Wetlands

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 28–36 | Cite as

Effects of section 404 permitting on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi

  • Jean C. Sifneos
  • Edwin W. Cake
  • Mary E. Kentula
Article

Abstract

Information was complied on permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for alteration of freshwater wetlands from January 1982-August 1987 in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. The location, area, wetland type, and other data describing the impacted and compensatory (i.e., created, restored, and preserved) wetlands were compiled and analyzed. Trends in Louisiana, the state with the most permits issued, were emphasized, and a synopsis of the results from Alabama and Mississippi is presented for comparison. The objective of the study was to uncover patterns and trends in Section 404 permitting in the three states to document the effects of the permit decisions. Only the information contained in the permit record was compiled and analyzed. No judgment was made concerning compliance with the terms of the permits or whether the compensatory wetland replaced the ecological functions of the wetland destroyed. Neither could be determined from the permit record. In Louisiana, 226 permits were issued, resulting in a potential loss of over 10,000 hectares of primarily forested wetlands. Compensatory mitigation was required in 93 permits (41%); however, only 8% of the total area impacted by all permits issued was compensated. Over 50% of the wetlands impacted were less than or equal to 4 hectares in size. Permitted activities occurred throughout Louisiana, but the majority were located along the Gulf coast and the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Food chain support and wildlife habitat were the most commonly listed impacted functions in the permit record. Specific objectives for the mitigation projects were not documented. Only 10% of the compensatory wetlands were monitored by at least one site visit. The Section 404 permitting program could be evaluated more effectively if record-keeping was standardized. The accuracy and thoroughness of this report was affected by poor record-keeping and inconcise permit language. Requirements for follow-up monitoring and increasing the specificity of the information contained in the permits would provide information on the impacts to wetlands and their functions to be considered in future permit decisions.

Key Words

freshwater wetlands Section 404 mitigation Clean Water Act Louisiana Alabama Mississippi 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Adamus, P. R., E. J. Clairain, Jr., R. D. Smith, and R. E. Young. 1987. Vetland evaluation technique (WET), Vol. II: methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, MS, USA. Operational Draft TRY-87.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R. P. 1989. Monitoring wetlands. p. 289–299.In S. K. Majumdar, R. P. Brooks, F. J. Brenner, and R. W. Tiner, Jr. (eds.) Wetlands Ecology and Conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31.Google Scholar
  4. Hefner, J. M. and J. D. Brown. 1985. Wetland trends in the Southeastern United States. Wetlands 4:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holland, C. C. and M. E. Kentula. In press. Impacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation on wetlands in California. Wetlands Ecology and Management.Google Scholar
  6. Kentula, M. E., J. C. Sifneos, J. W. Good, M. Rylko, and K. Kunz. 1992. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting in Oregon and Washington. Environmental Management 16: (in press).Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Mager, A., Jr. and R. Ruebsamen. 1988. National Marine Fisheries Service habitat conservation efforts in the coastal Southeastern United States for 1987. Marine Fisheries Review 50(3):43–50.Google Scholar
  9. McDonald, P. O., W. E. Frayer, and J. K. Clauser. 1979. Documentation, chronology, and future projections of bottomland hardwood habitat loss in the lower Mississippi alluvial plain. Vol. 1, Basic report. HRB-Singer, Inc., State College, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. National Research Council. 1982. Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Habitat. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Quammen, M. L. 1986. Measuring the success of wetlands mitigation. National Wetlands Newsletter 8(5):6–8.Google Scholar
  12. Race, M. S. 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the United States based on analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Management 9:71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America’s wetlands: an action agenda: the final report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Turner, R. E. and N. J. Craig. 1981. Recent areal changes in Louisiana’s forested wetland habitat. Louisiana Academy of Science 43: 61–68.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures. ESM 102. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. Wetlands. The Corps of Engineers’ administration of the Section 404 program. Washington, DC, USA. GAO/RCED-88-110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean C. Sifneos
    • 1
  • Edwin W. Cake
    • 2
  • Mary E. Kentula
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Research LaboratoryManTech Environmental Technology Inc. U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCorvallis
  2. 2.Gulf Environmental AssociatesOcean Springs
  3. 3.Environmental Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCorvallis

Personalised recommendations