­
1
­
National
Wetlands
Mitigation
Action
Plan
December
24,
2002
The
Bush
Administration
affirms
its
commitment
to
the
goal
of
no
net
loss
of
the
Nation=
s
wetlands.
The
Administration
is
hopeful
of
achieving
that
goal
and
in
the
near
future
to
begin
increasing
the
overall
functions
and
values
of
our
wetlands
through
the
combined
efforts
of
the
numerous
governmental
programs
and
initiatives,
including
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
non­
regulatory
wetland
conservation
initiatives
and
partnerships
among
federal
agencies,
state,
tribal
and
local
governments,
and
the
private
and
not­
for­
profit
sectors.
The
primary
purpose
of
this
Action
Plan
is
to
further
achievement
of
the
goal
of
no
net
loss
by
undertaking
a
series
of
actions
to
improve
the
ecological
performance
and
results
of
wetlands
compensatory
mitigation
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
related
programs.
The
actions,
listed
below
and
outlined
in
more
detail
in
the
attached
Action
Plan,
will
help
ensure
effective
restoration
and
protection
of
the
functions
and
values
of
our
Nation=
s
wetlands,
consistent
with
the
goals
of
our
clean
water
laws.
The
themes
guiding
these
actions
include:

‚
working
in
consultation
with
the
Tribes,
States,
and
interested
parties
to
provide
a
consistent
voice
on
compensatory
mitigation
matters;
‚
focusing
our
guidance,
research,
and
resources
to
advance
ecologically
meaningful
compensatory
mitigation,
informed
by
science;
‚
emphasizing
accountability,
monitoring,
and
followthrough
in
evaluating
compensatory
mitigation;
‚
applying
the
same
compensatory
mitigation
provisions
to
Federal
projects
and
on
Federal
lands
as
we
do
to
private
parties,
consistent
with
existing
laws
and
policies;
‚
providing
information
and
options
to
those
who
need
to
mitigate
for
losses
of
wetlands
functions;
and
‚
providing
technical
and
research
assistance
to
those
who
undertake
the
work
of
mitigation.

An
interagency
team
will
guide
the
development
and
implementation
of
the
following
action
items.
Recognizing
that
advances
in
science
and
technology
will
continue
to
improve
our
ability
to
protect
and
restore
the
Nation=
s
aquatic
resources,
some
of
the
following
action
items
may
be
modified
by
the
team
consistent
with
our
evolving
understanding
of
effective
wetlands
management.
­
2
­
Clarifying
Recent
Mitigation
Guidance
‚
The
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
Corps),
in
consultation
with
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
the
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA),
the
Department
of
the
Interior
(
DOI),
the
Federal
Highway
Administration
(
FHWA),
and
the
National
Oceanic
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA),
has
re­
evaluated
its
mitigation
Regulatory
Guidance
Letter
and
is
reissuing
it
to
improve
mitigation
implementation
provisions.

Integrating
Compensatory
Mitigation
into
a
Watershed
Context
‚
The
Corps
and
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
co­
lead
the
development
of
guidance
on
the
use
of
on­
site
vs.
offsite
and
in­
kind
vs.
out­
of­
kind
compensatory
mitigation
by
the
end
of
2003.

‚
EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
co­
lead
the
development
of
guidance
on
the
use
of
vegetated
buffers
as
a
potential
component
of
compensatory
mitigation
by
2004.

‚
The
Corps
and
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
develop
guidance
on
the
appropriate
use
of
preservation
for
compensatory
mitigation
by
2004.

‚
Building
on
the
guidance
above,
EPA
and
the
Corps,
working
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
co­
lead
an
analysis
with
Tribes
and
States
on
the
use
of
compensatory
mitigation
within
a
watershed
context
and
identify
criteria
for
making
compensatory
mitigation
decisions
in
this
context
by
2005.

Improving
Compensatory
Mitigation
Accountability
‚
EPA,
the
Corps,
and
the
FHWA
will
develop
guidance
that
clarifies
implementation
of
the
TEA­
21
preference
for
mitigation
banking
in
2003.

‚
EPA
will
continue
to
provide
financial
assistance
through
its
wetlands
State
grants
program
to
encourage
Tribes,
States,
and
others
to
increase
the
success
of
mitigation
in
their
jurisdictions.
­
3
­
‚
EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
develop
guidance
by
2004
for
protecting
those
wetlands
for
which
mitigation,
restoration,
or
creation
is
not
feasible
or
scientifically
viable.

‚
EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
clarify
considerations
for
mitigating
impacts
to
streams
in
the
Section
404
program
in
2003.

Clarifying
Performance
Standards
‚
The
Corps,
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
develop
a
model
mitigation
plan
checklist
for
permit
applicants
in
2003.

‚
EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
review
and
develop
guidance
adapting
the
National
Academies
of
Sciences'
National
Research
Councilrecommended
guidelines
for
creating
or
restoring
selfsustaining
wetlands
to
the
Section
404
program
in
2003.

‚
EPA
will
analyze
existing
research
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
using
biological
indicators
and
functional
assessments
for
evaluating
mitigation
performance
in
2003.

‚
Building
upon
the
biological
indicators
and
functional
assessments
research,
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
the
Corps,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
and
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
lead
the
development
of
performance
standards
guidance
on
monitoring
and
adaptive
management
of
mitigation
sites
by
2005.

‚
EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
clarify
key
concepts
related
to
performance
standards.

Improving
Data
Collection
and
Availability
‚
The
Corps,
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
in
conjunction
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
compile
and
disseminate
information
regarding
existing
mitigation­
tracking
database
systems
in
2003.

‚
Building
upon
the
analysis
of
existing
mitigation
data
base
systems,
the
Corps,
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA
will
establish
a
shared
mitigation
data
base
by
2005.
­
4
­
‚
Utilizing
the
shared
data
base,
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
provide
an
annual
public
report
card
on
compensatory
mitigation
to
complement
reporting
of
other
wetlands
programs
by
2005.
­
5
­
The
signatories
or
their
designated
representatives
shall
meet
annually
to
review
the
progress
being
made
regarding
the
implementation
of
the
Action
Plan.
EPA
and
the
Corps
may
invite
other
relevant
federal
agencies
to
participate
in
one
or
more
of
the
action
items.

This
plan
may
be
modified
as
necessary,
by
mutual
written
agreement
of
all
the
parties.

The
participating
agencies
intend
to
fully
carry
out
the
terms
of
this
agreement.
All
provisions
in
this
agreement,
however,
are
subject
to
available
resources
and
authorities
of
the
respective
agencies
under
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.

/
Signed/___
12/
24/
02
Les
Brownlee
Acting
Assistant
Secretary
for
Civil
Works
Department
of
the
Army
(
Civil
Works)

/
Signed/___
12/
24/
02
G.
Tracy
Mehan,
III
Assistant
Administrator
for
Water
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
/
Signed
 
Scott
B.
Gudes/
12/
24/
02
/
for/
Vice
Admiral
Conrad
C.
Lautenbacher,
Jr.
U.
S.
Navy
(
ret.)
Undersecretary
of
Commerce
for
Oceans
and
Atmosphere
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
/
Signed/___
12/
24/
02
Lynn
Scarlett
Assistant
Secretary
of
Policy,
Management,
and
Budget
Department
of
Interior
­
6
­
/
Signed/__
_
12/
24/
02
Mark
E.
Rey
Under
Secretary
for
Natural
Resources
and
the
Environment
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
/
Signed
 
George
E.
Schoener/
12/
24/
02
/
for/
Emil
H.
Frankel
Assistant
Secretary
for
Transportation
Policy
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
­
1
­
ACTION
PLAN
Introduction
Several
recent
independent
analyses
and
public
commentaries
have
provided
a
critical
evaluation
of
the
effectiveness
of
compensatory
mitigation
for
authorized
losses
of
wetlands
and
other
waters
of
the
United
States
under
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
These
analyses
and
commentaries
highlighted
a
number
of
shortfalls
and
identified
a
variety
of
technical,
programmatic,
and
policy
recommendations
for
the
Federal
agencies,
States,
and
other
involved
parties.

