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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX GPorej, D. 2004. Faunal Aspects of Wetland Creationand Restoration. Dissertation. The Ohio StateUniversity. 120 pp.Race, M.S. 1985. Critique of Present WetlandsMitigation Policies in the United States Based onan Analysis of Past Restoration Projects in SanFrancisco Bay. Environmental Management 9:71-82.Race, M.S., and D.R. Christie. 1982. Coastal ZoneDevelopment: Mitigation, Marsh Creation andDecision-Making. Environmental Management6(4): 317-328.Race, M.S. and M.S. Fonseca. 1996. FixingCompensatory Mitigation: What Will it Take?Ecological Applications 6: 94-101.Redmond, A. 1992. How Successful is Mitigation?National Wetlands Newsletter 14(1): 5-6.Reimold, R.J. and S.A. Cobler. 1986. Wetland MitigationEffectiveness. United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Region I. USEPA contract no.68-40-0015.Reiss, K.C., E. Hernandez, M.T. Brown. 2007. AnEvaluation of the Effectiveness of MitigationBanking in Florida: Ecological Success andCompliance with Permit Conditions. FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection#WM881. EPA Grant #CD 96409404-0. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/docs/mitigation/Final_Report.pdf.Robb, J.T. 2002. Assessing Wetland CompensatoryMitigation Sites to Aid in Establishing MitigationRatios. Wetlands 22(2): 435-440.Robb, J.T. 2001. Indiana Wetland CompensatoryMitigation: Area Analysis. EPA Grant #CD985482-010-0 Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement. June 2001.Shaich, J.A. and K.T. Franklin. 1995. WetlandCompensatory Mitigation in Oregon: A ProgramEvaluation with a Focus on Portland Metro AreaProjects. Oregon Division of State Lands.Shaffer, P.W. and T.L. Ernst. 1999. Distribution ofSoil Organic Matter in Freshwater Emergent/Open Water Wetlands in the Portland, OregonMetropolitan Area. Wetlands 19: 505-516.Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A.McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1:A Synthesis of the Science. Washington StateDepartment of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006.Sibbing, J.M. 1997. Mitigation’s Role in Wetland Loss.National Wetlands Newsletter 19(1).Sifneos, J.C., F.W. Cake, Jr., and M.F. Kentula 1992.Effects of Section 404 Permitting on FreshwaterWetlands in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.Wetlands 12: 28-36.Sifneos, J.C., M.E. Kentula, and P. Price 1992. Impactsof Section 404 Permits Requiring CompensatoryMitigation of Freshwater Wetlands in Texas andArkansas. The Texas Journal of Science 44(4):475-485.Smigelski, F. 1996. A Survey of Wetland MitigationSites in New England. New England Division, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Waltham, MA.Stolt, M.H., M.H. Genthner, W.L. Daniels, V.A. Groover,S. Nagle, and K.C. Harling. 2000. Comparisonof Soil and Other Environmental Conditions inConstructed and Adjacent Palustrine ReferenceWetlands. Wetlands 20: 671-683.Storm, L. and J. Stellini. 1994. Interagency Follow-Through Investigation of Compensatory WetlandMitigation Sites, Joint Agency Staff Report. USEnvironmental Protection Agency and US Fishand Wildlife Service. 70 pp.Sudol, M.F., and R.F. Ambrose. 2002. The U.S. CleanWater Act and habitat replacement: evaluation ofmitigation sites in Orange County, California, USA.Environmental Management 30: 727-734.Sudol, Mark F. 1996. Success of Riparian Mitigation asCompensation for Impacts Due to Permits IssuedThrough Section 404 of the Clean Water Act inOrange County, California. Dissertation for Doctorof Environmental Science and Engineering.University of California, Los Angeles. 215 pp.114 Environmental Law Institute
APPENDIX GTurner, R.E., A.M. Redmond, J.B. Zedler (2001)Count It By Acre of Function—Mitigation AddsUp to Net Loss of Wetlands. National WetlandsNewsletter 23(6).Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2001. Assessmentof Section 404 Compensatory MitigationCompliance in Northern Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.Wilson, Renee F. and William J. Mitsch. 1996.Functional Assessment of Five WetlandsConstructed to Mitigate Wetland Loss in Ohio,USA. Wetlands 16(4): 436-451.Zedler, J. B., and R. Langis. 1991. Comparisons of constructedand natural salt marshes of San DiegoBay. Restoration and Management Notes 9: 21-25.Zedler, J. B., G. D. Williams, and J. S. Desmond. 1997.Wetland Mitigation: Can Fishes DistinguishBetween Natural and Constructed Wetlands.Fisheries 22: 26-28.Zedler, J. B., and J. C. Callaway. 1999. TrackingWetland Restoration: Do Mitigation Sites FollowDesired Trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7: 69-73.Zedler, J.B. 1996. Tidal Wetland Restoration: AScientific Perspective and Southern CaliforniaFocus. Report T-038. California Sea GrantCollege System, University of California, La Jolla,California.Zentner, J. J. 1988. Wetland Restoration Success inCoastal California. Increasing Our WetlandResource: Proceedings of a Conference. Eds. J.Zelazny, and J. S. Feierabend, Washington, D.C.:National Wildlife Federation. pp. 216-219.Zentner, J. J. 1987. Wetland Restoration Successin Coastal California: 1975-1985. Wetland andRiparian Ecosystems of the American West.Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of WetlandScientists, Technical Coordinators K. M. Mutz,and L. C. Lee, 122-24.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 115
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 118 and 119: APPENDIX GErwin, K.L. 1991. An Eval
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?