94 



3) minimizing detrimental impacts to wetland form and function when avoidance is not 



feasible or practical; and 



4) aimpensation or detrimental impacts to wetland form and function when those occur. 



Wetland resource management must employ these approaches in descending order of priority, i.e., 

 comjwnsatory impact mitigation is the last resort, to oe implemented only when avoiaance and 

 minimization of impacts are not feasible ur practical. Restoration or creation must not be used to 

 mitieate avoidable destruction unless it has oeen thoroughly demonstrated that the replacement 

 wetlands have equal or better form and function. 



Where compensatory mitigation is required, acquisition of previous or degraded wetland and 

 restoration, should take precedence over attempts at creation of new wetland because of the indifferent 

 historv of creation projects. Certain types of wetland mav he relatively easily created, but our 

 knowledge of many otner wetland types is inadequate and numerous attempts to create these wetlands 

 have been less than successful. Granted, failure of many projects was due to the lack of, or poor 

 application of, exi,<!ting knowledge - the developers lacked proper expertise fErwin, 1991; Landin 

 1992). And many other failures were related to overly amnitious goals or objectives, unrealistic time 

 frames and/or inadequate resources. However, even successful creation projects will require continued 

 maintenance/management for the foreseeable future. Unless responsibilities and resources are funded 

 by long-term fmancial commitments, the end result may not be viable wetland ecosy.stems. 



Changes in society's attitudes towards wetlands resulted from characterization and education on 

 wetlands worth to the public, i.e., the quantitative and qualitative benefits that society derives simply 

 because the wetland exi<;ts in that location. Benefits that result from the processes or functions carried 

 out by the wetlands may have sienificant values. To create a direct linkage between wetland functions 

 and value to society, we define functiunul values as: those products and effects resulting from the 

 natural processes and functions of a wetland that have economic, educational, recreational and social 

 impacts (positive and negative) on various segments of society. 



Because poor scientific understanding of wetlands and their functional values has been an 

 important amtributing factor to conflicting attitudes and ambiguous approaches, the Committee is 

 convinced that major new initiatives must be undertaken, requiring suostantial funding from public and 

 private partnerships, to develop adequate knowledge upon wnich appropriate policies and regulations 

 will be founded. We reject arguments that it wou^ be tcx) costly to identify, categorize and cla.ssify all 

 wetlands in order to implement wetland management policies. We believe that a complete 

 understanding of all the functional values for each and every wetland regardless of size is unnecessary. 

 None the less, our present knowledge base lacks the ability to evaluate important functional values for 

 major wetland categories or to designate major interchanec relationships within the landscape. We 

 simply lack the essential ability to identify, describe, evaluate, and place wetlands in the landscape and 

 to formulate a sound national policy and iinpleinenting regulations. 



Previous failures to provide adequate funding for wetland inventory and research have been 

 costly to society due to extensive loss of^functional values and their economic benefits. For example, 

 mmpoint source p<Mlution is frequently cited as the largest remaining contributor to water quality 

 proolems, and improper resource management is identified as the ciJlprit. Doubtless, poor land 

 management is a factor, but rural land management is generally better today than 50 years ago when 

 water millution was less severe. Recently we have learned that 10-20 acres of constructed wetland can 

 provide high level treatment for municipal wastewaters from 1000 residents for 10-50% of the $3-4 

 million costs of amventional treatment systems (Hammer 1991). How much was the natural wetland 

 worth before it was destroyed? And 100 year floods seem to occur at 10 or even 5 year intervals 

 despite the fact that a mucn larger percentage of rural land is vegetated. Over harvest has been 

 important in the depletion of fishery stocks but what has been the contribution of lost wetland 

 nurseries? The critical element may well be natural wetlands that previously protected society from the 

 ill effects of flooding and water contamination and provided the foundation for larger fish/food 

 populations. Lxiss of natural wetlands has been costly to society and attempts to reverse those losses 

 are unlikely to rea)ver significant benefits without an adequate under.standing of wetlands, their 

 functional values and their importance in the landscape. 



Significant increases in funding for: 



1) research on functional values, including economic benefits; 



