Skip to main content

Regulatory Takings in the Wetland Context

  • Chapter
  • 450 Accesses

Abstract

Federal regulation of wetlands begins with the U.S. Constitution. To justify the assertion of authority over privately owned wetlands, Congress must rely on an affirmative grant of authority enumerated in the Constitution. As we have seen, the Interstate Commerce Clause provides Congress (and thus the Corps and the EPA) the principal gateway to wetland regulation. The Constitution, however, also supplies a check on this federal authority through the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the governmental “taking” of private property without the payment of just compensation.

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

Selected References and Further Reading

Chapter 1

  • Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). (2010).The Journey to Restore America’s Everglades,www.evergladesplan.org/index.aspx.

  • Douglas, M.S. (1988).The Everglades: River of Grass(rev. ed.). Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, A.C. (1959).Hound of the Baskervilles. New York, NY: Random House Children’s Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducks Unlimited. (2010).www.ducks.org.

  • Grunwald, M. (2006).The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. New York: Simon and Schuster

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, A. (2006). “Ecosystem Services in the New York City Watershed.” Ecosystem Marketplace,www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=4130&section=home.

  • Kolva, J.R. (1996). “Effects of the Great Midwest Flood of 1993 on Wetlands.” National Water Summary on Wetland Resources, U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labyrinth. (1999). DVD. Dir. Jim Henson. Perf. David Bowie and Jennifer Connelly. 1989. Sony Pictures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leovy v. United States(1900) 177 U.S. 621 U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, S.C. (2005).Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. (2007).Wetlands. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, P. (2004).The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore. New York: Facts on File.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monty Python and the Holy Grail(Special Edition). (2001). DVD. Dir. Terry Jones. Perf. John Cleese and Graham Chapman. 1975. Sony Pictures.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Princess Bride. DVD. (2007). Dir. Rob Reiner. Perf. Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, and Robin Wright Penn. 1987. MGM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsar Convention Secretariat. (2010a). “Shoreline stabilisation & storm protection.”www.ramsar.org/pdf/info/services_03_e.pdf.

  • Ramsar Convention Secretariat. (2010b). “World Wetlands Day.”www.ramsar.org/wwd/wwd_index.htm.

  • Swamp Thing. (1972). New York: DC Comic Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiner, R.W., J.Q. Swords, and B.J. McClain. (2002).Wetland Status and Trends for the Hackensack Meadowlands. An Assessment Report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory Program. Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010a). “America’s Wetland Month.”www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/awm/.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b).Watershed Academy Web.http://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/index.cfm.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009).Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis, Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Arlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vileisis, A. (1997).Discovery of the Unknown Landscape: A History of America’s Wetlands. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Wetlands and Marshes.” (2010).The Thain’s Book: An Encyclopedia of Middle Earth and Numenor.www.tuckborough.net/marshes.html.

  • When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts. (2006). DVD. Dir. Spike Lee. HBO Home Video.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Winged Scourge. (2005). DVD.Walt Disney Treasures—On the Front Lines. Buena Vista Home Entertainment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zion, G. (1957).Dear Garbage Man. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 2

