Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means

Hough, Palmer; Robertson, Morgan

doi:10.1007/s11273-008-9093-7

Cited by 147 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Elle est apparue en 1972 aux États-Unis dans le Clean Water Act (Hough et Robertson, 2009), puis en 1976 en France dans la loi pour la protection de la nature. La séquence ERC a donc émergé dans un contexte global de réglementation environnementale accrue, sous l'influence de politiques néolibérales (Bonneuil, 2015) et dans un objectif commun de « développement durable ».…”

Section: From Theory To Implementation In the Mitigation Hierarchy: Aunclassified

De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

Bigard¹,

Regnery²,

Pioch³

et al. 2018

developpementdurable

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: From Theory To Implementation In the Mitigation Hierarchy: Aunclassified

De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

Bigard¹,

Regnery²,

Pioch³

et al. 2018

developpementdurable

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Gateway Estate Development Project in the USA and Tongil Bridge and Jangdan projects in Korea are examples of this approach [42]. However, these methods are limited because they are costly and maintain only a fraction of the biotope functions of the wetlands [34,43]. A new approach to wetland mitigation banking is needed, particularly one that can improve the connectivity of fragmented biotopes over a larger scale.…”

Section: Wetland Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrated Approach to Mitigation Wetland Site Selection: A Case Study in Gwacheon, Korea

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an integrated approach to mitigation wetland site selection using functional landscape connectivity and landscape structure. This approach enables landscape designers to evaluate the relative priorities of mitigation wetland areas based on functional landscape connectivity and wildlife mobility, as well as landscape structure, composition, and configuration. The least-cost path method is used to evaluate candidate sites for mitigation wetlands with regard to wildlife movement. A set of assessments for landscape indices using FRAGSTATS was applied to identify suitable mitigation wetland areas on the basis of landscape connectivity, composition, and configuration. The study was conducted in Gwacheon, Korea, where there are plans for regional development that will change the landscape. In the first step, a group of 14 candidate sites is identified via analysis of functional landscape connectivity using the least-cost path method. In the second step, candidate mitigation wetland areas are ranked according to landscape connectivity and composition. The five mitigation wetland areas that were found to be suitable were analyzed based on landscape configuration at the class level. This study demonstrates OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 3387 that functional landscape connectivity and landscape structure are important aspects to consider when identifying suitable sites for mitigation wetland planning and restoration.

show abstract

“…The principal intent of the Act was to ''restore and maintain the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the Nation's waters'' in part through the establishment of the Section 404 permitting program. This regulatory process requires that an Individual Permit be issued for any activity that results in the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands (Hough and Robertson 2009;Chertok and Sinding 2005;Williams and Connolly 2005). Both the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were given jurisdiction over the permit program, with the Corps being responsible for overseeing day-to-day permitting activities, and the EPA being given authority (''in conjunction with'' the Corps) to develop guidelines for permit approvals, as well as the authority to override any permit approval issued by the Corps (Ellis 2005).…”

Section: United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented (Burgin 2010;ELI 2009;Hough and Robertson 2009;Murphy et al 2009a). While many studies have shown that compensatory laws and policies have not been effective in maintaining wetland area and function (for example, Spieles 2005;Cole and Shafer 2002;NRC 2001;Malakoff 1998;Roberts 1993;Zedler 1996), and often have unintended social impacts (see BenDor et al 2008;BenDor et al 2007;Ruhl and Salzman 2006), few explicate why these laws and policies have failed, or suggest alternative approaches to regulating and managing wetland impacts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

Clare

Krogman

Foote

et al. 2011

Wetlands Ecol Manage

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many jurisdictions in North America use a ''mitigation sequence'' to protect wetlands: First, avoid impacts; second, minimize unavoidable impacts; and third, compensate for irreducible impacts through the use of wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, or protection. Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision-making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented. This paper draws on literature published between 1989 and 2010, as well as 33 semi-structured, key-informant interviews carried out in 2009 and 2010 with actors intimately involved with wetland policy in Alberta, Canada, to address key reasons why ''avoidance'' as a policy directive is seldom effective. Five key factors emerged from the literature, and were supported by interview data, as being central to the failure of decision-makers to prioritize wetland avoidance and minimization above compensation in the mitigation sequence: (1) a lack of agreement on what constitutes avoidance; (2) current approaches to landuse planning do not identify high-priority wetlands in advance of development; (3) wetlands are economically undervalued; (4) there is a ''techno-arrogance'' associated with wetland creation and restoration that results in increased wetland loss, and; (5) compensation requirements are inadequately enforced. Largely untested but proactive ways to re-institute avoidance as a workable option in wetland management include: watershed-based planning; comprehensive economic and social valuation of wetlands; and long-term citizen-based monitoring schemes.

show abstract

Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means

Cited by 147 publications

References 10 publications

De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

An Integrated Approach to Mitigation Wetland Site Selection: A Case Study in Gwacheon, Korea

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About