Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 15–33 | Cite as

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

  • Palmer Hough
  • Morgan Robertson
Original Paper

Abstract

The requirement to mitigate impacts to wetlands and streams is a frequently misunderstood policy with a long and complicated history. We narrate the history of mitigation since the inception of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program in 1972, through struggles between the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Army Corps of Engineers, through the emerging importance of wetland conservation on the American political landscape, and through the rise of market-based approaches to environmental policy. Mitigation, as it is understood today, was not initially foreseen as a component of the Section 404 permitting program, but was adapted from 1978 regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality as a way of replacing the functions of filled wetlands where permit denials were unlikely. EPA and the Corps agreed in 1990 to define mitigation as the three steps of avoidance, minimization, and compensation, principles which must be applied to permit decisions in the form of the environmental criteria in EPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the compensation component of mitigation has become nearly the sole focus of mitigation policy development, and has been the subject of numerous guidance documents and memoranda since 1990. Avoidance and minimization have received far less policy attention, and this lack of policy development may represent a missed opportunity to implement effective wetland conservation.

Keywords

Wetland mitigation Compensation Wetland policy Clean Water Act Wetland banking 404 Permit program 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully recognize the invaluable guidance and contributions of Bill Kruczynski of EPA Region 4, Matt Schweisberg of EPA Region 1, David Olson of Corps Regulatory Headquarters, former EPA HQ Wetlands Division Directors Dave Davis and John Meaghar, and former EPA HQ Wetlands Regulatory Branch Chief John Goodin. This research was conducted in part with assistance from a fellowship from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