  • Adler, R., J. Landman, and D. Cameron. (1993).The Clean Water Act 20 Years Later. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Administrative Procedure Act. (2006). U.S. Code 5:553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, F. (2003). “U.S. Won’t Narrow Wetlands Protection,”New York Times, Dec. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council(1984) 467 U.S. 837, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coquillette, D. (1979). “Mosses from an Old Manse: Another Look at Some Historic Property Cases About the Environment.”Cornell Law Review64, 761–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. (2001). “Two BU.S.hes and the Everglades.”New York Times, Nov. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Order 12866, as amended by E.O. 13258 and E.O. 13422 on Regulatory Planning and Review (January 18, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. (2008). 128 S. Ct. 2605, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G.P. and S. Sheppard. (2005).American Law in a Global Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhr, J. (2010). “Connecticut v. AEP: The New Normal?”Natural Resources & Environment24:4, 58–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. (1990). “Public Participation and Wetland Regulation,”UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy10, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. (1987). 484 U.S. 49, U.S. Supreme Court.In re Cheney. (2005). 406 F.3d 723, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, E. (2001). “Presidential Administration.”Harvard Law Review114, 2245–2385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalen, S. (2008). “Changing Administrations and Environmental Guidance Documents.”Natural Resources & Environment23:3, 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife(1992) 504 U.S. 555, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Municipality of Anchorage v. United States(1992) 980 F.2d 1320, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Percival, R. (2001). “Presidential Management of the Administrative State: The Not-So-Unitary Executive.”Duke Law Journal51, 963–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R. (1995). “Seven Ways to Deossify Agency Rulemaking.”Administrative Law Review47, 59–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R., S. Shapiro, and P. Verkuil. (2009).Administrative Law and Process. New York: Thomson/West.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Mead Corp. (2001). 533 U.S. 218, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. (1987).Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005a). “Waters and Wetlands: Corps of Engineers Needs to Better Support Its Decisions for Not Asserting Jurisdiction.” GAO-05-870.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005b). “Wetlands Protection: Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring.” GAO-05-898.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2008).Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 3rd ed., vol III. GAO-08-978SP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worth, R. (1999). “Asleep on the Beat.”Washington Monthly31,11.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 3

  • Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. (1979).Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, R. (2009).The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Defense Fund and World Wildlife Fund. (1992).How Wet Is a Wetland? The Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to the Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual. Laurel, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, R. (2007). “Restoring Federal Jurisdiction Over ‘Waters of the United States’.”National Wetlands Newsletter29:3, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman-Carter, J. (2005). “Isolated Wetland Legislation: Running the Rapids at the State Capitol.”National Wetlands Newsletter27:3, 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales v. Raich. (2006). 545 U.S. 1 U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J.V., W.E. Frayer, and B.O. Wilen. (1994).Status of Alaska Wetlands. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Region.

    Google Scholar 

  • KU.S.ler, J. (2004). “The SWANCC Decision: State Regulation of Wetlands to Fill the Gap.” Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.www.aswm.org/fwp/swancc/aswm-int.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, W. (2001).Wetlands Explained. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1995).Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRDC v. Callaway. (1975). 392 F.Supp. 685 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapanos v. U.S.. (2006). 547 U.S. 715 U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, M.M. (2004). “Drawing Lines in Water: Entrepreneurial Wetland Mitigation Banking and the Search for Ecosystem Service Markets.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(2001) 531 U.S. 159 U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. (1987).Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes. (1985). 474 U.S. 121 U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army. (2008). “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision inRapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.” Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickard v. Filburn. (1942). 317 U.S. 111 U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wroth, K., ed. (2007).The Supreme Court and the Clean Water Act: Five Essays. Roy-alton, VT: Vermont Law School’s Land Use Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 4

  • Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh. (1983). 715 F.2d 897 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, T.S. et al. (2004). “Counting the Hands onBorden Ranch.” Environmental Law Reporter34, 10040–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borden Ranch Partnership v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2001). 261 F.3d 810 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. (2009). 129 S.Ct. 2458 U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copland, C. (2009). “Controversies over Redefining ‘Fill Material’ Under the Clean Water Act.” Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • FU.S.chino, J. (2007). “Mountaintop Coal Mining and the Clean Water Act: The Fight over Nationwide Permit 21.”Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review34, 179–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (1998). “Casting Aside the Tulloch Rule.”National Wetlands Newsletter20:5, 5–6, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Mining Association v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1998). 145 F.3d 1399 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co. (2009). 556 F.3d 177 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, C.J. (1983). “Pocosins: Vanishing Wastelands or Valuable Wetlands?”BioScience33:10, 626–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W.E. and K.L. Geoffrey. (2005). “General and Nationwide Permits,” in K.D. Connolly et al., eds.,Wetlands Law and Policy: Understanding Section 404, pp151–190. Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1984).Agricultural Conversion: Fifth Circuit Decision in Avoyelles vs Marsh. RGL 84-05.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2010). “Nationwide Permits Information.”www.usace.army.mil/cecw/pages/nw_permits.aspx.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005).Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia, Final Programmatic Impact Statement. Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010a). “Further Revisions to the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of Discharge of Dredged Material.”http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/dredging/2001rule.cfm.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b). “Mid-Atlantic Mountaintop Mining.”www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/.

