Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKING: SUMMARY CHART (continued)Study Location Description Results: Permit Success Results: Ecological Success Notes: WildlifeTurner et al.(2001)Wilson andMitsch (1996)– From NRC(2001)Zedler andLangis (1991),Zedler andCallaway(1999), Zedleret al. (1997) –From Ambrose(2000)Zenter (1987)– FromAmbrose(2000)NationwideCaliforniaCaliforniaDetailed analysis of peer reviewed andgrey literature on the performanceof wetland mitigation under §404 --includes Sudol 1996, Allen and Feddema1996 and DeWeese 1994Evaluated 5 wetland projects in detail forpermit compliance and function.An extensive study on two mitigationprojects in San Diego.Qualitative examination of 63 coastalwetland restoration projects.In eight reviewed studies the proportionof mitigation initiated ranged from 28- 100 percent. In 19 studies of permitcompliance, 10 found a majority ofprojects to be in compliance, 9 studiesfound that only 4 - 49 percent of theprojects were compliant. In 8 studies of5 state permitting programs, 2 foundthat area of mitigation achieved equaledor exceeded the area of wetland lost,6 found the opposite. 9 studies of 4state permitting programs found fewerhectares of mitigation was implementedthan required by permits (average of .69hectares per hectare lost).2 of 5 projects were in full legal compliance,four of five were on the trajectoryto full compliance.A review of studies on mitigation successfound that 21 percent of mitigation sitesmet various tests of ecological equivalencyto functions lost (0 - 67 percentfunctionality), the compliance rate forthese sites was 6 - 100 percent.24.4 hectares were lost to impacts and 16hectares were actually created or restored-- a net loss in wetlands.Five years after the construction the mitigationdid not meet 10 of 11 ecosystemfunctions, but did have a fish assemblagethat was comparable to wetland referencesite.65 percent exhibited roughly typicalwetland values as similar, unrestoredwetlands.110 Environmental Law Institute
APPENDIX GBibliographyAllen, A. O., and J. J. Feddema. 1996. Wetland loss andsubstitution by the Section 404 Permit Programin southern California, USA. EnvironmentalManagement 20: 263-74.Ambrose, R.F. 2000. Wetland Mitigation in the UnitedStates: Assessing the Success of MitigationPolicies. Wetlands (Australia) 19: 1-27.Ambrose, R.F. and S.F. Lee. 2004. An Evaluation ofCompensatory Mitigation Projects PermittedUnder Clean Water Act Section 401 by the LosAngeles Regional Quality Control Board, 1991-2002.Ambrose, R.F., J.C. Callaway, and S.F. Lee. 2006. AnEvaluation of Compensatory Mitigation ProjectsPermitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 bythe California State Water Quality Control Board,1991-2002.Balzano, S., A. Ertman, L. Brancheau, W. Smejkal,A.S. Greene, M. Kaplan, and D. Fanz. 2002.Creating Indicators of Wetland Status (Quantityand Quality): Freshwater Wetland Mitigation inNew Jersey. NJ Department of EnvironmentalProtection, Division of Science, Research, &Technology. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/wetlands/final.pdfBishel-Machung, L., R.P. Brooks, S.S. Yates, andK.L. Hoover. 1996. Soil Properties of ReferenceWetlands and Wetland Creation Projects inPennsylvania. Wetlands 16:532-541.Breaux, A. and F. Serefiddin. 1999. Validity ofPerformance Criteria and a Tentative Modelfor Regulatory Use in Compensatory WetlandMitigation Permitting. EnvironmentalManagement 24(3): 327-336.Brown, S.C. and P.L.M. Veneman. 2001. Effectivenessof Compensatory Wetland Mitigation inMassachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21: 508-518.Brown, S. and P. Veneman. 1998. CompensatoryWetland Mitigation in Massachusetts.Massachussetts Ag Experiment Station, Universityof Massachusetts.Brown, P., and C. Lant. 1999. The effect of wetland mitigationbanking on the achievement of no-net-loss.Environmental Management 23(3): 333-345.Campbell, D.A., C.A. Cole, and R.P. Brooks. AComparison of Created and Natural Wetlands inPennsylvania, USA.Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S.Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, M. Bentley, D.Sheldon, and D. Dole. 1992. Wetland MitigationReplacement Ratios: Defining Equivalency.Adolfson Associates, Inc. for Shorelands andCoastal Zone Managements Program, WashingtonDepartment of Ecology, Olympia, Publication #92-08.Chase, V. and V. Davis. 1997. Evaluation of WetlandMitigation in New Hampshire. Audubon Society ofNew Hampshire.Cole, C.A. and D. Shaffer 2002. Section 404 WetlandMitigation and Permit Success Criteria inPennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. EnvironmentalManagement 30(4): 508-515.Cole, C.A. and R.P. Brooks. 2000. A Comparison ofthe Hydrological Characteristics of Naturaland Created Mainstem Floodplain Wetlands inPennsylvania. Ecological Engineering 14: 221-231.Cole, C. A., R.P. Brooks, and D.H.Wardrop. 2001.Assessing the Relationship between Biomass andSoil Organic Matter in Created Wetlands of centralPennsylvania, USA. Ecological Engineering 7:423- 428.DeWeese, J. and C. Gould. 1994. An evaluation ofselected wetland creation projects authorizedthrough the Corps of Engineers Section 404Program. US Department of the Interior, Fishand Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office,Sacramento, California, 90 pp.Eliot, W. 1985. Implementing Mitigation Policies in SanFrancisco Bay: A Critique. California State CoastalConservancy. Oakland, CA.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 111
Page 3:
Design of U.S. HabitatBanking Syste
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYExecutive SummaryA
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYbanks or habitat b
Page 11 and 12:
IntroductionIntroductionAvariety of
Page 13 and 14:
WETLAND AND CONSERVATION BANKING IN
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
State Wildlife Action Plans3. State
Page 29 and 30:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSshed). C
Page 31 and 32:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSPlans th
Page 33 and 34:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSFuture i
Page 35 and 36:
A DETAILED LOOK AT WETLAND AND CONS
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: ConclusionsConclusionsThis report c
Page 67 and 68: CONCLUSIONSsuch as habitat conserva
Page 69 and 70: CONCLUSIONSthe state Attorney Gener
Page 71 and 72: CONCLUSIONSGeneral RecommendationsF
Page 73: AppendicesA. Federal Wetland Compen
Page 76 and 77: APPENDIX AProjects for Aquatic Reso
Page 78 and 79: APPENDIX Aland mitigation banks, um
Page 80 and 81: APPENDIX BMemphis District, U.S. Ar
Page 82 and 83: APPENDIX BJacksonville District, U.
Page 84 and 85: Appendix CAppendix CState Wetland M
Page 86 and 87: APPENDIX CState Statute(s) Regulati
Page 88 and 89: Appendix DAppendix DState Conservat
Page 90 and 91: APPENDIX Emitigation banking and ha
Page 92 and 93: APPENDIX EDelaware (Phase IV)Delawa
Page 94 and 95: APPENDIX Estaff intend to make the
Page 96 and 97: APPENDIX EMitigation banking regula
Page 98 and 99: APPENDIX EMississippi (Phase IV)The
Page 100 and 101: APPENDIX ENew Mexico (Phase III)The
Page 102 and 103: APPENDIX Eand mitigation banking. 1
Page 104 and 105: APPENDIX EVirginia (Phase III)Virgi
Page 106 and 107: APPENDIX Egation bank may be used t
Page 108 and 109: APPENDIX FGeorgiaGeorgia Department
Page 110 and 111: Appendix GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 112 and 113: APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 114 and 115: APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 118 and 119: APPENDIX GErwin, K.L. 1991. An Eval
Page 120 and 121: APPENDIX GPorej, D. 2004. Faunal As
Page 122 and 123: Appendix HAppendix HBibliography of
Page 124 and 125: APPENDIX HEcosystem Marketplace, Sp
Page 126: APPENDIX ILegal and Financial Mecha
show all

Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?