100 



-continuity 



2) national guidelines and oversight as part of a national wetland policy; 



3) regional modifications/specifics; 



4) state or regional level decision making and implemenution. 



5) administration by joint private/state/federaJ a>nsortia established for that specific 



purpose. Mitigation banks must be established and managed by cooperative 

 agreements among various organizational and not necessarily controlled by 

 government agencies. COE and EPA are unlikely to actuaJly manage banks, but 

 will only regulate them. On the other hand, many existing private organizations 

 could provide long-term management and new consortia of private and 

 governmental organizations a>uld be established for the specific purpose of 

 providing funding and management in perpetuity. We must develop means to 



Krovide for permanent protection and management of wetlands in any mitigation 

 ank 



6) a)m|^ensatory mitigation should include ecological equivalency as a specific goal 



including replacement/increase of form and functions, 



7) compensatory mitigation should include landscape, watershed and 



nydro/bio/geographical evaluations; 



8) general guidelines on within-kind vs out-of-kind, within-siie vs off-site, near- or far- 



site, in- or out-of biotic/hydro/geographic region that are designed to increase the 

 acreages, form and functional values of wetland thai will be refmed at state or 

 regional levels; 



9) establishment of escrow/trust ftinds or other means to ensure funding for full 



implementation and long term management; funding of the mitigation bank must 

 not be susceptible to company failure/bankruptcy or reorganization; 



10) improved methods/means to provide, record and monitor mitigation credits, including 



guidelines for third party brokering of mitigation credits; 



1 1) less regulatorv attention to the permit Uiai leads to a decision of "yes, you may 



develop this wetland with tJie following mitigation stipulations," and more follow- 

 up on what was actually done Federal agencies have done a very poor job of 

 monitoring wetland permit compliance once the permit was granted. 



12) reduced regulatory requirements to improve opportunities for net gain to wetlands and 



wetland resources. 



13) requirements for incorporation of wetland science with careful, conscientious planning 



and construction for any mitigation projects to reduce the amount of poor planning 

 and execution. 



14) requirements that mitigation is in place and functioning, cot^current or a priori other 



aspects of the project Current regulations are largely tied to the same time line as 

 the developer's project. Regulations must have the flexibility to allow for 

 accumulation ofmiligation credits in banks prior to and/or concurrent with loss of 

 the natural wetland. In to many instances, developer's cash flow problems have 

 caused mitigation failures. In other cases, a priori mitigation may be necessary to 

 insure that mitigation projects will succeed before the development is initiated. 



15) guidelines on locations, type, size and establishment of mitigation banks including 



how acreages/form/function are established/accepted in the banks; 



16) clear, quantifiable goals must be set for each of the mitigation banks; goals that have 



measurable outputs. 



17) each mitigation hank plan and program must a)ntain a monitoring and evaluation plan 



and funding to achieve that plan. 



18) application of mitigation banking credits must be such that credits are not transferable 



from one project to another without adequate evaluation bv qualified 

 professionals. This seems to be occurring in the Upper Yazoo Basin Restudy 

 Effort by the COE. Apparently, the COE has indicated that they have "over 

 mitigated" in the Upper Steele Bayou project (located in the Mississippi Delta) by 

 some 12* and plan to move these "excess" credits to the Upper Yazoo project 

 (also Mississippi Delta) for mitigation application. While this may result in 

 acceptable mitigation in these two comparable drainages, the practice certainly 

 requires scrutiny. 



19) recognition that education is an important goal of mitigation not only for the public 



but for specific user groups and resource managers. Also recognition that 