Chapter 5

  • Bersani v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1988). 850 F.2d 36 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumm, M.C., and D.B. Zaleha. (1989). “Federal Wetlands Protection under the Clean Water Act: Regulatory Ambivalence, Intergovernmental Tension, and a Call for Reform.”University of Colorado Law Review60, 695–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fund for Animals v. Rice. (1996). 85 F.3d 535 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (1990). “The Army-EPA Mitigation Agreement: No Retreat from Wetlands Protection.”Environmental Law Reporter20, 10337–10344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2002). “Corps’ New Regulatory Guidance Letter: Trick or Treat?”National Wetlands Newsletter24:2, 3–4, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2007). “Rapanosand Wetland Mitigation Banking,” in K. Wroth, ed.,The Supreme Court and the Clean Water Act: Five Essays. Royalton, VT: Vermont Law School’s Land Use Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houck, O.A. (1989). “Hard Choices: The Analysis of Alternatives under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Similar Environmental Laws.”University of Colorado Law Review60, 773–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, P., and M.M. Robertson. (2009). “Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where It Comes From, What It Means.”Wetlands Ecology and Management17:1, 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, A.J. (2007).The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Municipality of Anchorage v. United States. (1992). 980 F.2d 1320 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resource Law Institute. (1988). “A Guide to Federal Wetlands Protection Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.”AnadromoU.S. Fish Law Memo, Issue 46. Portland, OR: Lewis and Clark Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, W.H. (1994).Environmental Law2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart v. Potts(1998) 996 F.Supp. 668 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1990). “Permit Elevation, Old Cutler Bay Associates.”www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/CutlerBayGuidance.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of the Army and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, D.C..

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a). “Final Determination of the Assistant Administrator for Water Pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act Concerning the Proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project in Is-saquena County, MS.”Federal Register73:183, 54398–54400.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b). “Proposed Determination to Prohibit, Restrict, or Deny the Specification, or the Usefor Specification, of an Area as a Disposal Site; Yazoo River Basin, Issaquena County, MS.”Federal Register73:54, 14806–14820.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010a).Chronology of 404(c) Actions.www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/404c.html.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b).Chronology of 404(q) Actions.www.epa.gov/wetlands/guidance/404q.html.

  • von Hermann, D., ed. (2006).Resorting to Casinos: The Mississippi Gambling Industry. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissman, S., J. Willmuth, and F. Clemente. (1999).Betting on Trent Lott: The Casino Gambling Industry’s Campaign Contributions Pay Off in Congress. Washington, D.C.: Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, L. (1990). “Sununu Pulled Rank.”National Wetlands Newsletter12:2, 3–7, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabel v. Tabb(1970) 430 F.2d 199 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 6

  • Barringer, F. (2006). “Fewer Marshes + More Man-Made Ponds = Increased Wetlands.”New York Times, March 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard S. (2010). “Some Common Myths About Original TABASCO® brand Pepper Sauce.”www.tabasco.com/tabasco_history/faqs.cfm.

  • Carter-Finn, K., A.W. Hodges, D.J. Lee, and M.T. Olexa. (2006). “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Melaleuca Management in South Florida.” Gainesville, FL: Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbert Nation. (2006). Colbert Report—The Word—Birdie.www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/61258/april-04-2006/the-word—birdie.

