Skip to main content
Log in

Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA

  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We characterized wetland mitigation projects at 50 randomly selected sites across Tennessee, USA. Mitigation in the form of creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation was used to replace the 38 ha of jurisdictional wetlands destroyed. Over 104 ha of compensatory wetland mitigation were proposed for this loss; however, only 77.7 ha were present when each of the sites was delineated. A large percentage of the mitigation area (61%) was in the form of preservation and enhancement of existing wetlands. The majority of sites (72%) contained less area than was stipulated in the permit. Poor design resulting in improper hydrology and poor survival of planted stock was likely the primary cause of this reduced area. Wetland mitigation efforts in Tennessee likely could be improved if greater emphasis was placed on design of the project, especially with regard to the hydrology of the site.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Atkinson, R. B., J. E. Perry, E. Smith, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1993. Use of created wetlands delineation and weighted averages as a component of assessment. Wetlands 13:185–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, B. L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic clasification for wetlands. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. B. and P. L. M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, T. E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986–1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, T. E. and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Wetland status and trends in the conterminous United States, mid 1970’s to mid 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, K. 1991. An evaluation of wetland mitigation in the South Florida Water Management District. Volume 1. Report to the South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. USA.

  • Erwin, K. L., C. M. Smith, W. R. Cox, and R. P. Rutter. 1994. Successful construction of a freshwater herbaceous marsh in south Florida, USA. p. 493–508. In W. J. Mitsch (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. J. and L. Moore. 1988. Reestablishment of bottomland hardwoods within national wildlife refuges in the southeast. p. 95–103. In J. Zelazny and J. S. Feierabend (eds.), Increasing our Wetland Resources. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentula, M. E., J. C. Sifneos, J. W. Good, M. Rylko, and K. Kuntz. 1992. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environmental Management 16:109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruczynski, W. L. 1990. Options to be considered in preparation and evaluation of mitigation plans. p. 143–158. In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusler, J. A. and M. E. Kentula (eds.). 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimold, R. J. and S. A. Cobler. 1985. Wetlands mitigation effectiveness. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, MA, USA. Contract 68-04-0015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, J. A. and E. L. Warne. 1993. Development of vegetation in small, created wetlands in southeast Wisconsin. Wetlands 13: 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robb, J. T. 2002. Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T. H. 1991. Habitat value of man-made coastal marshes in Florida. Wetland Research Program, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-RE-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifneos, J. C., E. W. Cake Jr., and M. E. Kentula. 1992. Effects of Section 404 permitting on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana. Alabama, and Mississppi. Wetlands 12:28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennessee Department of Environmentand Conservation. 1998. Tennessee Wetlands Conservation Strategy, 3rd edition. Governor’s Interagency Wetlands Committee. Nashville, TN, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Tech. Rep. Y-87-1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth L. Morgan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morgan, K.L., Roberts, T.H. Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA. Wetlands 23, 65–69 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0065:COWMPI]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0065:COWMPI]2.0.CO;2

Key Words

Navigation