Trends and Patterns in Section 404 Permitting
Requiring Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon and
Washington, USA
MARY E. KENTULA*
US Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333, USA
JEAN C. SIFNEOS
ManTech Environmental Technology Inc.
US EPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333, USA
JAMES W. GOOD
College of Oceanography
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
MICHAEL RYLKO
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101, USA
KATHY KUNZ
US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Environmental Resources Section Branch
PO Box C3755
Seattle, Washington 98504, USA
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-Janu-
ary 1987) and Washington (1980-1986). 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 Engi-
neers 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 wet-
lands and the creation of 52. The total area of wetland im-
pacted was 61 ha while 45 ha were created, resulting in a
net loss of 16 ha or 26%. In both states, the number of per-
mits 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 fre-
quently. The wetland types created most often were not al-
ways 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 re-
source managers and scientists from other areas, develop-
ment of an up-to-date standardized data base is recom-
mended.
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, pp. 109-119
views these requests as part of its oversight responsibil-
ities. 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 infor-
mation 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
-------
110
M. E. Kentula and others
initiated as concern about wetland destruction has
grown (e.g., Office of Technology Assessment 1984,
Prayer and others 1983, Tiner 1984, Feierabend and
Zelazny 1987). All report that over half the wetland
area present in presettlement times in the conterminous
United States has been lost.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the major reg-
ulatory statute for federal protection of wetlands. Be-
cause of the current concern about wedand loss, it is
important to document how the 404 permitting process
is affecting the status of the resource. In 1980, the Na-
tional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) began such an
effort by documenting how their recommendations in-
fluenced the permitting process and, ultimately, con-
tributed to the protection of fisheries habitat (Lindall
and Thayer 1982). After examining a sample of the
permit record from its southeast region for October
1981-1985 and again for 1987, NMFS concluded it had
been only partially effective in getting its conservation
recommendations included in permits (Mager and
Thayer 1986, Mager and Ruebsamen 1988). Moreover,
they noted that the cumulative acreage associated with
numerous small projects was considerable and that
more information was needed on the kinds of habitat
involved so that trends in alteration by habitat type
could be tracked.
A study by Stockton and Richardson (1987) analyzed
trends in wetland conversion on the coast of North
Carolina from 1970 to 1984 authorized under Section
404, and the State's Coastal Area Management Act and
Dredge and Fill Law. They showed that about 2% of the
area of salt marsh wetlands was altered under these
programs. However, since normal, ongoing agricultural
and forestry practices are exempt under these laws,
their impact on wetlands were not included in the in-
formation compiled.
Additional studies are needed to completely charac-
terize how the 404 program is affecting the status of
wetlands. Consequently, EPA initiated an effort to com-
pile the 404 permit record in different regions of the
country and to describe the patterns and trends in per-
mitting activity. This report is the first in a series that
examine the permit record. It focuses on permits re-
quiring compensatory mitigation, i.e., creation, restora-
tion, or enhancement, as restitution for wetland fill pro-
jects. Gains and losses in the numbers and area of wet-
land types are reported. How these permit decisions
affected the wetland resource in the region is discussed.
Methods
Information was compiled on 404 permits issued for
wetland alteration in Oregon (January 1977 through
Table 1. Correspondence between US Fish and
Wildlife Service's (FWS) Wetland Classification System
(Cowardin and others 1979) and the wetland names
used in this report8
FWS classification
Names used
in this report
Estuarine intertidal aquatic bed
Estuarine intertidal
emergent wetland
Estuarine intertidal reef
Estuarine intertidal rocky shore
Estuarine intertidal
unconsolidated shore
Estuarine subtidal aquatic bed
Estuarine subtidal reef
Estuarine subtidal
unconsolidated bottom
Lacustrine littoral aquatic bed
Lacustrine littoral
emergent wedand
Lacustrine littoral rocky shore
Lacustrine littoral
unconsolidated bottom
Lacustrine littoral unconsolidated shore
Palustrine aquatic bed
Palustrine emergent wetland
Palustrine forested wetland
Palustrine scrub-shrub
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom
Riverine intermittent streambed
Riverine lower perennial
emergent wedand
Riverine lower perennial
unconsolidated bottom
Riverine lower perennial
unconsolidated shore
Riverine tidal aquatic bed
Riverine tidal emergent weUand
Riverine tidal
unconsolidated bottom
Riverine tidal
unconsolidated shore
Riverine upper perennial
aquatic bed
Riverine upper perennial
unconsolidated bottom
Intertidal seagrass bed
Salt marsh
Intertidal reef
Intertidal rocky shore
Intertidal flat
Subtidal seagrass bed
Subtidal reef
Subtidal flat
Lacustrine aquatic bed
Lacustrine marsh
Lacustrine rocky shore
Lacustrine bottom
Lacustrine shore
Palustrine aquatic bed
Freshwater marsh
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Pond
Intermittent streambed
Lower riverine marsh
Lower riverine bottom
Lower riverine shore
Tidal riverine aquatic bed
Tidal freshwater marsh
Tidal riverine bottom
Tidal riverine shore
Upper riverine aquatic bed
Upper riverine bottom
"Three esiuarine deepwater hahuals classified under the same system are also
included.