  • Dahl, T.E. (1990).Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, T.E. (2006).Status and Trends of Wetlands in the ConterminoU.S. United States 1998 to 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, T.E. and C.E. Johnson. (1991).Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Contermi-noU.S. United States, Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’s. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, V.H., K.L. Kline, J. Wiens, and J. Fargione. (2010). “Biofuels: Implications for Land Useand Biodiversity.”Biofuels and SU.S.tainability ReportsWashington, D.C.: Ecological Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray, F.A., B.C. Bennett, and T.D. Center. (2006). “Invasion History of Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) S.T. Blake in Florida.”Castanea71:3, 210–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. (1991).Report of the Effectiveness of Permitted Mitigation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, J.M. (2007).The Invasive Species Cookbook: Conservation through Gastronomy. Wauwatosa, WI: Bradford Street Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. (1983).Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the ConterminoU.S. United States, 1950’s to 1970’s. Petersburg, FL: National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (1996). “Banking on Entrepreneurs: Wetlands, Mitigation Banking, and Takings.”Iowa Law Review81:3, 527–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2005). “Mitigation,” in K.D. Connolly, S.M. Johnson, and D.R. Williams, eds.,Wetlands Law and Policy: Understanding Section 404. Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, R.G., M.L. Brien, M.S. Cherkiss, M. Dorcas, M. Rochford, R.W. Snow, and F.J. Mazzotti. (2008). “Burmese Pythons in South Florida: Scientific Support for Invasive Species Management.” Gainesville, FL: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. (2010). “Recipes.”http://web.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/nutriacontrol/humanconsumption/recipes.cfm.

  • Mazzotti, F.J., T.D. Center, F.A. Dray, and D. Thayer. (1997). “Ecological Consequences of Invasion byMelaleuca Quinquenerviain South Florida Wetlands: Paradise Damaged, not Lost.” Gainesville, FL: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullin, B.H., L.W.J. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. (2000). “Invasive Plant Species.” Issue Paper No. 13. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001).Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittman, C. and M. Waite. 2005. “They won’t say no.”St. Petersburg Times, May 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B., S.E. Kraft, and C.L. Lant. (2007).The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2002). 295 F.3d 1209 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stedman, S., and T.E. Dahl. (2008).Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streever, B. (2001).Saving Louisiana? The Battle for Coastal Wetlands. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2010).Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2008/bca-cria/WRP_BCAnalysis-FINAL-5-17-10.pdf.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010).Recent Compensatory Mitigation Evaluations and Reports.www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/#evaluations.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1994).Interagency Follow-Through Investigation of Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Sites.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vileisis, A. (1997).Discovery of the Unknown Landscape: A History of America’s Wetlands. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, J. and E. Mouton. (2009).Nutria Harvest and Distribution 2008–2009 and A Survey of Nutria Herbivory Damage in Coastal Louisiana in 2009. New Iberia, LA: Coastal and Nongame Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D.R. (2005). “Agricultural Programs,” in K.D. Connolly, S.M. Johnson, and D.R. Williams, eds.,Wetlands Law and Policy: Understanding Section 404. Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J. (2007). “Success: An Unclear, Subjective Descriptor of Restoration Outcomes.”Ecological Restoration25:3, 162–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Chapter 7

  • Apogee Research, Inc. (1994).An Examination of Wetlands Programs: Opportunities for Compensatory Mitigation. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Water Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brumbaugh, R. and R.T. Reppert. (1994).National Wetlands Mitigation Banking Study First Phase Report. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Water Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brumbaugh, R., and F. Tabatabai. (1998).National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: The Early Mitigation Banks: A Follow-up Review. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Water Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute. (1993).Wetland Mitigation Banking. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute. (2002).Banks and Fees: The Status of Off-site Wetland Mitigation in the United States. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute and Institute for Water Resources. (1994).Wetland Mitigation Banking: Resource Document. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Water Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (1996). “Banking on Entrepreneurs: Wetlands, Mitigation Banking, and Takings.”Iowa Law Review81:3, 527–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2003). “Rehabilitating Nature: A Comparative Review of Legal Mechanisms That Encourage Wetland Restoration Efforts.”Catholic University Law Review52, 527–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C., and T.J.P. Radwan. (2005). “What HappensWhenaWetland Mitigation Bank Goes Bankrupt?”Environmental Law Reporter35:4, 10590–10604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatewood, S. (1995). “Disney Banks on Mitigation.”National Wetlands Newsletter17:5, 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, W.J., and R.C. Gardner. (1993). “The Value of Wetlands as Wetlands: The Case for Mitigation Banking.”Environmental Law Reporter23:5, 10261–10265.

