Order Code 97-223
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits
Permits Program: Issues and Regulatory Developments
Updated November 17, 2008
Developments
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry DivisionDecember 28, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
97-223
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits
Program: Issues and Regulatory Developments
Program
Summary
Permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorize various types of
development development
projects in wetlands and other waters of the United States. The Corps’
regulatory process involves
two types of permits: general permits for actions by
private landowners that are similar in nature
and will likely have a minor effect on
wetlands, and individual permits for more significant
actions. The Corps uses
general permits to minimize the burden of its regulatory program: they authorize
authorize landowners to proceed with a project without the time-consuming need to obtain
standard individual permits in advance. About 90% of the Corps’ regulatory
workload is
processed in the form of general permits.
Nationwide permits are one type of general permit. Nationwide permits, which
currently number
49, are issued for five-year periods and thereafter must be renewed.
They were most recently
reissued in total in March 2007. The current nationwide
permit program has few strong
supporters, for differing reasons. Developers and
other industry groups say that it is too complex
and burdened with arbitrary
restrictions that limit opportunities for an efficient permitting process
and have little
environmental benefit. Environmentalists say that it does not adequately protect
aquatic resources, because the review procedures and permit requirements are less
rigorous than
those for individual or standard permits. At issue is whether the
program has become so complex
and expansive that it cannot either protect aquatic
resources or provide for a fair regulatory
system, which are its dual objectives. Controversies also exist about the use of specific
nationwide permits for authorizing particular types of activities, such as surface coal mining
operations.
In addition to general objections, interest groups have a number of specific
criticisms of the
permits, such as requirements that there must be compensatory
mitigation for impacts of some
authorized activities, impacts of regional conditioning
through which local aquatic considerations are addressed, concern that coal mining
activities authorized by these permits have significant adverse environmental
impacts,
are addressed, and the need to define “minimal adverse effects” for purposes of
implementing the
nationwide permit program. Coordinating implementation of the
nationwide permits between
federal and state governments also raises a number of
issues. Of particular concern to states is
tension over whether their authority to
certify the nationwide permits is sufficient to assure that
water quality standards or
coastal zone management plans will not be violated.
Congressional interest in wetlands permit regulatory programs has been evident
in the past in
oversight hearings and in connection with bills to fund the Corps’
regulatory programs. For some
time, there has been a stalemate over legislation that
would revise wetlands regulatory law and
that could, if enacted, modify the
nationwide permit program. During this time, no consensus has
emerged on whether
or how to reform overall wetlands policy legislatively. Congressional involvement
in these issues could arise again as a result of reissuance of the nationwide permits
in 2007.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Nationwide Permits: 1977-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Nationwide Permit 26: Background and Controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Replacement Permits for NWP 26 in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Lawsuits Challenging the Replacement Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reissuance of All Nationwide Permits in 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Permit Reissuance in 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Critiques by Stakeholder Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Specific Critiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
300 Linear-Foot Prohibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mitigation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Coal Mining Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fills Within the 100-Year Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other Issues Concerning Nationwide Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Regional Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
State Coordination Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Defining Minimal Adverse Effects, Assessing Cumulative Impacts . . 24
Congressional Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Army Corps of Engineers’
Nationwide Permits Program:
Issues and Regulatory Developments
Introduction
Federal laws require government approval prior to beginning any work in or
over waters of the United States that affects the course, location, condition, or
capacity of such waters, or prior to discharging dredged or fill material into U.S.
waters. Regulatory programs that implement these laws are administered through
permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), which shares
responsibility with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority
of the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
The Corps’ regulatory process involves two types of permits: general permits
for actions by private landowners that are similar in nature and will likely have a
minor effect on wetlands, and individual permits for more significant action. A
nationwide permit is a form of general permit that authorizes a category of activities
throughout the nation and is valid only if the conditions applicable to the permit are
met. These permits are issued under authority of Section 404(e) of the Clean Water
Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under Section 404,
permits are required for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States. Under Section 10, permits are required for any structures or other
work that affect the course, location, or condition of navigable waters of the United
States.
Nationwide permits, which currently number 49, are issued for five-year periods
and thereafter must be renewed. They were most recently reissued in total in March
2007. At issue in the nationwide permit program is the balance of two objectives:
providing regulatory protection to ensure minimal impacts on aquatic resources, and
providing a fair and efficient regulatory system. For several years, however, interest
groups of differing perspectives have criticized the program and increasingly
question whether either objective is being achieved, much less both objectives.