January 1987) and Washington (1980-1986) where
compensation was required. These permits represented
about 3% of the entire permit record in both states.
Data on the type of project permitted, wetland im-
pacted, and mitigation project were collected and ana-
lyzed. Wetlands were classified according to the US Fish
and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Wetland Classification Sys-
tem (Cowardin and others 1979). However, for the pur-
poses of this report, the names have been shortened
(Table 1).
The primary sources of information were the files of
-------
Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA
111
Table 2. Examples of questions that can be
answered by querying the 404 permit data base
What is the frequency of occurrence of:
impacts to and creations of specific wetland type(s)?
impacted and created wetlands in specific locations?
the type(s) of projects permitted?
the wetland functions impacted?
impacts to specific functions by wetland type?
specific objectives required for the wetland creation?
impacts and creations by size and location?
impacts and creations by size and wetland type?
What are the trends in time in the:
number of permits issued?
types of wetlands impacted and created?
location of permit activity?
types of projects being permitted?
objective(s) set for the wetland creation?
size of impacts permitted?
size of the mitigation projects required?
Other questions include:
What percent of the compensation was in kind?
How do the functions impacted compare with the goals
set for the created wetland(s)?
What percent of the created wetlands are found in the
same location (e.g., county, river basin) as the wetland
destroyed?
What percent of the created wetlands were monitored?
the Portland and Seattle district offices of the COE and
of EPA Region X. Included in these files were copies of
federal permit applications, site maps, extracts from re-
ports and environmental assessments, and resource
agency comments. Records at the Oregon Division of
State Lands, the agency that is a counterpart to the fed-
eral system, were also examined and cross-referenced
to COE's records. The official record, however, was in-
sufficient to provide the data desired. Therefore, infor-
mation in agency files was supplemented with inter-
views with state and federal agency staff involved with
each project, applicants or their attorneys or consult-
ants, and actual visits to the sites.
A computerized data base was created using a data
management system developed to store and retrieve in-
formation gathered for this study. After data were en-
tered and verified, the data base was queried using the
data management system. Table 2 lists examples of
questions that can be answered by this process.
Several error checks were performed to identify
missing information, typographical errors, outliers, cor-
respondence between files, unused fields, and irrele-
vant information. Emphasis was placed on the files and
fields to be used for querying. If any questions re-
mained after the error checks, the original data forms
were consulted.
Each wedand type and each discrete area of the same
wetland type that occurred at a site was treated as an
individual wedand in the analysis. For example, a fresh-
water marsh and a palustrine aquatic bed both found
on a site were counted as two wedands, as were two
individual freshwater marshes. This was necessary since
wetland complexes were seldom identified in the per-
mit record. Therefore, the definition of what consti-
tutes an individual wetland used in this paper is an ar-
tifact of the information available.
The analysis used the information contained in the
permit record. There was no judgement made as to
whether there was compliance with the terms of the
permit or whether the created wedand replaced the
ecological functions of the wetland destroyed. Neidier
can be determined from the permit recorddiey can
only be evaluated using field data.
Results
The analysis of the Oregon and Washington data
bases was designed to describe how 404 permit deci-
sions affect the wetland resource. It focused on docu-
menting the location of permit-related activity; the
types, sizes, and numbers of wetlands impacted and cre-
ated; the types of projects being permitted; and the
wetland functions impacted. Trends over time were
characterized. Finally, patterns and trends were exam-
ined to identify any compromises made (e.g., trades in
wetland types, differences in wedand area impacted
and created).
Oregon
The Oregon data base contained information on 58
permits issued from January 1977 through January
1987 that required compensatory mitigation. Impacts
to 82 wetlands and the creation of 80 were documented.