    Google Scholar 

  • In re IT Group, Inc. (2006). 399 Bankruptcy Reporter 338, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001).Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittman, C., and M. Waite. (2009).Paving Paradise: Florida’s Vanishing Wetlands and the Failure of No Net Loss. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K.C., E. Hernandez, and M. Brown. (2007). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mitigation Banking in Florida: Ecological Success and Compliance with Permit Criteria.www.dep.state.fl.US/water/wetlands/docs/mitigation/Final_Report.pdf.

  • Robertson, M.M. (2006). “Emerging Ecosystem Service Markets: Trends in a Decade of Entrepreneurial Wetland Banking.”Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment4:6, 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, M.M. (2008). “The Entrepreneurial Wetland Banking Experience in Chicago and Minnesota.”National Wetlands Newsletter30:4, 14–17, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B. and J. Salzman. (2006). “The Effects of Wetland Mitigation Banking on People.”National Wetlands Newslettervol 28:2, pp1, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scodari, P., L. Shabman, and D. White. (1995).National Wetlands Mitigation Banking Study—Commercial Wetland Mitigation Credit Markets: Theory and Practice. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Water Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabman, L., P. Scodari, and D. King. (1994).National Wetlands Mitigation Banking Study—Expanding Opportunities for Successful Mitigation: The Private Credit Market Alternative. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Water Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibbing, J.M. (2005). “Mitigation Banking: Will the Myth Ever Die?”National Wetlands Newsletter27:6, 5–6, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) Public Law 105–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of the Army and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, D.C..

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, and U.S. Department of Commerce. (1995). “Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks.”Federal Registervol 60:228, pp58605–58614.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army. (1993). Memorandum to the Field, Subject: Establishment and Useof Wetland Mitigation Banks in the Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Program. Washington, D.C..

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2003). Federal Guidance on the Useof the TEA-21 Preference for Mitigation Banking to Fulfill Mitigation Requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J. and J. Thompson. (2006). 2005Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 8

  • Environmental Law Institute. (2002).Banks and Fees: The Status of Off-site Wetland Mitigation in the United States. Washington, D.C.; Environmental Law Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2000). “Money for Nothing? The Rise of Wetland Fee Mitigation.”Virginia Environmental Law Journal19:1, 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2008). “Legal Considerations,” in N. Carroll, J. Fox, and R. Bayon, eds.,Conservation & Biodiversity Banking. Earthscan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001).Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Nature Conservancy. (2010).Virginia Aquatic Resources TrU.S.t Fund Annual Report—2009.www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/wetlands/pdf/VARTF_2009_Annual_Report.pdf.

  • Teresa, S. (2006). “The Demise of The Environmental TrU.S.t.” Ecosystem Marketplace,www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=4227&section=home&eod=1.

  • Urban, D.T. and J.H. Ryan. (1999). “A Lieu-Lieu Policy with SerioU.S. Shortcomings.”National Wetlands Newsletter21:4, 5, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, and U.S. Department of Commerce. (1995). “Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Useand Operation of Mitigation Banks.”Federal Registervol 60:228, pp58605–58614.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2000). Federal Guidance on the Useof In-Lieu-Fee Arrangements for Compensatory Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. (2001).WETLANDS PROTECTION: Assessments Needed to Determine Effectiveness of In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004).Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 3rd ed., vol II, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J. and J. Thompson. (2006). 2005Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 9

  • Environmental Law Institute. (2010). “Wetlands Program—Conferences, Trainings, & Seminars.”www.eli.org/Program_Areas/wetlands_events.cfm.

  • Gardner, R.C. (1996). “Banking on Entrepreneurs: Wetlands, Mitigation Banking, and Takings.”Iowa Law Review81:3, 527–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2002). “Corps’ New Regulatory Guidance Letter on Mitigation: Trick or Treat?”National Wetlands Newsletter24:2, 3–4, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2007). “Reconsidering In-Lieu Fees: A Modest Proposal.” Ecosystem Marketplace,www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=5073&section=home&eod=1.

  • Gardner, R.C., J. Zedler, A. Redmond, R.E. Turner, C.A Johnston, V.R. Alvarez, C.A. Simenstad, K.L. Prestegaard, and W.J. Mitsch. (2009). “Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act (Redux): Evaluating the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Regulation.”Stetson Law Review38:2, 213–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., J. Goldman-Carter, and J. Sibbing. (2009). “New Mitigation Rule Promises More of the Same: Why the New Corps and EPA Mitigation Rule Will Fail to Protect Our Aquatic Resources Adequately.”Stetson Law Reviewvol 38:2, pp311–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Mitigation Banking Association v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(2007) No. 06-cv-2820, 2007 Westlaw 495245, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001).Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B., J. Salzman, and I. Goodman. (2009). “Implementing the New Ecosystem Services Mandate of the Section 404 Compensatory Mitigation Pro-gram—A Catalyst for Advancing Science and Policy.”Stetson Law Reviewvol 38:2, pp251–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, M. (2009). “Do the Mitigation Regulations Satisfy the Law? Wait and See.”Stetson Law Review38:2, 273–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teresa, S. (2009). “Perpetual Stewardship Considerations for Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Banks.”Stetson Law Review38:2, 337–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2002). “Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.” RGL 02-2, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of the Army and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Memorandum of Agreement Between The Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of Transportation. (2002). “National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan.”www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/map1226withsign.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Defense and Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule.”Federal Register73:70, 19594–19705.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Defense and Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Proposed Rule.”Federal Register71:59, 15520–15556.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2003). Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Address Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes.www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/FAAmitigationmoa.pdf.

Chapter 10

  • Gardner, R.C. (1996). “Banking on Entrepreneurs: Wetlands, Mitigation Banking, and Takings.”Iowa Law Review81:3, 527–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (2000). “Money for Nothing? The Rise of Wetland Fee Mitigation.”Virginia Environmental Law Journal19:1, 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. (1987). 484 U.S. 49, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas v. United States. (2008). 516 F.3d 316 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2000). 118 F.Supp.2d 1115 U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapanos v. United States. (2006). 547 U.S. 715, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, W.H. (2009).Rodgers’ Environmental Law. West, St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, M.N. (2009).Wetlands Deskbook, Third Edition. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas. (2009). “Civil Penalty Is Imposed Against Galveston Resident for Violating Clean Water Act.”www.Justice.gov/usao/txs/releases/March%202009/030309Scruggs.htm.

  • U.S. Department of the Army and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1989). Memorandum between the Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Enforcement for the Section 404 Program of the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). “Defendants Receive Major Jail Sentences, Pay Restitution for Major Wetlands Criminal Prosecution.”www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_enrd_644%20.html.

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. (1988).Wetlands The Corps of Engineers’ Administration of the Section 404 Program. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Cumberland Farms of Connecticut, Inc. (1987) 826 F.2d 1151 U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Cundiff. (2009). 555 F.3d 200, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Hawkins. (2005). Amended Complaint, Civil No. 3:05CV-12-H, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Hawkins. (2006). Consent Judgment, Civil No. 3:05CV-12-H, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Pozsgai. (1993). 999 F.2d 719, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Reaves. (1996). 923 F.Supp. 1530, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Savoy Senior HousingCorporation. (2008). Civil Action No. 6:06-cv-00031(nk) Consent Decree U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Van Leuzen. (1993). 816 F. Supp. 1171, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 11