References

  1. Baldwin MF (1985) Establishing a wetland protection system under EPA’s wetland protection and review authorities: a concept paper prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, March 1985. EPA contract No. 68-01-6558, Subcontract No. 130.164. Baldwin Associates, Great Falls, VA, 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrows DB (1986) Mitigation in the Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program. National Wetlands Newsl 8(5):11–12Google Scholar
  3. Blumm MC, Zaleha DB (1989) Federal wetlands protection under the Clean Water Act: regulatory ambivalence, intergovernmental tension, and a call for reform. Univ Colo Law Rev 60:695–772Google Scholar
  4. Brinson MM (1996) Assessing wetland functions using HGM. National Wetlands Newsl 18(1):10–21Google Scholar
  5. Brown JD (1989) Wetlands mitigation: US Fish and Wildlife Service policy and perspectives. In: Sharitz RR, Gibbons JW (eds) Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. USDOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge, pp 861–868Google Scholar
  6. Brumbaugh RW, Reppert R (1994) National wetland mitigation banking study: first phase report. Report IWR 94-WMB-4. US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  7. CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] (1978) National environmental policy act––regulations: implementation of procedural provisions. Fed Regist 43:55977–56007Google Scholar
  8. Ciupek RB (1986) Protecting wetlands under Clean Water Act Section 404: EPA’s conservative policy on mitigation. National Wetlands Newsl 8(5):12–13Google Scholar
  9. Conservation Foundation (1988) Protecting America’s wetlands: an action agenda. The final report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. The Conservation Foundation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1968) Part 209––administrative procedure: revision of Part. Fed Regist 33:18670–18693Google Scholar
  11. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1973) Permits for activities in navigable waters or ocean waters. Fed Regist 38:12217–12230Google Scholar
  12. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1982) Interim Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Fed Regist 47:31794–31834Google Scholar
  13. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1983) Proposal to amend permit regulations for controlling certain activities in waters of the United States. Fed Regist 48:21466–21476Google Scholar
  14. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1984a) Proposal to amend permit regulations for controlling certain activities in waters of the United States. Fed Regist 49:12660–12664Google Scholar
  15. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1984b) EPA’s role in determining compliance with sec 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Regulatory Guidance Letter 84–06, issued 26 March 1984, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1985) Implementation of Fish & Wildlife mitigation in the Corps of Engineers regulatory program. Regulatory Guidance Letter 85-08, issued 11 November 1985, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1986) Final rule for regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers. Fed Regist 51:41206–41260Google Scholar
  18. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (1991) Final rule for nationwide permit program regulations and issue, reissue and modify nationwide permits. Fed Regist 56:59109–59147Google Scholar
  19. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (2003) Memorandum to the field: model “Operational guidelines for creating or restoring wetlands that are ecologically self-sustaining” 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. http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/nas404program.pdf. Cited 10 May 2007
  20. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (2006) Draft environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact, and regulatory analysis for proposed compensatory mitigation regulation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] (2007) Reissuance of nationwide permits. Fed Regist 72:11092–11198Google Scholar
  22. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1989) Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the determination of the Section 404 Program and the application of the exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act. Signed 19 January 1989, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1990) Memorandum of Agreement Between The Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency: The Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Signed 6 February 1990, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2002) Guidance on compensatory mitigation projects 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. Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-2, issued 24 December 2002, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2003) Multi-agency compensatory mitigation plan checklist. http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/checklist.pdf. Cited 10 May 2007
  26. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2008) Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. Fed Regist 73:19594–19705Google Scholar
  27. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], FWS [US Fish and Wildlife Service] (1967) Memorandum of Agreement between Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor and Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall. 13 July 1967, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1995) Federal guidance for the establishment, use and operation of mitigation banks. Federal Register 60:58605–58614Google Scholar
  29. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2000) Federal guidance on the use of in-lieu-fee arrangements for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers Harbors Act. Signed 26 May 2000, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers], US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Transportation, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (2002) National Mitigation Action Plan. Issued 24 December 2002. http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/map1226withsign.pdf. Cited 10 May 2007
  31. Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. USFWS Office of Biological Services, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Dahl TE (1990) Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  33. DPC [Domestic Policy Council Task Force on Wetlands] (1991) President’s implementation plan. White House Domestic Policy Council, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  34. ELI [Environmental Law Institute] (2007) Mitigation of impacts to fish and wildlife habitat: estimating costs and identifying opportunities. ELI, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  35. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1975) Part 230––Navigable waters: discharge of dredged or fill material. Fed Regist 40:41291–41298Google Scholar
  36. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1980) Guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material. Fed Regist 45:85336–85357Google Scholar
  37. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1982) Guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material. Fed Regist 47:36797–36799Google Scholar
  38. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1985) Notes from conference call, 3/5/1985. EPA Wetlands Division Mitigation Library file “1985 Prioritization Concept Paper”, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  39. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1986) Final determination of the Assistant Administrator for External Affairs concerning the Sweedens Swamp site in Attleboro, Massachusetts pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. Signed 13 May 1986. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/404c.html. Cited 8 April 2007
  40. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1992) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines; revisions regarding sequencing based on a categorization scheme. Fed Regist 57:52056Google Scholar
  41. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (1994) Exception from wetlands mitigation sequence for Alaska. Fed Regist 59:26162–26167Google Scholar
