Wetland Mitigation: Can Fishes Distinguish Between Natural and Constructed Wetlands?
Mitigation of impacts on shallow water habitats now is required by federal law, to ensure that no net loss of wetland acreage or function occurs. Mitigation should ensure that habitat construction objectives agree with regional goals for fish conservation. Some constructed wetlands created as part o...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Fisheries (Bethesda) Vol. 22; no. 3; p. 26 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
01-03-1997
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Mitigation of impacts on shallow water habitats now is required by federal law, to ensure that no net loss of wetland acreage or function occurs. Mitigation should ensure that habitat construction objectives agree with regional goals for fish conservation. Some constructed wetlands created as part of a mitigation bank may not sustain fish because of sedimentation or other problems. Reference wetlands can assist in assessing the suitability of constructed wetlands for fish support functions. Examples of mitigation efforts in California's San Pedro Bay and elsewhere illustrate the complexity of mitigation criteria, compliance determination, and fish responses to morphological changes in channels and marshes. Research to date suggests that Southern California native fishes do not discriminate between natural and constructed wetland channels, but are sensitive to water salinity, depth, sediment composition, and duration of tidal inundation. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 |
| ISSN: | 0363-2415 |