Only 47% of the mitigation projects were checked (i.e.,
had at least one site visit recorded in the permit record).
Most permitted activity (96%) was located west of the
Cascade Mountains (Figure 1). Ninety percent of the
impacted and created wetlands were associated wiuh the
coast, an estuary, or a navigable waterway. Fifty-six per-
cent were within 5 km of an urban area with a popula-
tion greater than 10,000 primarily Portland and Coos
Bay. All the created wetlands were located in the same
county, river basin, or waterbody as the associated im-
pacted wetlands.
Permitting affected 15 wetland types; 12 types were
impacted and 13 were created (Table 3). Freshwater
marshes were impacted and created most often. They
also experienced the greatest net loss in numbers and
area of wetlands. At the odier extreme, ponds ac-
counted for 23% of the number of wetlands created
-------
112
M. E. Kentula and others
LEGEND
Each dot represents one or more 404
permits issued per US Public Land
Survey Section
Figure 1. Locations of Section 404 permit activity requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon, January 1977January 1987.
and 19% of the area created, but none were impacted.
The largest net gain of wetland area was also in ponds.
For estuarine wetlands, the largest loss in numbers and
area of wetland was in subtidal flat, while the largest
gain was in salt marsh.
The majority of the permitted activity involved small
numbers and areas of wetlands (Figure 2). Sixty-six per-
cent of the wetland areas impacted and 68% of the ar-
eas created were =£0.40 ha. The area of wetland im-
pacted was 73.90 ha while 41.81 ha were created, re-
sulting in a net loss of 32.09 ha or 43% (Table 3).
Wetland alteration allowed by five permits accounted
for most of the loss. These permits collectively impacted
38.12 ha, but created only 6.23 ha. In the remaining 53
permits, the areas involved were smaller and permits
where more area was created than impacted helped to
offset the net loss.
Permits requiring wedand creation most often in-
volved road and highway construction (33%). Nonma-
rine commercial projects (e.g., shopping center, park-
ing lots) were second (19%). Moreover, road and high-
way construction was involved in projects that impacted
nine of the 11 wedand types destroyed and occurred in
ten of the 14 counties having permitted activity.
The wedand functions most often cited as being im-
pacted were, in descending frequency of occurrence,
wildlife and fisheries habitat, flood storage, food-chain
support, sediment trapping, and nutrient retention and
removal. Functional replacement was required in 66%
of the permits. Moreover, at least 50% of the permits
issued each year listed functional replacement as the
goal for the mitigation project. Other objectives fre-
quently mentioned were wildlife and fishery habitat
and food-chain support.
The number of permits issued that required mitiga-
tion in the form of wetland creation or restoration in-
creased from one in 1977 to 18 in 1987 (Table 4). Most
were issued since 1983, with 1983, 1985, and 1986 ac-
counting for 76% of the permits. The area impacted
each year was greater than or equal to the area created
from 1977 to 1984, but less than the area created in
1985 and 1986 (Table 4). Larger impacts and creations
occurred in the early years, while a trend to increased
numbers of smaller projects began in 1983.
-------
Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA
113
Table 3. Numbers and area by wetland type of
wetlands impacted (IMP) and created (CR) in Oregon
in 404 permits requiring wetland creation3
No. of
wetlands
Wetland type
Salt marsh
Intertidal reef
Intertidal flat
Subtidal flat
Freshwater marsh
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Pond
Intermittent streambed
Lower riverine marsh
Lower riverine bottom
Lower riverine shore
Tidal freshwater marsh
Tidal riverine shore
Upper riverine bottom
Totals
IMP
5
0
13
5
37
5
5
0
0
1
4
1
3
1
2
82
CR
11
1
11
1
28
2
1
18
1
0
1
1
3
0
1
80
Area
IMP
3.68
0.00
5.54
10.97
29.26
8.13
6.96
0.00
0.00
0.08
8.46
0.40
0.20
0.04
0.16
73.90
CR
9.87
0.08
3.40
0.08
14.29
2.67
0.24
8.09
0.32
0.00
0.12
2.23
0.28
0.00
0.12
41.81
Gain
or loss
in area
+ 6.19
+ 0.08
-2.14
- 10.89
- 14.97
-5.46
-6.72
+ 8.09
+ 0.32
-0.08
-8.34
+ 1.82
+ 0.08
-0.04
-0.04
-32.09
aArea is expressed as hectares. The original information was expressed as acres,
which was convened to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047.
The wetland area impacted tended to equal the area
created when the compensation required was in-kind
(i.e., the wetland created was the same type as impacted)
(Table 5). Of the 82 wetlands impacted, 50 (61%) were
compensated with the creation of the same wetland type
and resulted in a net gain of 0.61 ha. In the case of
freshwater marshes (the wetland type experiencing the
largest losses) when compensation was in-kind, there
was a gain of 0.45 ha. When compensation was out-of-
kind, there was a loss of 15.42 ha. Similar results were
obtained when the pattern was examined by permit.
Twenty-five permits (43%) required in-kind compensa-
tion and resulted in a net gain of 0.53 ha. Thirteen
permits (22%) involved out-of-kind compensation, and
resulted in a net loss of 10.60 ha. Twenty permits (34%)
involved both in-kind and out-of-kind compensation
and resulted in a net loss of 8.82 ha.
Washington
The Washington data base contained information
on 35 permits issued from 1980-1986 that required
compensatory mitigation. Impacts to 72 wetlands and
the creation of 52 were documented. Fifty-one percent
of the mitigation projects were inspected at least once.
Most of the permitted activity (96%) was located west
of the Cascade Mountains (Figure 3). Eighty-seven per-
cent of the impacted and created wetlands were associ-
ated with the coast, an estuary or a waterway, primarily
in Puget Sound. Sixty-six percent occurred within 5 km
of an urban area with a population greater than 5000.
The majority were in the vicinity of the Seattle/Tacoma
metropolitan area. All but one of the created wetlands
were located in the same county, waterbody, or river
basin as the associated impacted wetlands.
Permitted activity involved small numbers and areas
of wetlands (Figure 4). The median number of wet-
lands impacted per permit was two; created per permit,
one. The areas of 65% of the impacted wetlands and
59% of the created wetlands were =£0.40 ha. For all but
two of the size classes used in the analysis, the number
of created wetlands was less than or equal to the num-
ber of impacted wetlands. This suggests that the area of
the compensation tends to be less than or equal to the
area of the impact, as was the case for 78% of the per-
mits.
Permit decisions that required compensatory mitiga-
tion resulted in a net loss of 15.95 ha (Table 6). Eight of
these permits accounted for a loss of 15.05 ha, while two
permits accounted for a gain of 4.33 ha. Therefore, the
largest gains and losses of area were due to ten permits
(29%), while the remainder of the permits resulted in a
net loss of 5.22 ha.
Permitting affected 24 wetland types, 22 types were
impacted and 16 were created (Table 6). Estuarine and
palustrine wetlands were impacted and created most
frequently, accounting for 69% of the impacted and
76% of the created wedands. In terms of numbers of
wetlands, intertidal flats were impacted and created
most often. They were altered in seven out of 11 coun-
ties with permit activity but were created in only four,
indicating localized losses. Considering only inland
freshwater systems, the greatest loss in numbers was in
forested wedands. Permit decisions resulted in a net
gain of 9.71 ha of salt marsh. The largest wetlands de-
stroyed were freshwater marshes, and they also experi-
enced a net loss of 11.57 ha.
Construction of marinas, boat basins and docks, and
channel maintenance activities were responsible for the
majority of the permits requiring mitigation. These
types of projects impacted more wetland types and oc-
curred in more counties than any other types. After
these activities, projects involving road and highway
construction were permitted most often.
Functional replacement was listed most often as the
objective for the created wetlands. It was mentioned in
71% of the permits, followed by fish and wildlife habitat
and food-chain support.
Increased numbers of permits requiring compensa-
tion were issued over time (Table 7). The largest area of
wetland was impacted and created in 1984. In following
-------
114
M. E. Kentula and others
60
50
40
30
20
10
IMPACTED
CREATED
00
AREA (ha)
Figure 2. Comparison of the
sizes of wetlands impacted and
created due to Section 404
permits requiring
compensatory mitigation issued
in Oregon, January
1977-January 1987.
Table 4. Numbers and area of wetlands impacted (IMP) and created (CR) and numbers of wetland types
involved in 404 permits requiring wetland creation in Oregon, 1977-1986a
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Totals
No. of
permits
1
0
0
2
0
4
9
6
17
18
57
Impacted
No. of types
2
0
0
2
0
3
6
4
8
8
12
No. of wetlands
2
0
0
4
0
5
15
8
21
25
80
Created
No. of types
1
0
0
4
0
4
4
4
7
6
13
No. of wetlands
1
0
0
5
0
4
13
6
24
25
78
Area
IMP
10.52
0.00
0.00
10.77
0.00
7.69
14.37
3.93
6.23
14.81
68.31
CR
1.21
0.00
0.00
1.54
0.00
3.89
6.84
3.24
6.48
15.82
39.01
"Area is expressed as hectares. The original information was expressed as acres, which was converted to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047.
years there was an increase in the number of projects
less than or equal to 2.0 ha permitted.
Examination of the 32 permits with complete infor-
mation on area indicates that, whether compensation
was in-kind or out-of-kind, the result was a net loss in
wetland area (Table 8). In-kind compensation was re-
quired in 11 permits (34%), resulting in a net loss of
4.01 ha. Out-of-kind compensation was required in five
permits (16%), resulting in a net loss of 8.82 ha. A com-
bination of in-kind and out-of-kind compensation was
required in 16 permits (50%), resulting in a net loss of
8.82 ha. The largest loss with in-kind compensation was
11.01 ha of freshwater marsh; the largest gain was 8.30
ha of salt marsh. The largest loss with out-of-kind com-
pensation was 4.49 ha of subtidal flat; the largest gain
was 1.42 ha of salt marsh.
Indications of Compliance in Both States
Compensatory mitigation required in both states
tended to be completed within two years after the per-
mit was issued. Of the permits where the work was not
yet completed, 17 of 23 in Oregon and seven of 12 in
Washington were issued in 1985 or 1986, the final two
years covered by this study. If the pattern holds, most of
these wedands should have been created in 1987 and
1988. These results do not imply that the wetlands were
constructed or are functioning as planned or permitted,
merely that they exist.
-------
Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA
115
Table 5. Comparison by wetland type of wetland area impacted (IMP) and created (CR) when compensation
was in-kind (in-kind comp) and out-of-kind (out-of-kind comp) in Oregon3
Wetland type
In-kind comp
IMP
CR
Gain/loss
Out-of-kind comp
IMP CR
Gain/loss
Salt marsh
Intertidal reef
Intertidal flat
Subtidal flat
Freshwater marsh
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Pond
Intermittent streambed
Lower riverine marsh
Lower riverine bottom
Lower riverine shore
Tidal freshwater marsh
Tidal riverine shore
Upper riverine bottom
Totals
3.68
3.68
0.08
13.80
2.67
0.12
0.40
0.20
0.12
24.77
3.89
1.90
0.08
14.25
2.51
0.12
2.23
0.28
0.12
25.37
+ 0.20
-1.78
0.00
+ 0.45
-0.16
0.00
+ 1.82
+ 0.08
0.00
+ 0.61
0.00
0.00
1.86
10.89
15.46
5.46
6.96
0.00
0.00
0.08
8.34
0.04
0.04
49.13
5.99
0.08
1.50
0.00
0.04
0.16
0.24
8.09
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.43
+ 5.99
+ 0.08
-0.36
- 10.89
-15.42
-5.30
-6.72
+ 8.09
+ 0.32
-0.08
-8.34
-0.04
-0.04
-32.70
"Area is expressed in hectares. The original information was expressed as acres, which was converted to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047. Dashes
indicate no data.
Discussion
Trends in the Pacific Northwest
The number of permits requiring compensatory
mitigation in Oregon and Washington has increased
with time, resulting in increased numbers of wetlands
and wetland types being created. Permitted activity oc-
curred primarily west of the Cascade Mountains and in
the vicinity of urban centers. The created wetlands
tended to be located in the same county, river basin, or
waterbody as the associated impacted wetlands. How-
ever, because of differences in the wetland types im-
pacted and created, local gains and losses of certain
types occurred. For example, in Washington, intertidal
flats were created in four of the seven counties where
they were impacted; in Oregon 23% of the wetlands
created were ponds, but no ponds were impacted. Ex-
amination of the National Wetland Inventory maps for
the Willamette Valley, Oregon, where most of the
ponds were constructed, revealed that ponds were not a
wetland type typical of the region. The only ponds
found were associated with the major water courses,
and, therefore, were subject to yearly flooding. The cre-
ated ponds were typically isolated hydrologically from
the river. This local pattern of increase in ponds was
reflective of the national gain in area of ponds between
the mid-1950s and mid-1970s (Tiner 1984). The poten-
tial ecological effects of these exchanges cannot be eval-
uated with the data from this study. However, it is im-
portant for resource managers to be aware that such
trades are being made so that losses of wetland function
in the landscape are prevented.
More than half of the wetlands impacted and created
were =£0.40 ha in size. Information from EPA regional
personnel evaluating requests for proposals suggests
that this may be a nationwide pattern (Zedler and Ken-
tula 1986). Similarly, Lindall and Thayer (1982) ex-
pressed concern over the considerable cumulative acre-
age associated with numerous small projects in the
Southeast. The possible cumulative effects of these nu-
merous small projects should be evaluated.
Effectiveness of 404 in Protecting the
Wetland Resource
Impacts of permit decisions requiring compensatory
mitigation on the wetland resource should be evaluated
both in terms of the numbers and the area of wetlands
created and destroyed. In the Pacific Northwest, differ-
ent conclusions were reached about the consequences
of permit decisions involving compensatory mitigation
depending on what data were examined. In Washing-
ton, the greatest loss in numbers of wetlands was of
forested wetlands; in Oregon, freshwater marshes. The
region lost more area of freshwater marsh than any
other type of wetland. There was also a net increase in
area of salt marsh due to creation, while there was a net
-------
116
M. E. Kentula and others
Each dot represents one or more 404
permits issued per US Public Land
Survey Section
Seattle Tacoma metropolitan area
Puget Sound
1980 - 1986
Map not to scale
Figure 3. Locations of Section 404 permit activity requiring compensatory mitigation in Washington, 19801986.
CKXS0.5 0.5
-------
Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA
117
Table 6. Numbers and area by wetland type of
wetlands impacted (IMP) and created (CR) in
Washington in 404 permits requiring wetland creation3
No. of
wetlands
Wetland type
Intertidal seagrass bed
Salt marsh
Intertidal reef
Intertidal rocky shore
Intertidal flat
Subtidal seagrass bed
Subtidal reef
Subtidal flat
Lacustrine aquatic bed
Lacustrine marsh
Lacustrine rocky shore
Lacustrine bottom
Lacustrine shore
Palustrine aquatic bed
Freshwater marsh
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Pond
Tidal riverine aquatic bed
Tidal freshwater marsh
Tidal riverine bottom
Tidal riverine shore
Upper riverine aquatic bed
Upper riverine bottom
Totals
IMP
4
3
1
1
15
2
1
3
2
0
0
2
4
1
9
5
4
1
2
4
1
3
3
1
72
CR
4
5
1
4
12
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
2
0
8
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
49
Area
IMP
1.01
4.29
0.12
0.04
9.67
0.65
0.12
4.53
0.32
0.00
0.00
3.04
0.40
0.08
23.35
2.63
1.90
0.08
0.89
5.71
0.24
0.49
1.74
0.12
61.43
CR
1.86
14.00
0.28
1.17
6.35
0.12
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.81
0.16
2.95
0.45
0.00
11.78
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
2.23
0.00
1.05
2.19
0.00
45.49
Gain
or loss
in area
+ 0.85
+ 9.71
+ 0.16
+ 1.13
-3.32
-0.53
-0.12
-4.49
-0.32
+ 0.81
+ 0.16
-0.08
+ 0.04
-0.08
-11.57
-2.63
-1.86
-0.08
-0.89
-3.48
-0.24
+ 0.57
+ 0.45
-0.12
- 15.95
"Area is expressed as hectares. The original information was expressed as acres.
which was converted to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047.
permits that required compensatory mitigation resulted
in a net loss in numbers and area of wetlands. Conse-
quently, the majority of all 404 permits issued resulted
in a net loss of wetlands. However, to evaluate thor-
oughly the effect of Section 404 on the resource one
would also need to consider the wetlands protected by
avoidance and minimization of impacts as a result of the
permitting process. This information was not available.
It is also important to acknowledge that the 404 pro-
gram accounts for only part of the wetland loss and
creation occurring nationwide. Agricultural develop-
ment was responsible for 87% of recent national wet-
land losses and nearly all of the 8.5 x 10s ha of ponds
created (Tiner 1984). Therefore, the 404 program does
not regulate the principal cause of wetland loss and is
probably not the principal reason for wetland creation
in the nation.
Agency personnel need information on the ecologi-
cal functions of wetlands and how to assess them. Func-
tional replacement was listed as the goal for the wetland
creation in over 65% of the permits. It was often diffi-
cult to evaluate what functional replacement meant in
individual cases, because the functions of the wetland to
be destroyed were usually not elucidated or, when they
were, the basis for their being assigned to the wetland
was not documented. When documentation was pro-
vided in the permit file, functions most commonly listed
were provision of habitat for fish and wildlife, while
water quality and hydrologic functions were seldom
listed.
Factors Influencing PermittingAn Example
from Oregon
A trend in the Pacific Northwest to increased num-
bers of permits requiring wetland creation, especially
small projects, began in 1983 (Tables 4 and 7). Several
factors, inside and outside the permitting process, may
have contributed. In 1982 the Oregon Legislature es-
tablished a revolving fund for port development loans.
Tourism, much of it water based, was also increasing
steadily over the same time period. Furthermore, the
population was increasing in certain areas of the state
(E. Schafer, Center for Population Research, Pordand
State University, personal communication). Between
1983 and 1986 there was significant population growth
in areas that had permit activity requiring compensa-
tory mitigation.
Changes were also occurring in the 404 permitting
process that affected the management of wetlands.
During the 1980s there has been a gradual maturation
of the mitigation process, beginning with the adoption
of the first comprehensive mitigation policy by FWS in
1981 (Federal Register, V. 46, No. 15, at 7644). This
was followed in 1985 by the adoption of mitigation pol-
icies by COE and EPA Region X.
Attention to mitigation at the state level through the
Oregon Removal/Fill Law also contributed to increased
use of wetland creation and restoration as a manage-
ment tool (Good 1987, Quarterman 1985). Mitigation
became a statutory requirement for estuarine wetland
alterations in 1979; detailed implementing regulations
for estuaries were adopted in 1984. This was followed
in 1986 by state regulations that extended mitigation
authority to all wetlands and waters of the state, not just
estuaries. During the same period, local comprehensive
plans that included new wetland management provi-
sions were being adopted. Together these actions gave
developers direction about where development could
be located, how permits could be obtained, and what
mitigation was needed.
Conclusions
Examination of trends and patterns in the 404 per-
mit record can be useful in wetland management. Areas
of high permit activity can be identified, as can changes
-------
118
M. E. Kentula and others
Table 7. Numbers and area of wetlands impacted (IMP) and created (CR) and the numbers of wetland types
involved in 404 permits requiring wetland creation in Washington, 1980-1986a
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Totals
No. of
permits
1
1
3
5
9
6
9
34
Impacted
No. of types
3
3
7
4
9
10
14
22
No. of wetlands
3
3
8
7
15
13
22
71
Created
No. of types
2
1
2
4
11
5
7
16
No. of wetlands
2
1
4
4
18
8
15
52
Area
IMP
2.43
0.12
5.79
11.25
30.76
5.83
5.14
61.31
CR
0.20
0.16
2.47
6.11
30.07
1.05
5.42
45.49
aArea is expressed as hectares. The original information was expressed as acres, which was converted to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047.
Table 8. Comparison by wetland type of wetland area impacted (IMP) and created (CR) in Washington,
1980-1986, when compensation was in-kind (in-kind comp) and out-of-kind (out-of-kind compf
In-kind comp
Out-of-kind comp
Wetland type
Intertidal seagrass bed
Salt marsh
Intertidal reef
Intertidal rocky shore
Intertidal flat
Subtidal seagrass bed
Subtidal reef
Subtidal flat
Lacustrine aquatic bed
Lacustrine marsh
Lacustrine rocky shore
Lacustrine bottom
Lacustrine shore
Palustrine aquatic bed
Freshwater marsh
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Pond
Tidal riverine aquatic bed
Tidal freshwater marsh
Tidal riverine bottom
Tidal riverine shore
Upper riverine aquatic bed
Upper riverine bottom
Totals
IMP
0.69
4.29
0.12
5.34
0.16
3.04
0.12
22.46
0.28
5.46
0.32
1.66
43.95
CR
1.54
12.59
0.28
4.61
0.12
2.95
0.45
11.45
0.04
2.23
0.12
2.19
38.57
Gain/loss
+ 0.85
+ 8.30
+ 0.16
-0.73
-0.04
-0.08
+ 0.32
-11.01
-0.24
-3.24
-0.20
+ 0.53
-5.38
IMP
0.32
0.00
0.04
4.33
0.49
0.12
4.53
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.08
0.89
2.63
1.62
0.08
0.89
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.08
0.12
17.48
CR
0.32
1.42
1.17
1.74
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.81
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.00
0.00
6.92
Gain/loss
0.00
+ 1.42
+ 1.13
-2.59
-0.49
-0.12
-4.49
-0.32
+ 0.81
+ 0.16
-0.28
-0.08
-0.57
-2.63
-1.62
-0.08
-0.89
-0.24
-0.24
+ 0.77
-0.08
-0.12
-10.56
"Area is expressed as hectares. The original information \
indicate no data.
/as expressed as acres, which was converted to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047. Dashes
in the local wetland population due to the types, num-
bers, and area of wetlands being impacted and created.
Patterns in permit activity may be related to events
both inside and outside the permitting process. Factors
outside the process include efforts to stimulate devel-
opment and the economy and demographic trends.
Within the process, increased awareness of the permit-
ting system, definition of the use of compensatory mit-
igation, and clarification of land-use regulations may
affect the number of permit requests. Such information
-------
Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA
119
can help resource managers anticipate increased de-
mands on the resource and do a better job of protecting
it.
The process of gathering the information presented
in this article was very labor intensive. The readily avail-
able data were often either incomplete or of poor qual-
ity. For example, the extent of the permitted alteration
was often documented as volume of dredge or fill. Such
units are meaningless when trying to estimate area of
wetland impacted. Fishman Environmental Services
(1987) encountered similar difficulties in their evalua-
tion of estuarine mitigation in Oregon. Since analyses of
historic 404 permit information, such as the one pre-
sented here, would be useful to resource managers and
scientists across the nation, development of standard-
ized record-keeping procedures and maintenance of an
up-to-date data base are recommended.
Acknowledgments
The research described in this article has been
funded by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and conducted at EPA's Research Labo-
ratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through contract 68-C8-
0006 to ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.;
contract DW12932026 to the US Department of Agri-
culture, Extension Service; and contract 6Y0718NAEX
to the University of Washington. It has been subjected
to the agency's peer and administrative review and is
approved for publication.
We acknowledge those who assisted in this project.
Eric Preston, the EPA Project Officer, was supportive of
the effort and provided valuable advice. Jack L. Davis
produced the maps in Figures 1 and 3 and performed
the associated spatial analysis. Brooke Abbruzzese and
Paul Adamus provided information used in the discus-
sion. Stephanie Gwin assembled and checked the tables
and figures. Allan Hirsch, Lyndon Lee, Christopher
Onuf, Carol Savonen, and members of the EPA Wet-
lands Research Team reviewed the manuscript. We es-
pecially thank all those who contributed information to
the study. Without their cooperation, this report would
not have been possible.
Literature Cited
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washing-
ton, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp.
Feierabend, J. S., and J. M. Zelazny. 1987. Status report on
our nation's wetlands. National Wildlife Federation, Wash-
ington, DC, 46 pp.
Fishman Environmental Services. 1987. Estuarine mitigation
evaluation project: Final report. Internal Report: Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development and
Division of State Lands.
Frayer, W. E., T. J. Monahon, D. C. Bowden, and F. A. Gray-
bill. 1983. Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater hab-
itats in the conterminous United States, 1950's to 1970's.
Department of Forest and Wood Science, Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins, 32 pp.
Good, J. W. 1987. Mitigating estuarine development impacts
in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Environmental Journal
Lindall, W. N., Jr., and G. W. Thayer. 1982. Quantification of
National Marine Fisheries Service habitat conservation ef-
forts in the southeast region of the United States. Marine
Fisheries Review 44:18-22.
Mager, A., Jr., and R. Ruebsamen. 1988. National Marine
Fisheries Service habitat conservation efforts in the south-
eastern United States for 1987. Marine Fisheries Review
50:43-50.
Mager, A., Jr., and G. W. Thayer. 1986. National Marine Fish-
eries Service habitat conservation efforts in the southeast
region of the United States from 1981-1985. Marine Fish-
eries Review 48: 1-8.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Wetlands: Their use
and regulation. GPO Stock No. 052-003-00944-7. US Gov-
ernment Printing Office, Washington, DC, 208 pp.
Quarterman, P. J. 1985. Oregon's estuarine mitigation policy.
National Wetlands Newsletter 7(6): 8- 10.
Stockton, M. B., and C.J. Richardson. 1987. Wetland devel-
opment trends in coastal North Carolina, USA, from 1970
to 1984. Environmental Management 11:649-657.
Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current
status and recent trends. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Na-
tional Wetlands Inventory, Washington, DC, 55 pp.
Zedler, J. B., and M. E. Kentula. 1986. Wetlands research
plan. EPA/600/3-86/009. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon. NTIS Access. # PB86 158 656/AS, 1 18 pp.
------- |