  • Bowles v. United States(1991) 23 Cl.Ct. 443 U.S. Court of Claims.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley v. United States. (2003). 324 F.3d 1297, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States. (1999). 45 Fed.Cl. 21, U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest Properties, Inc. v. United States. (1999). 177 F.3d 1360, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C. (1996). “Banking on Entrepreneurs: Wetlands, Mitigation Banking, and Takings.”Iowa Law Reviewvol 81:3, pp527–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good v. United States. (1999). 189 F.3d 1355, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelo v. City of New London. (2005). 545 U.S. 469, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laguna Gatuna, Inc. v. United States. (2001). 50 Fed.Cl. 336, U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States. (1994). 28 F.3d 1171, U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. (1992). 505 U.S. 1003, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltz, R. (2000).Wetlands Regulation and the Law of Property Rights “Takings”. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzolo v. Rhode Island. (2001). 533 U.S. 606, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pax Christi Memorial Gardens, Inc. v. United States. (2002). 52 Fed.Cl. 318, U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City. (1978). 438 U.S. 104, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. (1922). 260 U.S. 393, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp. (2009). 2009 WL 6409272, No. 03-23427-CIV-HOEVELER U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes Inc.. (1985). 474 U.S. 121, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

Chapter 12

  • Barstow, D., L. Dodd, J. Glanz, S. Saul, and I. Urbina. (2010). “Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Rig Fail-Safe Device.”New York Times, June 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, R., G. Fogel, A. Glaser, E. Griffen, and K. Johnson. (2009).Corn Ethanol and Wildlife. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, K.D. (2007). “Survey Says: Army Corps No Scalian Despot.”Environmental Law Reportervol 37:5, pp10317–10361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmert-Mattox, S., S. Crooks, and J. Findsen. (2010). “Wetland Grasses and Gases: Are Tidal Wetlands Ready for the Carbon Markets?”National Wetlands Newsletter32:6, 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute. (2008).State Wetland Permitting Programs: Avoidance and Minimization Requirements. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. (2008). “Getting Two for One: Opportunities and Challenges in Credit Stacking,” in N. Carroll, J. Fox, and R. Bayon, eds.,Conservation and Biodiversity Banking. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.C., J. Zedler, A. Redmond, R.E. Turner, C.A Johnston, V.R. Alvarez, C.A. Simenstad, K.L. Prestegaard, and W.J. Mitsch. (2009). “Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act (Redux): Evaluating the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Regulation.”Stetson Law Review38:2, 213–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellman, B. (2008).Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, C. (2005). “The Sky’s the Limit.”National Wetlands Newsletter27:1, 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, R., B. Casselman, and G. Chazan. (2010). “Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device.”Wall Street JournalApril 28.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html, accessed Nov. 29, 2010.

  • Hassett, K.A. (2006).Ethanol’s a Big Scam, and BU.S.h Has Fallen for It. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,www.aei.org/article/23871

  • Kennedy, R.F. (2010).Sex, Lies and Oil Spills. The Huffington Post,www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/sex-lies-and-oil-spills_b_564163.html

  • National Research Council. (2001).Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Interior. (2010).Investigative Report: Island Operating Company et al. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S. Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock. (2010). “Mountaintop Mining Consequences.”Sciencevol 327, pp148–149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Program Evaluation Division, North Carolina General Assembly. (2009).Department of Environment and Natural Resources Wetland Mitigation Credit Determinations. Raleigh, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbina, I. (2010). “U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits.”New York Times, May 14, pA1.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-REDD Programme. (2010).The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries.www.un-redd.org/

  • Wilkinson, J.B., J.M. McElfish, R. Kihslinger, R. Bendick, and B.A. McKenney. (2009).The Next Generation of Mitigation: Linking Current and Future Mitigation Programs with State Wildlife Action Plans and Other State and Regional Plans. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute and The Nature Conservancy.

    Google Scholar 

Epilogue

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Royal C. Gardner .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Royal C. Gardner

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gardner, R.C. (2011). Regulatory Takings in the Wetland Context. In: Lawyers, Swamps, and Money. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-025-5_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships