Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA

Abstract

ABSTRACT/The effects of permitting decisions made under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for which compensatory mitigation was required were examined. Information was compiled on permits issued in Oregon (January 1977-January 1987 and Washington (1980Washington ( -1986. Data on the type of project permitted, wetland impacted, and mitigation project were collected and analyzed. The records of the Portland and Seattle District Offices of the US Army Corps of Engineers and of Environmental Protection Agency Region X were the primary sources of information.The 58 permits issued during the years of concern in Oregon document impacts to 82 wetlands and the creation of 80. The total area of wetland impacted was 74 ha while 42 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 32 ha or 43%. The 35 permits issued in Washington document impacts to 72 wetlands and the creation of 52. The total area of wetland impacted was 61 ha while 45 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 16 ha or 26% In both states, the number of permits requiring compensation increased with time. The area of the impacted and created wetlands tended to be ~0.40 ha. Permitted activity occurred primarily west of the Cascade Mountains and in the vicinity of urban centers. Estuarine and palustrine wetlands were impacted and created most frequently. The wetland types created most often were not always the same as those impacted; therefore, local gains and losses of certain types occurred. In both states the greatest net loss in area was in freshwater marshes.This study illustrates how Section 404 permit data might be used in managing a regional wetland resource. However, because the data readily available were either incomplete or of poor quality, the process of gathering information was very labor intensive. Since similar analyses would be useful to resource managers and scientists from other areas, development of an up-to-date standardized data base is recommended.Thousands of requests for permits to dredge or fill in wetlands are processed each year by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) pursuant to its permitting authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-KEY WORDS: Wetlands; Clean Water Act; Mitigation; Wetland creation; Pacific Northwest; Washington; Oregon *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.Environmental Management Vol. 16, No. 1, views these requests as part of its oversight responsibilities. Much time and effort is expended by the COE, EPA, and other federal and state agencies in deciding whether or not to permit proposed projects. Often the details of the final permit decision are either not clearly documented, readily accessible, or incorporated into the permit conditions. Decisions are typically made on a case-by-case basis without benefit of quantitative information on how previously granted permits relate to the current proposal. Efforts to compile information on the status of the wetland resources within the United States have been 9 1992 Springer-Vedag New York Inc.

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

“…(Approval writer, personal communication, June 2009) Some authorities claim that increased oversight by regulatory agencies, such as more frequent interaction with permit holders, regular site visits, and more frequent enforcement actions, could improve compliance outcomes (Reiss et al 2009;Schulte-Hostedde et al 2007;NRC 2001). More rigorous record keeping (Minns et al 1996;Kentula et al 1992) and better coordination of policy within and between jurisdictions and agencies responsible for wetland permitting (Austen and Hanson 2007;Race and Fonseca 1996) have also been suggested as a means for achieving better compliance. By improving compliance, not only would outcomes for compensatory habitat creation be improved, it may act as an adequate deterrent if the costs associated with meeting compensation requirements outweighed those of avoiding the wetland in the first place.…”

Planning aquatic ecosystem restoration monitoring programs

“…This program has produced a guidance document on monitoring of CWPPRA projects in Louisiana. The Wetlands Research Program implemented by the EPA Corvallis Research Laboratory has based much of its research on the premise that in order to create and restore wetlands, a comprehensive program is needed to understand the ecological functions of wetlands (Kentula et al 1992b). Kentula et al stated that "efforts to evaluate success of wetland restoration and creation projects have been complicated by a lack of stated project goals and by a lack of agreement on what constitutes success.''…”

“…Many programs have been ineffective in assessing performance of the restored system (NRC 1992; Kentula et al 1992b). There is an urgent need to develop a more systematic approach to monitoring restored systems to provide data that can be used to judge the progress of the restored system toward project goals and to assist in the management and maintenance of the system.…”

Marsh and Riparian Habitat Compensation in the Fraser River Estuary: A Guide for Managers and Practitioners

“…23 This lack of baseline data limits the ability to evaluate the success or failure of a project, and to conclude if no-net-loss/offsetting has been effectively achieved. 19,30,[47][48][49] It is recommended that quantitative, pre-impact assessment surveys be conducted prior to any habitat disturbance, and that inventory methods be repeatable during postconstruction monitoring to enable comparability of data. …”

“…Quantitative baseline data improves the ability to assess the success or failure of a project, and to conclude if no-net-loss/offsetting has been effectively achieved. 19,30,[47][48][49] For quantitative riparian habitat assessment methods please refer to Appendix I -Methods or to the methods section of Lievesley and Stewart (2016). …”