In
particular,
the
agencies
are
mindful
of
the
comprehensive
evaluation
of
wetlands
compensatory
mitigation
completed
by
the
National
Academies
of
Sciences'
National
Research
Council
(
NAS)
last
year.
This
report,
in
addition
to
the
General
Accounting
Office
(
GAO)
report
on
in­
lieu­
fee
mitigation
and
others
recently
completed,
provided
the
basis
for
a
broad,
independently
facilitated
stakeholder
gathering
in
October
2001,
during
which
the
agencies
gathered
feedback
from
those
with
an
interest
in
the
future
of
compensatory
mitigation,
including
representatives
from
academia,
States,
mitigation
bankers,
in­
lieu­
fee
mitigation
providers,
environmental
organizations,
home
builders,
and
industry.
We
recognize
that
success
in
our
ultimate
goal
is
dependent
on
effective
interactions
with
these
stakeholders
as
we
proceed.

Background
The
Bush
Administration
affirms
its
commitment
to
the
goal
of
no
net
loss
of
the
Nation=
s
wetlands.
The
Administration
is
hopeful
of
achieving
that
goal
and
in
the
near
future
to
begin
increasing
the
overall
functions
and
values
of
our
wetlands
through
the
combined
efforts
of
the
numerous
governmental
programs
and
initiatives,
including
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
non­
regulatory
wetland
conservation
initiatives
and
partnerships
among
Federal
agencies,
state,
tribal
and
local
governments,
and
the
private
and
not­
for­
profit
sectors.
A
fundamental
objective
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
Section
404
program
is
that
authorized
losses
of
wetlands
and
other
waters
are
offset
by
restored,
enhanced,
or
created
wetlands
and
other
waters
that
replace
those
lost
acres
and
functions
and
values.
Importantly,
the
regulatory
program
provides
first
that
all
appropriate
and
practicable
steps
be
taken
to
avoid
impacts
to
wetlands
and
other
waters,
and
then
that
remaining
impacts
be
minimized,
before
determining
necessary
compensatory
mitigation
to
offset
remaining
impacts.
This
mitigation
sequence
parallels
that
which
is
embodied
in
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
governing
the
review
of
other
Federal
actions
as
well.
Compliance
with
these
mitigation
sequencing
requirements
is
an
essential
environmental
safeguard
to
ensure
that
Clean
­
2
­
Water
Act
objectives
for
the
protection
of
the
Nation=
s
remaining
wetlands
are
achieved.

Federal
guidance
on
compensatory
mitigation
has
been
provided
in
several
interagency
documents,
including
the
1990
Memorandum
of
Agreement
between
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
the
Department
of
the
Army
Concerning
the
Determination
of
Mitigation
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
Section
404(
b)(
1)
Guidelines
(
MOA).
In
1995,
EPA
and
the
Department
of
the
Army
were
joined
by
the
Departments
of
the
Interior,
Commerce,
and
Agriculture
in
developing
the
Federal
Guidance
on
the
Establishment,
Use
and
Operation
of
Mitigation
Banks
(
Banking
Guidance).
In
2000,
the
multi­
agency
Federal
Guidance
on
the
Use
of
In­
Lieu­
Fee
Arrangements
for
Compensatory
Mitigation
under
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
Section
10
of
the
Rivers
and
Harbors
Act
(
In­
Lieu­
Fee
Guidance)
was
issued.
These
interagency
efforts
have
helped
clarify
compensatory
mitigation
objectives,
endorse
entrepreneurial
mechanisms
to
achieve
mitigation
goals,
and
guide
permit
applicants
in
developing
environmentally
sound
and
enforceable
mitigation
projects.
It
is
in
light
of
this
background
that
the
agencies
outline
the
following
specific
actions
to
improve
wetlands
compensatory
mitigation
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
related
programs.

Clarifying
Recent
Mitigation
Guidance
The
Corps,
in
consultation
with
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
FHWA,
and
NOAA,
has
re­
evaluated
its
mitigation
Regulatory
Guidance
Letter
and
is
reissuing
it
to
clarify
mitigation
implementation
provisions.
The
GAO
noted
that
in
some
circumstances
where
mitigation
involved
third­
party
providers
that
were
not
mitigation
bankers
or
in­
lieu­
fee
providers,
permits
did
not
clearly
state
who
was
responsible
for
the
success
of
the
compensatory
mitigation.
Consistent
with
previous
joint
guidance
and
independent
recommendations,
the
Corps
will
reissue
the
mitigation
Regulatory
Guidance
Letter
to
clearly
identify
the
party
responsible
for
the
ecological
performance
and
results
of
the
compensatory
mitigation,
the
level
of
documentation
necessary
by
applicants
and
mitigation
providers,
and
other
relevant
implementation
issues
to
ensure
that
mitigation
is
properly
completed.

Integrating
Compensatory
Mitigation
into
a
Watershed
Context
The
Corps
and
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
co­
lead
the
development
of
guidance
on
the
use
of
on­
site
vs.
off­
site
and
in­
kind
vs.
out­
of­
kind
compensatory
mitigation
by
the
end
of
2003.
Existing
guidance
provides
that
"
compensatory
actions 
should
be
undertaken,
when
practicable,
in
areas
adjacent
or
­
3
­
contiguous
to
the
discharge
site
(
on­
site
compensatory
mitigation)"
and
that
"
generally,
in­
kind
compensatory
mitigation
is
preferable
to
out­
of­
kind."
Existing
guidance
provides
flexibility,
however,
by
allowing
the
use
of
off­
site
mitigation
where
it
is
determined
to
be
practicable
and
environmentally
preferable
to
on­
site
mitigation
and
allows
use
of
out­
of­
kind
mitigation
in
circumstances
where
it
is
environmentally
desirable,
in
the
context
of
consolidated
mitigation.
To
ensure
effective
and
consistent
use
of
off­
site
and
out­
of­
kind
compensatory
mitigation,
the
agencies
will
clarify,
and
if
necessary,
expand
upon,
existing
guidance.
This
effort
will
build
on
existing
language
developed
for
the
1990
MOA,
Federal
Banking
Guidance,
In­
Lieu­
Fee
Guidance,
and
Mitigation
RGL
and
provide
examples
illustrating
when
it
may
be
appropriate
to
use
off­
site
and/
or
out­
of­
kind
mitigation
in
lieu
of
on­
site
and/
or
in­
kind
mitigation.

EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
co­
lead
the
development
of
guidance
on
the
use
of
vegetated
buffers
as
a
potential
component
of
compensatory
mitigation
by
2004.
Lands
bordering
open
waters
(
e.
g.,
rivers,
lakes,
estuaries)
play
important
roles
including
but
not
limited
to
maintaining
water
quality,
providing
habitat
for
fish
and
wildlife,
and
providing
flood
storage
benefits.
To
date,
limited
guidance
has
been
provided
to
agency
field
staff
on
the
appropriate
use
of
vegetated
buffers
as
a
component
of
an
overall
compensatory
mitigation
plan.
To
ensure
appropriate
and
consistent
use
of
vegetated
buffers,
the
agencies
will
provide
guidance
to
clarify
the
use
of
vegetated
buffers
as
mitigation
in
the
Section
404
program.
This
effort
will
utilize
performance
goals/
standards
in
recommending
vegetated
buffers
and
include
examples
of
methodologies
for
determining
mitigation
credit
for
vegetated
buffers.
This
effort
will
draw
upon
buffer
information
complied
for
the
non­
point/
agricultural
water
programs
and
existing
wetlands/
forestry
best
management
practices.

The
Corps
and
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
develop
guidance
on
the
appropriate
use
of
preservation
for
compensatory
mitigation
by
2004.
Typically,
the
preservation
of
existing
aquatic
resources
has
been
accepted
as
compensatory
mitigation
only
in
exceptional
circumstances.
To
ensure
the
appropriate
and
consistent
use
of
preservation
as
compensatory
mitigation,
the
agencies
will
develop
specific
guidance
that
will
clarify
the
exceptional
circumstances
described
in
current
guidance
in
which
preservation
may
serve
as
an
effective
and
environmentally
appropriate
approach
to
satisfy
compensatory
mitigation
requirements.
This
effort
will
build
on
existing
language
developed
for
the
1990
MOA
and
Federal
Banking
Guidance
and
provide
examples
of
acceptable
preservation
­
4
­
projects.