  42. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency]. n.d. Clean Water Action Plan mitigation study, tab 4: proposed scope of study to evaluate the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation options in achieving no net loss. EPA Wetlands Division Mitigation Library file “Clean Water Action Plan”, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  43. EPA OPPE [US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and Policy Evaluation] (1991) Market-based approach for wetland regulation. Unsigned memo, dated 1 August 1991Google Scholar
  44. Erwin KL (1991) An evaluation of wetland mitigation in the South Florida Water Management District, vol 1. Methodology. SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FLGoogle Scholar
  45. Frayer WE, Monahan TJ, Bowden DC, Graybill FA (1983) Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States, 1950’s to 1970’s. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  46. FWS [US Fish and Wildlife Service] (1981) US Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation policy; notice of final policy. Fed Regist 46:7644–7663Google Scholar
  47. FWS [US Fish, Wildlife Service] (1983) Interim guidance on mitigation banking. Ecological services instructional memorandum No. 80. USFWS, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  48. GAO [US General Accounting Office] (1988) Wetlands: the Corps of Engineers’ administration of the Section 404 program. Report GAO/RCED-88-110. GAO, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. GAO [US General Accounting Office] (2001) Assessments needed to determine effectiveness of in-lieu-fee mitigation. Report GAO-01-325. GAO, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  50. GAO [US Government Accountability Office] (2005) Corps of Engineers does not have an effective oversight approach to ensure that compensatory mitigation is occurring. Report GAO-05-898. GAO, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Gardner RC (2000) Money for nothing?: the rise of wetland fee mitigation. VA Environ Law J 19:1–56Google Scholar
  52. Glubiak PG, Nowka RH, Mitsch WJ (1986) Federal and state management of inland wetlands: are states ready to assume control? Environ Manage 10:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Goldstein J (1991) Introduction. In: Heimlich RE (ed) A national policy of “no net loss” of wetlands: what do agricultural economists have to contribute? USDA Economic Research Service, Resources and Technology Division, Washington DC, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  54. Hall JR (1988) A perspective on influencing the Corps of Engineers. In: Kusler JA (ed) Mitigation of impacts and losses. ASWM, Berne, pp 60–65Google Scholar
  55. Heinen ET (1985) Letter from ET Heinen, EPA Region 4, to J Cooper, EPA Assistant Administrator for External Affairs. 1 May 1985, 8 ppGoogle Scholar
  56. Houck OA (1989) Hard choices: the analysis of alternatives under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and similar environmental laws. Univ Colo Law Rev 60:773–840Google Scholar
  57. Houck OA, Rolland M (1995) Federalism in wetlands regulation: a consideration of delegation of Clean Water Act Section 404 and related programs to the states. Maryland Law Rev 54:1242–1314Google Scholar
  58. Kantor RA, Charette DJ (1988) Origin, evolution, and results of New Jersey’s wetlands mitigation policy. In: Kusler JA (ed) Mitigation of impacts and losses. ASWM, Berne, pp 103–105Google Scholar
  59. Kelly P (1989) Memorandum: permit elevation, Plantation Landing Resort, Inc. Signed 21 April 1989. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC, 15 pp. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/PlantationLandingRGL.pdf
  60. Kruczynski WL (1990) Mitigation and the Section 404 program: a perspective. In: Kusler JA, Kentula ME (eds) Wetlands creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 549–554Google Scholar
  61. Kusler JA, Groman H (1986) Mitigation: an introduction. National Wetlands Newsl 8(5):2–3Google Scholar
  62. Kusler JA, Kentula ME (1990) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  63. LaRoe ET (1986) Wetland habitat mitigation: an historical overview. National Wetlands Newsl 8(5):8–10Google Scholar
  64. Liebesman LR (1984) The role of EPA’s guidelines in the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program––judicial interpretation and administrative application. Environ Law Rep 14:10272–10278Google Scholar
  65. Mack JJ, Micacchion M (2006) An ecological assessment of Ohio mitigation banks: vegetation, amphibians, hydrology and soils. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2006-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus OHGoogle Scholar
  66. McChesney FL (1983) Corps recasts Section 404 permit program, braces for political, legal skirmishes. Environ Law Rep 13:10128–10134Google Scholar
  67. NRC [National Research Council] (1992) Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  68. NRC [National Research Council] (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  69. Page RW (1988) Letter from RW Page, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), to J Duffus III, Government Accounting Office. 9 June 1988, 19 ppGoogle Scholar
  70. Race MS, Christie DR (1982) Coastal zone development: mitigation, marsh creation, and decision-making. Environ Manage 6:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Race MS, Fonseca MS (1996) Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecol Appl 6:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT (2007) An evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation banking in Florida: ecological success and compliance with permit criteria. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/docs/mitigation/Final_Report.pdf
  73. Robertson M (2006) Emerging ecosystem service markets: trends in a decade of entrepreneurial wetland banking. Front Ecol Environ 6:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Robertson M, Hayden N (2008) Evaluation of a market in wetland credits: entrepreneurial wetland banking in Chicago, USA. Conserv Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  75. Ruhl JB, Salzman J (2006) The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people. National Wetlands Newsl 28(2):1, 9–14Google Scholar
  76. Shabman LA, Scodari P, King DM (1994) National wetland mitigation banking study: expanding opportunities for successful mitigation: The Private Credit Market Alternative. Report IWR 94-WMB-3. US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria VAGoogle Scholar
  77. Soileau DM (1984) Final report on the Tenneco Laterre Corporation mitigation banking proposal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Lafayette, LAGoogle Scholar
  78. Spieles D (2005) Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. USGPO [United States Government Printing Office] (1989) Congressional record of the 101st congress, vol 135, part 20 (11/8/89 to 11/15/89). GPO, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  80. Webb JW, Landin MC, Allen HH (1986) Approaches and techniques for wetlands development and restoration of dredged material disposal sites. In: Kusler JA, Quammen ML, Brooks RP (eds) Mitigation of impacts and losses. ASWM, Berne, pp 132–134Google Scholar
  81. WHOEP [White House Office on Environmental Policy] (1993) Protecting America’s wetlands: a fair, flexible and effective approach. The White House, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  82. WHOPS [White House Office of the Press Secretary] (1991) Fact sheet: protecting America’s wetlands. The White House, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilkinson J, Thompson J (2006) 2005 Status report on compensatory mitigation in the United States. Environmental Law Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  84. Wood LD (2004) Don’t be misled: CWA jurisdiction extends to all non-navigable tributaries of the traditional navigable waters and to their adjacent wetlands (a response to the Virginia Albrecht/Stephen Nicklesburg ELR article, to the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Re Needham, and to the Supreme Court’s dicta in SWANCC). Environ Law Report 34:10187–10217Google Scholar
  85. Yocom TG, Leidy RA, Morris CA (1989) Wetlands protection through impact avoidance: a discussion of the 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. Wetlands 9:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Water, Wetlands DivisionUS Environmental Protection AgencyWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations