity) -Natural Resources -Recreation, Education, Research, and Natural Beauty More information available at: http://www.forestry.state.al.us/Publications/TREASURED_Forest_Magazine/2012%20Spring Summer/Alabama%E2%80%99s%20Wetlands.pdf Hawaii Wetland Functions and Values -Flood Conveyance -Protection from Storm Waves and Erosion -Flood Storage -Sediment Control -Habitat for Water Fowl and Other Wildlife -Habitat for Rare and Endangered Species -Recreation -Source of Water Supply -Natural Products -Preservation of Historical and Archaeological Values -Education and Research -Source of Open Space and Contribution to Aesthetic Values More information available at: http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/initiative/nonpoint/cnpcp_mgmt_plan_sections/III_7Wetlands.pdf Nevada Wetland Functions and Values -Hydrology and Water Resources -Erosion and Sediment Control -Flood Control -Water Quality Maintenance and Improvement -Wildlife Habitat, Food Web Support, and Biodiversity -Compatible Economic Uses -Outdoor Recreation, Research, and Education More information available at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Education -training/Functions-values-ofwetlands Vermont Wetland Functions and Values -Water Storage -Water Quality Protection -Fish Habitat -Wildlife Habitat -Sensitive Species -Exemplary Communities -Education and Research -Recreation -Open Space More information available at: http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/functions Washington Wetland Functions and Values -Flood Protection -Shoreline Stabilization -Groundwater Recharge and Streamflow Maintenance -Fish and Wildlife Habitat -Economic Benefits More information available at: http://heritage.nv.gov/sites/default/files/Library/wetplan2006pdf Wisconsin Wetland Functions and Values -Floral Diversity -Fish and Wildlife Habitat -Flood Protection -Water Quality Protection -Shoreline Protection -Groundwater Recharge and Discharge -Aesthetics, Recreation, Education, and Science More information available at: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/function.html#determining Source: Compiled by the research team, direct sources are linked for information in the table. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... Regulatory Issues 25 net loss policy, at least twenty-one states have adopted formal "no net loss" statutes or regulations for wetland mitigation projects. Several other states have implied or informal no net loss policies. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... 26 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports State Mitigation Requirement Thresholds Approved Compensatory Mitigation Methods C re at io n R es to ra ti on E nh an ce m en t P re se rv at io n U pl an d B uf fe r P re se rv at io n M it ig at io n B an ki ng In -l ie ufe e P ro gr am O th er Alabama USACE Threshold X X X X Alaska4 USACE Threshold X X X X X Arizona4 USACE Threshold X X X X Arkansas4 USACE Threshold X X X X X X California USACE Threshold X X X Colorado4 USACE Threshold X X X X Connecticut USACE Threshold X X X Delaware USACE Threshold X X X Florida >0.10 Acres X X X X X Georgia4 USACE Threshold X X X X Hawaii4 USACE Threshold X Idaho4 USACE Threshold X X X X X Illinois USACE Threshold X X X X X X1 Indiana Case by Case X X X X X Iowa Case by Case X X X X X X Kansas4 USACE Threshold X X X X X X Kentucky USACE Threshold X X X X X X Louisiana Case by Case X X X Maine 20,000 square feet of wetlands X X X X X Maryland 5,000 square feet X X X X X X Massachusetts Required for all unavoidable impacts to wetlands X X Michigan Case by Case X X X X Minnesota Case by Case X X X X X X Mississippi >0.10 Acres X X X Missouri Case by Case X X X X X Montana4 USACE Threshold X X X X X X Nebraska4 Case by Case X X X X X X2 Nevada4 USACE Threshold X X X X New Hampshire >10,000 square feet X X X X New Jersey Case by Case X X X X X X New Mexico4 USACE Threshold X X New York Case by case X X X X North Carolina USACE Threshold X X X North Dakota4 USACE Threshold X X X X Ohio USACE Threshold X X X X X X Oklahoma4 Case by Case X X X X X Oregon USACE Threshold X X X X Pennsylvania Required for all unavoidable impacts to wetlands X X X X X X X X3 Rhode Island Case by Case X X X X South Carolina4 Case by Case X X X X X X South Dakota4 USACE Threshold X X X X Tennessee Case by Case X X X X X X Texas4 >3 Acres and/or >1,500 linear feet of streams X X X X X X Utah4 USACE Threshold X X X X Vermont Case by Case X X X Virginia Case by Case X X X X X X X Washington USACE Threshold X X X West Virginia USACE Threshold X X X X Wisconsin Case by Case X X X X X X Wyoming4 USACE Threshold X X X Sources: ASWM, 2014 and individual state websites. 1Wetland research. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... Regulatory Issues 27 mitigation. Some states have adopted this hierarchy; others have not, including the state of Louisiana, which prioritizes mitigation options as (1) Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 28 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports commissions are charged with the duty of reviewing development applications with respect to potential impacts to resources such as wildlife habitat, streams and shorelines, endangered species, wetlands, and floodways. Following the review process the commissions issue decisions, and where appropriate, land use permits. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... Regulatory Issues 29 considerations for that particular area are also considered when evaluating the effects of any proposed action and mitigation requirements. Therefore, the extent and complexity of any required mitigation plan is in accordance with the scale of the proposed action, the extent of any unavoidable effect, and the nature of the impacted resource. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 30 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports For more state-specific information regarding wetland resources and mitigation policy, project proponents are urged to consult the individual state websites listed in Appendix B 2.4 Other Stakeholders Many other stakeholders may have legal standing with respect to the permitting and construction of compensatory wetland mitigation projects. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... Regulatory Issues 31 • New York State Adirondack Park, • San Francisco Bay Commission -- California, and • Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan -- Washington. A proposed project within these or similarly protected areas may require additional permits or approvals. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 32 Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2: A Guidebook for Airports ultimately the cost of a compensatory wetland mitigation project. Not every regulation cited will apply to every project. Read the entire page →

From page 10...

... 10 2.1 Introduction In 2008, the USEPA and the USACE prepared and released the document Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (USACE 2008)