Building
on
the
guidance
above,
EPA
and
the
Corps,
working
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
co­
lead
an
analysis
with
Tribes
and
States
on
the
use
of
compensatory
mitigation
within
a
watershed
context
and
identify
criteria
for
making
compensatory
mitigation
decisions
in
this
context
by
2005.
As
a
general
matter,
compensatory
mitigation
decisions
are
made
on
a
caseby
case
basis
and
often
do
not
consider
the
proper
placement
of
mitigation
projects
within
the
landscape
context,
the
ecological
needs
of
the
watershed,
and
the
cumulative
effects
of
past
impacts.
The
Federal
agencies
will
analyze
the
issues
associated
with
better
use
of
compensatory
mitigation
within
a
watershed
context,
with
assistance
from
the
States
and
agencies.
Following
this
analysis,
the
agencies
will
develop
guidance
to
encourage
placement
of
mitigation
where
it
would
have
the
greatest
benefit
and
probability
for
long­
term
sustainability.
The
guidance
will
help
decision­
makers
utilize
the
watershed­
based
planning
tools/
resources
already
developed
by
the
agencies
as
well
as
state
(
Basinwide
Management
Approach),
regional
(
Synoptic
Assessment,
Southeastern
Ecological
Framework),
and
local
(
watershed
plans,
land
suitability
models)
watershed
planning
efforts.
This
guidance
will
complement
other
non­
regulatory
watershed
management
initiatives
and
partnerships.

Improving
Compensatory
Mitigation
Accountability
EPA,
the
Corps,
and
the
FHWA
will
develop
guidance
that
clarifies
implementation
of
the
TEA­
21
preference
for
mitigation
banking
in
2003.
The
statutory
preference
for
mitigation
banking
in
offsetting
impacts
to
aquatic
resources
and
natural
habitats
from
federally­
funded
highway
projects
has
caused
some
confusion
in
circumstances
where
onsite
mitigation
opportunities
are
available.
The
agencies
will
clarify
how
the
mitigation
banking
preference
may
be
used
to
most
effectively
mitigate
for
such
projects
with
linear
and
scattered
impacts
to
wetlands.

EPA
will
continue
to
provide
financial
assistance
through
its
wetlands
State
grants
program
to
encourage
Tribes,
States,
and
others
to
increase
the
success
of
mitigation
in
their
jurisdictions.
EPA
has
identified
improving
wetlands
ecological
performance
and
results
of
compensatory
mitigation
as
a
priority,
along
with
wetlands
monitoring
and
assessment
and
the
protection
of
vulnerable
wetlands
and
aquatic
resources.
The
Wetland
Program
Development
Grants,
administered
by
EPA,
provide
recipients
an
opportunity
to
conduct
projects
that
promote
coordination
and
accelerate
research,
investigations,
experiments,
training,
demonstrations,
surveys,
and
studies
relating
to
the
causes,
effects,
extent,
­
5
­
prevention,
reduction,
and
elimination
of
water
pollution.
Priority
is
given
to
proposals
that
address
EPA=
s
priority
areas,
including
improving
the
effectiveness
of
compensatory
mitigation.
EPA
will
announce
a
set
of
Wetland
Program
Development
Grants
for
projects
that
support
the
improvement
of
mitigation
success
in
achieving
wetlands
performance
and
results,
in
the
context
of
building
or
enhancing
wetlands
protection,
restoration,
or
management
programs,
and
will
publicize
the
annual
availability
of
grants
for
this
purpose.
­
6
­
EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
develop
guidance
by
2004
for
protecting
those
wetlands
for
which
mitigation,
restoration,
or
creation
is
not
feasible
or
scientifically
viable.
As
concluded
by
the
NAS,
there
are
a
number
of
aquatic
resource
systems
for
which
successful
recreation
or
restoration
has
not
been
effectively
demonstrated
and
therefore
avoidance
of
impacts
to
these
resources
was
strongly
recommended.
Certain
aquatic
resource
types
require
a
specific
combination
of
plant
types,
soil
characteristics,
and
water
supply
that
are
currently
difficult
to
create.
To
ensure
that
we
meet
our
Clean
Water
Act
goals,
the
agencies
will
provide
guidance
emphasizing
the
protection
of
the
Nation=
s
wetlands
resources
that
are
difficult
to
restore.

EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
clarify
considerations
for
mitigating
impacts
to
streams
in
the
Section
404
program
in
2003.
Historically,
impacts
to
stream
systems
such
as
filling,
impoundment,
and
channelization,
have
been
compensated
with
wetland
mitigation.
To
date,
limited
guidance
has
been
provided
to
agency
field
staff
in
the
appropriate
considerations
for
mitigating
impacts
to
streams.
To
ensure
appropriate
and
consistent
mitigation
for
impacts
to
streams,
the
agencies,
working
with
States,
will
clarify
considerations
for
mitigating
impacts
to
streams
in
the
Section
404
program.
Many
agency
field
offices
are
independently
developing
a
variety
of
stream
assessment
approaches
and
stream
standard
operating
procedures
(
e.
g.,
NC,
SC,
GA,
TN,
KY,
MS,
and
AL).
Also,
a
number
of
stream
and
stream/
wetland
mitigation
banks
have
been
established
or
are
currently
under
review
by
agency
field
offices.
These
and
other
ongoing
stream
restoration
training
efforts
will
help
inform
development
of
the
guidance.

Clarifying
Performance
Standards
The
Corps,
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
develop
a
model
mitigation
plan
checklist
for
permit
applicants
in
2003.
The
type
of
information
needed
for
mitigating
impacts
to
wetlands
and
other
waters
is
often
unclear
to
permit
applicants.
Taking
advantage
of
State
and
Corps
District
examples,
this
effort
would
result
in
a
model
compensatory
mitigation
checklist
to
facilitate
permit
applicants
providing
necessary
information
early
in
the
permitting
process.
The
checklist
would
also
allow
more
effective
participation
during
public
notice
and
help
minimize
delays
in
the
permit
decision
making
process.
The
checklist
could
be
regionally
adapted
to
respond
to
specific
needs
of
different
areas
of
the
country.
A
number
of
mitigation
checklists
are
currently
in
use
by
various
Districts,
States,
and
Mitigation
Bank
Review
Teams
and
could
be
readily
­
7
­
consulted.
­
8
­
EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
review
and
develop
guidance
adapting
the
NAS­
recommended
guidelines
for
creating
or
restoring
self­
sustaining
wetlands
to
the
Section
404
program
in
2003.
The
NAS
proposed
ten
operational
guidelines
that
would
aid
agency
personnel
and
mitigation
practitioners
in
designing
projects
to
become
ecologically
self­
sustaining.
As
stated
by
the
NAS,
to
become
self­
sustaining,
aquatic
resource
mitigation
sites
must
have
the
proper
hydrological
processes
present
and
be
able
to
persist
over
time.
The
agencies
will
adapt
the
NAS
guidelines
for
use
in
the
Section
404
program.
The
NAS­
recommended
guidelines
could
be
adapted
into
a
series
of
questions
(
e.
g.,
checklist)
that
could
be
made
available
to
permit
applicants
and
answered
by
regulatory
staff
in
consultation
with
other
resource
agencies
during
project
review.

EPA
will
analyze
existing
research
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
using
biological
indicators
and
functional
assessments
for
evaluating
mitigation
performance
in
2003.
Independent
evaluations
of
mitigation
raised
concerns
that
there
was
an
over­
reliance
on
the
use
of
vegetation
to
measure
wetlands
mitigation
success.
Biological
assessments
(
bioassessments
are
based
on
the
premise
that
the
community
of
plants
and
animals
living
in
a
wetland
will
reflect
the
health
of
a
wetland.
Typically,
bio­
assessments
evaluate
wetland
health
and
could
be
used
in
conjunction
with
functional
assessments,
which
are
primarily
designed
to
inform
management
decisions
regarding
proposed
impacts
to
wetlands
and
restoration
of
wetlands
to
compensate
for
wetland
losses.
EPA
will
lead
an
effort
to
review
potential
biological
indicators,
functional
assessments,
and
other
reference
site
parameters
for
assessing
compensatory
mitigation.
Literature
reviewed
by
NAS
in
the
completion
of
its
report
and
work
done
by
the
Corps
and
EPA
to
develop
several
assessment
methodologies
will
serve
as
a
starting
point.

Building
upon
the
biological
indicators
and
functional
assessments
research,
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
the
Corps,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
and
working
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
lead
the
development
of
performance
standards
guidance
on
monitoring
and
adaptive
management
of
mitigation
sites
by
2005.
Current
guidance
does
not
provide
sufficient
consistency
regarding
how
to
evaluate
achievement
of
wetlands
ecological
performance
and
results,
nor
does
current
guidance
establish
appropriate
monitoring
and
adaptive
management
activities.
The
GAO
recommended
that
the
agencies
establish
criteria
for
evaluating
performance
of
mitigation
projects
and
develop
and
implement
procedures
for
assessing
achievement
of
wetlands
ecological
performance
and
results.
The
NAS
concluded
that
more
effective
monitoring,
as
part
of
adaptive
management,
as
well
as
compliance
evaluations,
would
increase
the
performance
of
­
9
­
compensatory
mitigation
sites
and
allow
for
adaptive
management.
EPA
will
lead
the
effort
to
build
upon
the
guidelines
for
maintaining
self­
sustaining
wetlands,
draw
upon
published
approaches
to
performance
standards,
and
use
the
results
of
the
biological/
functional
assessments
analysis.

EPA
and
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
clarify
key
concepts
related
to
performance
standards.

Improving
Data
Collection
and
Availability
The
Corps,
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
in
conjunction
with
States
and
Tribes,
will
compile
and
disseminate
information
regarding
existing
mitigation­
tracking
data
base
systems
in
2003.
The
independent
evaluations
of
mitigation
highlighted
a
need
for
improved
data
to
track
mitigation.
While
a
system
currently
exists
to
track
acreages
of
permitted
impacts
and
compensatory
mitigation
required,
the
lack
of
wetlands
function
information
and
other
parameters
hampers
efforts
to
accurately
measure
achievement
of
wetlands
performance
goals
and
results.
The
Corps
and
the
other
Federal
agencies
will
compile
and
evaluate
the
merits
of
the
various
mitigation­
tracking
data
base
systems
in
use,
including
the
Corps=
RAMS/
RAMS2
data
base
as
well
as
regional
data
bases
established
by
agency
field
offices.

Building
upon
the
analysis
of
existing
mitigation
data
base
systems,
the
Corps,
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA
will
establish
a
shared
mitigation
data
base
by
2005.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
analysis,
the
agencies
will
establish
a
data
base
that
can
be
shared
with
federal
and
state
regulatory
and
resource
agencies
and
the
public.
An
interagency
team
is
currently
working
on
a
pilot
internet­
based
tool
to
assist
in
tracking
large
scale
mitigation
projects
such
as
mitigation
banks.
This
tool
is
being
designed
to
manage
and
monitor
information
regarding
mitigation
bank
credit/
debit
transactions,
attainment
of
performance
standards,
credit
release,
and
bank
documents.
The
system
is
being
designed
to
reside
on
a
District=
s
server
and
allow
different
levels
of
access/
input
for
the
public,
bank
sponsors,
Corps
staff,
and
other
Mitigation
Bank
Review
Team
members.

Utilizing
the
shared
data
base,
the
Corps,
in
conjunction
with
EPA,
USDA,
DOI,
and
NOAA,
will
provide
an
annual
public
report
card
on
compensatory
mitigation
to
complement
reporting
of
other
wetlands
programs
by
2005.
The
NAS
reported
that
@
the
goal
of
no
net
loss
of
wetlands
is
not
being
met
for
wetland
functions
by
the
mitigation
program.@
To
ensure
that
the
public
is
informed
about
the
status
of
the
Administration=
s
commitment
to
the
no
net
loss
of
wetlands
goal,
the
Corps
would
lead
the
development
of
an
annual
public
report
card
on
the
­
10
­
contributions
of
the
Section
404
program
to
the
no
net
loss
of
wetlands
goal,
to
complement
­
11
­
reporting
of
other
wetlands
programs.
Shared
databases
would
allow
relatively
easy
queries
regarding
credit/
debit
transactions
and
the
status
of
restoration/
enhancement
for
mitigation
projects
and
sites.
