Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:18:53.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: A Proposed Method of Professional Practice for Addressing Wetland Impacts in Environmental Impact Statements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

J. Peyton Doub
J. Peyton Doub*
Affiliation:
Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland
*
Environmental Scientist, P.O. Box 306, Keedysville, MD 21756; (fax) 301-258-8679; (e-mail) doubj@ttnus.com or jpeytond@aol.com
Get access

Abstract

The following proposed method of professional practice outlines a systematic approach for effectively and consistently addressing potential impacts to wetlands in environmental impact statements and other NEPA documents without unnecessary expenditures of time and effort. The practice involves a stepwise approach by which increasingly detailed and sophisticated analyses are conducted. At each step, the practice provides a mechanism for determining whether additional analysis at the next step is necessary. The initial steps involve conceptual analysis of the action and review of readily available standard data sources. They can usually be completed rapidly by general biologists and ecologists without necessarily requiring a site visit. The later steps require a site visit and detailed technical analyses and must be performed by experienced wetland scientists. The practice detailed in this article is proposed as an Accepted Method of Professional Practice by the NEPA Tools and Techniques Committee of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. Following publication and solicitation of public comments, the practice will be voted upon by the committee for final acceptance.

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 37 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamus, P. R., Claitain, E. J. Jr., Smith, R. D., and Young, R. E.. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique, volume 11. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
Cowardin, L M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and LaRoe, E. T.. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doub, J. P. 1997. Improving Biological Resources Impact Assessment.Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, National Association of Environmental Professionals,Ramoth, FL:139–151.Google Scholar
Eccleston, C. H. 1996. Determining the Scope and Level of Detail Appropriate for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Federal Facilities Environmental Journal Spring (1996): 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eccleston, C. H. 1997. Minutes for teleconference of NEPA Tools and Techniques Committee on December 18,1997. Electronic communication dated December 18, 1997 to the committee membership.Google Scholar
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87–1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
EPA (US. Environmental Protection Agency) and Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1989. 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 4O4(b)(1) Guidelines. Signed 11 15, 1989.Google Scholar
FR 95–5280. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks. 03 3, 1995.Google Scholar
Hammer, D. A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 298 pp.Google Scholar
Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E.. 1991. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, DC, 591 pp.Google Scholar
Miller, R. E. Jr., and Gunsalus, B. E.. 1996. Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP). South Florida Water Management District, Natural Resource Management Division, West Palm Beach, Florida. 06 3, 1996.Google Scholar
Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G.. 1993. Wetlands, Second Ed.Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
New England Corps (New England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1995. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement: Wetland Functions and Values, A Descriptive Approach. NEDEP-360–1–30a, 11 1995, 32 pp.Google Scholar
NTCHS (National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 12 1987 (revised on-line December 1995).Google Scholar
Smith, R. D., Ammann, A., Bartoldus, C., and Brinson, M. M.. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
33 CFR 328. Definition of Waters of the United States.Google Scholar
40 CFR 1500 et seq. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations on Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act.Google Scholar