Stakeholders involved in this debate include, on the one hand, industry groups
(members of building — especially homebuilding — design, realtor, and petroleum
and mining organizations) and, on the other, environmental advocacy groups, along
with many state water quality, water resources, and environmental agencies.
Particularly under the Clean Water Act, the Corps’ regulatory authority is
broadly defined. It covers waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,
and includes traditionally navigable waterways capable of supporting interstate and
foreign commerce, plus their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands and isolated waters
CRS-2
where the use, degradation, or destruction of such waters could affect interstate or
foreign commerce.1 In fact, much of the public concern about the nationwide permit
program — with regard to impacts of authorized activities, and terms and conditions
intended to limit impacts — often focuses on permits for projects that affect the
nation’s wetlands. Controversies about the permit program are compounded by
disputes about the data on which the Corps bases its conclusions that adverse
environmental impacts of authorized activities are minimal. Critics, especially
environmental advocates, argue that the Corps’ data are dated (the most recent
available statistics are from 2003) and inaccurate, because the Corps lacks an
effective tracking and monitoring system for evaluating impacts.
The nationwide permit regulatory program has drawn Congress’s attention
several times in the past. In 1997, House and Senate committees held oversight
hearings to review several issues and controversies. In 1999 and again in 2000,
congressional appropriators directed the Corps to take certain actions concerning its
overall regulatory program, and nationwide permits in particular.
This report describes and reviews the nationwide permit program and discusses
several major issues that have drawn the attention of stakeholder interest groups,
including program complexity, coordination with states, and assessing cumulative
impacts of the program.
Background
General permits, including nationwide permits, are a key means by which the
Corps seeks to minimize the burden and delay of its regulatory program: they
authorize a landowner or developer to proceed with the covered activity without
having to obtain an individual, site-specific permit in advance. Individual permits
are subject to public notice, public hearing, and case-by-case evaluation which
typically involve longer time before the activity is authorized. General permits are
intended to allow certain activities to proceed with little delay or paperwork.
According to Corps data, in 2003, general permits entailed average processing time
of 24 days, in contrast with individual permits, which, on average, took 187 days of
processing and evaluation, once an application was completed. Approximately
74,000 activities per year (representing 92% of the Corps’ regulatory workload) were
authorized by nationwide and other general permits. The Corps acknowledges that
it does not have resources to evaluate all of these activities as individual permits.
General permits, including nationwide permits, authorize activities that usually
would be authorized through the individual permit process with little or no change
in the scope of the work.2 While more than half require advance notification to the
1
Debate about the jurisdictional reach of the Corps’ regulatory program has been a
controversial policy and judicial issue for some time. It is beyond the scope of this report,
but for additional information see CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues,
by Jeffrey Zinn and Claudia Copeland.
2
64 Federal Register 32268, July 21, 1999.
CRS-3
Corps for some or all covered activities, others only require after-the-fact
notification. The following are examples of nationwide permits:3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Placement of aids to navigation approved by, and installed according
to, U.S. Coast Guard requirements (nationwide permit 1);
Activities related to construction and maintenance of authorized
outfall structures and associated intake structures (nationwide permit
7);
Stream or river bank stabilization activities necessary to prevent
erosion (nationwide permit 13);
Minor dredging, that is, dredging of no more than 25 cubic yards of
material (nationwide permit 19);
Activities associated with restoration, enhancement, or
establishment of wetlands and riparian areas where the activities
result in net increase in aquatic resource functions and services
(nationwide permit 27);
Discharges of dredged or fill material for the construction or
expansion of residential developments (nationwide permit 29); and
Discharges for construction or expansion of recreational facilities
such as ski areas and golf courses (nationwide permit 42).
Many nationwide permits have specific conditions and terms (such as maximum
acreage limitations). In addition, a number of general conditions apply to some or
all nationwide permits; for example, no activity may cause more than a minimal
adverse effect on navigation; no activity may jeopardize a threatened or endangered
species; discharges into spawning areas and migratory waterfowl breeding areas must
be avoided, to the maximum extent practicable; and discharges of dredged or fill
material must be minimized or avoided through mitigation to offset more than
minimal impacts on the aquatic environment, to the maximum extent practicable.
The specific statutory authority for these permits is Section 404(e) of the Clean
Water Act.
In carrying out the functions relating to the discharge of dredged or fill material
under this section, the Secretary [of the Army] may, after notice and opportunity
for public hearing, issue general permits on a State, regional, or nationwide basis
for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged or fill material if
the Secretary determines that the activities in such category are similar in nature,
will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed
separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effect on the
environment.
Nationwide Permits: 1977-2002
The Corps first issued regulations for general permits in the mid-1970s, and
Congress codified the concept in amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1977 (P.L.
3
The full text of the current nationwide permits and related general conditions, issued in
March 2007, is available at [http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/
nationwide_permits.htm].
CRS-4
95-217). Nationwide and other general permits4 are valid only for a period of five
years, as is the case with other Clean Water Act permits. Thus, they were reissued
in 1982 and 1987. They were reissued as a group in November 1991, taking effect
in January 1992. Prior to 1991, the nationwide program involved little individualized
review of these permits, as the guiding criterion was that covered activities impose
so minimal an environmental impact that the full review given individual permits
was not warranted. In the 1991 revisions, however, district engineers were given
greater authority to modify, suspend, or revoke nationwide permits for specific
activities, and division engineers were authorized to exercise discretionary authority
to revoke applicability of specific nationwide permits in high value aquatic areas and
to then require individual permits for the activity. Further, preconstruction
notification (PCN) to the Corps was required for several of the nationwide permits,5
and when such notice is required, the applicant must provide a wetlands delineation,
as well. Advance notification is intended to give the Corps time to determine that the
adverse effects of the discharge or activity will be minimal. The district engineer
generally has 45 days to notify the person of approval to proceed or, instead, of the
need to obtain an individual permit before the applicant may proceed. Even with
those changes, the nationwide permits did not attract significant controversy when
they were reissued in 1991.
More attention and more controversy focused on the Corps’ process of reissuing
the permits in 1996, much of it centering on nationwide permit 26 (NWP 26). The
Corps had several substantive purposes behind modifying the permits at that time.
One was the need to better ensure that permits have minimal adverse effects,
especially on isolated wetland areas. A second was the need to better regionalize the
program, by emphasizing that Corps officials (38 district and 11 division engineers)
should condition nationwide permits on a local basis with limitations that reflect
differences in aquatic ecosystem functions and values that exist across the nation.
4
Section 404(e) of the act authorizes the Corps to promulgate general permits on a regional,
state, or nationwide basis. The Corps’ regulations authorize the issuance of general permits
on a regional (sub-state) or statewide basis by district or division engineers, rather than
headquarters, which issues the nationwide permits. The Corps uses the general permit
authority to authorize statewide general permits covering activities in states that are deemed
to have sufficient state regulatory authority. These statewide general permits (programmatic
general permits, or PGPs) are derived from an existing state, local, or other federal agency
program and are designed to avoid duplication with that program. They function as a
substitute for full state program authorization to administer the 404 program. Depending
on the core state program, state PGPs may encompass all wetlands regulation in a state,
certain waters only, or certain types of regulated activities. Once a PGP is approved, the
Corps suspends its permit activity in lieu of the authorized state or sub-state entity, although
the Corps retains the right to override the PGP and issue a federal permit in individual cases.
Thus, in addition to 49 nationwide permits, the Corps has authorized several hundred
regional general permits (RGPs) and more than 50 PGPs. Also, some activities qualify for
abbreviated permit processing with authorization by district engineers in the form of Letters
of Permission.
5
A PCN is a brief document that is intended to provide the Corps district engineer with
enough information to determine whether an activity is authorized by a nationwide permit.
Detailed studies or analyses are not required.
CRS-5
Nationwide Permit 26: Background and Controversies. Controversies
about the program are reflected especially in one of the nationwide permits,
nationwide permit 26, which authorized discharges in headwaters or isolated waters.
It had been added to the program in 1977 and expanded in 1982. Headwaters and
isolated waters are areas that many people have difficulty identifying as wetlands,
because they may appear dry for much of the year or lack the types of vegetation
commonly associated with wetlands. Yet they meet criteria developed by scientists
and wetland delineators of areas that are, in fact, wetlands (criteria concerning
characteristic hydrology, soil, and vegetation), and are increasingly recognized as
providing important functions within entire aquatic ecosystems.
Permit 26 had been controversial for several reasons. Unlike other nationwide
permits, it did not authorize specific activities, such as minor dredging or bank
stabilization. Instead, it authorized discharges to certain types of waters, based on
acreage and lack of hydrologic connection to navigable waters. Environmental
groups had long been concerned that this nationwide permit was overly broad, could
be abused by applicants through segmenting of projects, and could result in large
amounts of unmonitored wetland losses. Many believed that the permit was illegal,
because it violated the Clean Water Act’s requirement that activities covered by
nationwide permits are “similar in nature.” Environmental groups and other
protection advocates, including federal and state natural resource agencies, pressed
for repeal or modification of NWP 26.
Industry groups, including developers and landowners, viewed NWP 26 as an
important mechanism for minimizing regulatory burdens on small businesses and
other permit applicants. According to Corps’ statistics, residential development and
transportation activities were the major types of activities authorized by NWP 26.6
From the perspective of these groups, NWP 26 was valuable for much the same
reason that the permit was controversial with environmentalists: it authorized
discharges to types of waters and was not restricted to specific activities. Corps data
also indicated that 75% of all environmental impacts resulting from all of the
nationwide permits were authorized under this one permit.7
In 1996 the Corps re-issued NWP 26 but with modifications in two major
respects. First, it reduced the acreage limits to cover discharges to nontidal
headwaters and isolated waters no larger than 3 acres and to require advance
notification by the applicant if the discharge would affect a acre or more (compared
with 10-acre and 1-acre thresholds previously). Second, the Corps reissued this
permit only for two years, intending to replace NWP 26 with activity-based permits.
The Corps proposed permits to replace NWP 26 in July 1998, but it took until March
2000 for these permits to be finalized. NWP 26 remained in effect during that time.
Replacement Permits for NWP 26 in 2000. In March 2000, the Corps
issued several new activity-based permits to authorize specific categories of
6
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Proposal to Issue and Modify
Nationwide Permits,” 63 Federal Register 36041, July 1, 1998.
7
Presentation by Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
at the Environmental Law Institute, February 4, 1997.
CRS-6
activities, replacing the approach in NWP 26, which was based on acreage and
particular geographic types of waters (headwaters and isolated wetlands). The final
permits8 repealed NWP 26 entirely, authorized five specific activity-based permits
as replacements, modified several existing NWPs and general conditions, and added
two new general conditions. They became effective June 7, 2000. The five new
permits cover the following activities:
!
!
!
!
!
Residential, commercial, and institutional developments, including
construction of building pads, building foundations, and attendant
features (NWP 39).
Reshaping of existing serviceable drainage ditches constructed in
non-tidal waters in a manner that benefits the aquatic environment
or improves water quality (NWP 41).
Recreational facilities (facilities with low environmental impact such
as playgrounds, campgrounds, biking and hiking trails). This permit
may be used for the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that are integrated into the existing landscape (NWP 42).
Stormwater management facilities (such as stormwater management
ponds or detention basins) involving construction or maintenance of
such facilities (NWP 43).
Aggregate and hard rock mineral/mining activities with minimal
adverse effects on the aquatic environment (primarily commercial
sand, gravel, stone, and hard rock metals and minerals) (NWP 44).
All but the new permit for reshaping existing drainage ditches (NWP 41) were
limited to activities that do not cause the loss of greater than ½ acre of non-tidal
waters 9 (compared with the previous 3-acre maximum in NWP 26) or more than 300
linear feet of streambed. Even with that size limitation, several of these permits
require preconstruction notification to the Corps for impacts of greater than one-tenth
of an acre to ensure that any activity that potentially may have more than minimal
adverse effects on the aquatic environment is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Several of the new permits issued in 2000 (residential, commercial, and
institutional activities; recreational facilities; and stormwater management facilities)
required compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable losses of waters of the United
States. Compensatory mitigation may be provided through restoration, enhancement,
or creation of aquatic habitats; preservation of adjacent open or green space; land
trusts; or mitigation banks. A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands or other
aquatic resources have been restored, created, enhanced, or preserved to provide
compensatory mitigation in advance of the authorized impacts. The entity that
developed the mitigation bank provides these aquatic resources in return for payment
8
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Proposal to Issue and Modify
Nationwide Permits; Final Notice,” 65 Federal Register 12818, March 9, 2000.
9
“We have not imposed a ½ acre limit on NWP 41 because it only authorizes activities that
benefit the aquatic environment.” 65 Federal Register 12825.
CRS-7
from the permittee.10 Specific compensatory mitigation requirements are determined
by district engineers on a case-by-case basis, but the basic Corps concept was that
there should be a minimum requirement of an acre-for-acre (1:1) wetland
replacement as compensatory mitigation for all activities requiring preconstruction
notification. Greater than a 1:1 ratio can be required in some cases to adequately
replace aquatic resource functions and values lost as a result of NWP-authorized
activities.
The Corps also modified six existing permits in 2000 to increase the number of
activities authorized by them. For example, NWP 40 was expanded to authorize
certain discharges associated with agricultural activities which are necessary for
increasing agricultural production and constructing farm buildings. One of the goals
of NWP 40 is to reduce duplication between the Corps and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (which implements wetlands programs on agricultural lands
under federal farm law) and provide some regulatory relief to agricultural producers.
However, to ensure that authorized activities will have minimal adverse effects, like
other nationwide permits, NWP 40 restricts the types of agricultural activities and
sets acreage limits (in terms of discharges into wetlands) allowable under the permit.
Further, the Corps lowered the acreage limit for NWP 29, which authorizes
single-family housing activities, from ½ acre to ¼ acre in non-tidal waters — i.e.,
discharges associated with construction or expansion of a single-family home and
attendant features may not cause the loss of more than ¼ acre of non-tidal waters or
wetlands. This permit must be obtained by the person who will use the house as a
personal residence, not by contractors or developers who offer a house for sale upon
completion.
The new general conditions adopted in 2000 put limits on the use of nationwide
permits for projects within critical resource waters, and for permanent above-grade
wetland fills within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Critical resource waters are those designated as
having particular environmental or ecological significance (such as designated
marine sanctuaries and state natural heritage sites). Regarding the 100-year
floodplain, the Corps said it sought to ensure that the nationwide permit program
discourages further development that would reduce the flood storage capacity of the
floodplain, but not create undue constraints or costs on the regulated public, unless
necessary to improve the aquatic environment.
As with the previous nationwide permits, Corps officials retained the authority
to apply special conditions to use of any of the proposed new permits or even to
revoke use of specific permits in aquatic environments of particularly high value or
in specific geographic areas. Indeed, the Corps expected that its district and division
engineers would utilize a significant amount of regional conditioning to ensure
effective protection at the local level of wetlands and other water resources, because
aquatic resource functions and values vary considerably across the country and
10
63 Federal Register 36045, July 1, 1998.
CRS-8
cannot be imposed through more stringent national limitations (regional conditioning
cannot be used to make an NWP less restrictive).11
Lawsuits Challenging the Replacement Permits. Soon after the final
replacement and modified permits were published in 2000, several industry groups
challenged the permits in court. The lawsuits contended that the Corps exceeded its
authority by imposing broad restrictions through the NWP program and that the
program no longer is the streamlined permitting approach intended by Congress
when it authorized general permits in 1977. They also said that the Corps had not
considered impacts on small businesses. Industry petitioners wanted the Corps to reinstate NWP 26. However, the Corps has repeatedly said that, since NWP 26 expired
in 2000, this permit will not be reinstated.
The consolidated cases were initially dismissed by a federal district court in
2003. The court said it lacked jurisdiction, saying that a final agency action does not
take place until a project seeking to be covered by a nationwide permit has exhausted
all of its permitting options. In 2005, a federal appeals court partly reversed the
ruling and remanded the case to the district court. (National Association of Home
Builders v. Army Corps of Engineers (417 F.3d 1272 (DC Cir 2005)). The appeals
court said that the challenged permits constituted final action subject to judicial
review. This court also determined that nationwide permits are regulations for
purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act and, thus, are subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and other administrative requirements to assess impacts on small
businesses and unfunded mandates, and also are subject to requirements to prepare
environmental documentation and comply with the Congressional Review Act.
Previously, the Corps had taken the position that the nationwide permits do not
constitute regulations.
Upon remand of the case, the federal district court rejected the lawsuit for a
second time in 2006 (National Association of Home Builders v. Army Corps of
Engineers, 453 F.Supp. 2d 116 (DDC 2006)). The court ruled that the Corps had not
acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to the law in its issuance and reissuance of
nationwide permits, as the Corps had adequately explained its reasoning and had
acted within its authority.
Reissuance of All Nationwide Permits in 2002
In August 2001, with the approaching expiration of the 1996 nationwide
permits, the Corps proposed to reissue those and others that had been issued and
modified since 1996 (including the 2000 replacement permits for NWP 26) in order
to put all of the nationwide permits in the program on a unified five-year schedule.12
The proposals raised controversies and criticism from environmental advocates
and some other federal agencies, including EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Environmental groups said that the proposal would substantially weaken
11
12
65 Federal Register 12838.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Proposal to Reissue and Modify
Nationwide Permits,” 66 Federal Register 42069, August 9, 2001.
CRS-9
protection of the nation’s wetlands and streams. On the other hand, industry groups
said that the proposal involved only minor changes. These changes offered some
benefits, they said, but any such benefits are more than offset by problems with the
2000 replacement permits, which developers and other groups continued to oppose,
saying that the permits impose arbitrary and burdensome restrictions. Following a
public comment period that generated more than 2,100 comments, the nationwide
permits were reissued in January 2002, essentially as proposed, with an effective date
of March 18, 2002. The Corps’ action modified nine existing permits and six
existing general conditions and added one general condition.13
Permit Reissuance in 2007
Authorization for the 2002 NWPs expired in March 2007. In preparation for
that expiration, on September 26, 2006, the Corps published a proposal to reissue the
43 existing NWPs, with some modification, and to issue six new permits.14
Following a public comment period, the permits were reissued in March, essentially
as proposed, with an effective date of March 19, 2007.15 The reissued permits also
modified some of the general conditions and definitions that apply to nationwide
permits. The six new permits are:
!
Repair of Uplands Damaged by Discrete Events. This general
permit is intended to apply to activities for restoration of upland
areas that have been damaged by storms, floods, fire, or other
discrete events. The permit only authorizes activities to restore
damaged areas to previously existing conditions. (NWP 45)
!
Discharges in Ditches. This permit applies to discharges of dredged
or fill material into certain types of ditches and canals that are
constructed in upland areas, that receive water from another water
of the United States, and that divert water to another water of the
United States. The Corps argues that, with these limitations, the
types of ditches and canals covered by the permit are likely to affect
few aquatic resources, thus ensuring that the environmental impact
of the discharge is minimal. The permit is limited to discharges that
cause the loss of no more than one acre of waters of the United
States. (NWP 46)
!
Pipeline Safety Program Designated Time-Sensitive Inspections and
Repairs. This permit authorizes inspection, repair, rehabilitation, or
replacement of any currently serviceable structure or fill for
13
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Issuance of Nationwide Permits,” 67
Federal Register 2020, January 15, 2002.
14
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Proposal to Reissue and Modify
Nationwide Permits; Notice,” 71 Federal Register 56257, September 26, 2006.
15
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Reissuance of Nationwide Permits;
Notice,” 72 Federal Register 11091, March 12, 2007. A summary table, identifying changes
in the 2007 permits, is available at [http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/
NWP2007/PN-NWP07/NWP%20Table_2007_final.pdf].
CRS-10
pipelines that are time-sensitive, for example, following a pipeline
rupture and are done in accordance with Department of
Transportation procedures. The new permit would allow rapid
response when needed to reduce environmental impacts. No PCN
would be required. (NWP 47)
!
Existing Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities. This permit
authorizes structures or works in navigable waters, as well as
discharges into all waters of the United States for the continued
operation of existing commercial oyster, clam, geoduck, mussel or
scallop aquaculture operations. It does not apply to new projects or
expansion of existing ones and would not include operations that
raise crustaceans or finfish. (NWP 48)
!
Coal Remining Activities. This permit is intended to authorize
activities for the restoration of coal mine sites that are causing
physical and/or chemical impacts to water; many are likely to be
abandoned or closed sites. The permit would allow new mining,
either at the site or as part of a reclamation project, or together with
adjacent unmined areas, and would authorize related discharges of
dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United States.
There is no specific acreage limit for this permit, which would apply
only to activities already authorized under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act by the federal Office of Surface
Mining or qualified states. The applicant must demonstrate to the
Corps that the overall project, including the reclamation activity and
any new mining, will result in a net increase in aquatic resource
functions. (NWP 49)
!
Underground Coal Mining Activities. This permit authorizes a
number of different activities associated with underground coal
mining, such as excavating rock and soil on the surface in order to
expose coal seams; providing road access for people and equipment
to a site; and constructing acid mine drainage impoundments or
sedimentation ponds. It could be used to authorize permanent
structures or fills that would remain after reclamation of the site.
The permit authorizes discharges to non-tidal waters only. It would
not authorize coal preparation and processing activities outside the
mine site (but these could be authorized by NWP 21). Like NWP 21
(surface coal mining), no specific acreage limit applies. (NWP 50)
The reissued permits include modification of a number of the nationwide
permits. For example, previously two NWPs applied to construction of residential
developments: NWP 29, which authorized single unit residences (i.e., single family
homes; see page 7), and NWP 39, which authorized multiple unit residential
developments, as well as commercial and institutional developments. In 2007 the
Corps modified these permits so that NWP 39 now authorizes commercial and
institutional developments, and NWP 29 authorizes all types of residential
developments. The change in effect eliminates the previous NWP 29, which had a
¼-acre limit on authorized discharges. As reissued, the revised NWP 29 has the
CRS-11
same conditions as NWP 39: authorized discharges would be limited to impacts
affecting ½ acre of non-tidal waters and a 300-foot linear foot limit on the loss of a
stream bed. The Corps’ rationale for the changes to these two permits was that it is
inappropriate to establish different permits for single and multiple unit residential
developments, because impacts to the aquatic environment are determined by permit
conditions (such as the ½-acre limit), not the type of residential development.
Regarding the changes to NWP 39, the Corps argued that commercial developments
(e.g., retail stores, industrial facilities, and shopping centers) and institutional
structurets (e.g., schools, fire stations, hospitals, and places of worship) are different
from residential developments in a number of ways, such as different state and local
requirements concerning planning, zoning, and stormwater management. Therefore,
it is appropriate to group them in one permit (NWP 39) and to group residential
structures in a separate permit (NWP 29).
Both industry groups and environmental advocates criticized the modifications
to NWP 29. Industry groups, particularly homebuilders, objected to the fact that new
NWP 29 would require preconstruction notification (PCN) for all applications
(previously, NWP 29 required PCN for projects with certain impacts over one-tenth
of an acre), arguing that it is unclear why a PCN should be required for all activities,
regardless of size. Many single-unit projects that previously were not required to
submit a PCN would have to do so under the revised permit, they said. Further, they
objected to the 300-foot linear limit and the ½-acre threshold under this permit,
saying these limits are too stringent (presumably for multiple unit developments) and
will exclude many projects with minimal impact from seeking a nationwide permit.
Environmental groups, on the other hand, argued that the ¼-acre threshold in NWP
29 should be retained, not increased.
Critiques by Stakeholder Groups
As noted previously, as the nationwide permit program has become more
complex over time, major interest groups are increasingly united in arguing that the
program as it has developed fails to meet its overall objectives, although their reasons
for this criticism are very different. One view was expressed by an environmental
advocacy group in comments on the 2006 draft NWPs.
The nationwide permit system was presumably developed in order to balance two
somewhat contrary objectives: to ensure that the permits issued result in only
minimal impacts on aquatic resources, and to provide a predictable, fair, and
simply regulatory system for citizens applying for permits. Given the complexity
and confusion surrounding the nationwide permit program, together with the
clearly more than minimal environmental impacts, we question whether either
of these objectives is being achieved.16
Similar views were expressed by a group representing one set of land developers.
16
Gulf Restoration Network et al., Comments Submitted on Docket number COE-20060005, undated, pp. 1-2.
CRS-12
Over time, however, the NWPs have become increasingly restrictive and
complex to the point that they faintly resemble the streamlined permitting
process Congress envisioned when it enacted Section 404(e).... [T]he program
waivers between providing administrative relief and imposing red tape, between
a truly streamlined process and one that is so severely limited that few projects
can qualify.... The history of the NWP has been a consistent tightening of the
eligibility for the program.... Each time the Corps has drawn the line between
NWP eligibility and ineligibility, eligibility has been restricted, never relaxed.17
Beyond apparent broad agreement that the program fails to meet its objectives,
the views of industry and environmental advocacy groups diverge greatly. Major
industry groups support the NWP program, or the type of streamlined program that
they believe was originally intended, and agree with the Corps that the use of
nationwide permits will result in minimal adverse environmental impacts.
Nevertheless, they were highly critical of many aspects of the Corps’ 2006 proposal.
The Corps’ attempt to illegally expand its jurisdiction, the stringent and largely
inflexible acreage and PCN [preconstruction notification] thresholds, the lack of
a proper administrative process and record to support the proposal, the
problematic regional conditions and the overall trend toward the elimination of
NWPs all contribute to a permit package that is hardly even a semblance of the
streamlined process directed by Congress.18
Major environmental groups argue that permitted activities will have more than
minimal impacts on the environment and that the Corps has no substantial or
scientific evidence to conclude otherwise. They argue that the permits are unlawful
because they violate the requirements of Section 404(e) that there may be no more
than minimal adverse environmental effects on aquatic resources, both individually
and cumulatively. Environmental groups are highly critical of many aspects of the
program, such as inconsistent and inadequate PCN requirements, overly vague
requirements which will result in weakened regulatory protection, the granting of
excessive authority to Corps district engineers to waive permit limits in individual
cases, and what they describe as “irrational reliance” on compensatory mitigation to
offset the harmful effects of permitted activities.19
Specific Critiques
In addition to general objections, a number of specific concerns became evident
after issuance of the 2002 permits and continue with the 2007 permits.
17
National Association of Home Builders, “Advice and Recommendations of the National
Association of Home Builders on the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers’
Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits,” undated, pp. 3, 21, 44.
18
19
Ibid., pp. 3-4.
See generally, Comments of the Gulf Restoration Network, et al.; Natural Resources
Defense Council, et al., Comments Submitted on Docket # COE-2006-0005; and Ohio
Valley Environmental Council, “Re: Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits,
Docket No. COE-2006-0005,” November 27, 2006.
CRS-13
300 Linear-Foot Prohibition. One of the most significant changes in the
permits that were issued in 2002 affected development activities along streams.
Several of the 2000 permits that had replaced NWP 26 included a prohibition
limiting the permits to development activities affecting 300 linear feet or less of a
streambed; projects affecting larger areas would not qualify for a nationwide permit.
The Corps believed that this restriction had resulted in requiring individual permit
review for many projects that involve no more than minimal adverse effects on the
aquatic environment. In the 2002 reissuance, the Corps modified this prohibition for
nationwide permits 39 (residential and commercial developments), 40 (agricultural
activities), 42 (recreational facilities), and 43 (stormwater management facilities) to
allow Corps districts to issue case-by-case waivers to the 300 linear-foot limit for
discharges affecting intermittent streams (streams that only have flowing water only
during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow).
As reissued in 2002, the prohibition remained in effect for perennial streams which
have flowing water year-round. The Corps decided at that time that this limitation
on perennial streams was necessary to ensure that losses result only in minimal
adverse effects, since significant impacts are more likely to occur in perennial than
in intermittent streams.
The modification concerning the 300 linear-foot prohibition was needed, the
Corps said, to add flexibility to the permit process, by allowing district engineers to
authorize activities that have minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment. It
was not intended to relax aquatic protection, the Corps said, but was intended to
allow the Corps to focus limited resources more intensively on areas where impacts
are likely to be more than minimal. Opponents of the modification argued that the
waiver would lead to severe stream destruction from construction, agricultural and
other activities. Some said that the 300 linear-foot limit gives predictability to the
regulated community and state agencies and that the waiver authority would result
in decisionmaking variations between Corps districts, and even within the same
district. The Corps disagreed and said that district engineers will use their knowledge
of the local aquatic environment to make case-by-case determinations whether a
waiver is applicable.
This topic was addressed again in the 2007 reissued permits. The Corps
extended the 300 linear-foot limit under NWPs 39, 40, 42, 43, and revised 29 to
include ephemeral streams (streams that have flowing water only during, and for a
short time after, a precipitation event), as well as permanent and intermittent streams.
However, the Corps also will allow district engineers to waive the 300 linear-foot
limit for discharges to ephemeral streams on a case-by-case basis, in addition to caseby-case waivers of discharges to intermittent streams that have been allowed since
2002.
Commenters on this change viewed the issue from two very different
perspectives. Environmental advocates endorsed extending the 300-linear foot limit
to ephemeral streams, so as to protect them as well as permanent and intermittent
streams, but they criticized the proposal to allow district engineers to waive the limit.
Linear foot limits should be firm, they said, and proposed actions that exceed these
limits should be subject to individual permit requirements. The Corps provided no
justification for proposing to allow district engineers to waive the limit, they said, nor
criteria for how waiver decisions will be made.
CRS-14
On the other hand, regulated industry groups said that extending the 300-linear
foot limit to ephemeral streams would greatly increase the regulatory burden of the
overall program and reduce the utility of permits like NWPs 29 and 39, while serving
no environmental purpose. They observed that the only apparent rationale for treating
ephemeral streams in the same fashion as other streams is Corps administrative
convenience, since the Corps stated that it may be hard to distinguish between
intermittent and ephemeral streams in the field (71 Federal Register 56261). Several
industry commenters noted that the legal basis for the Corps to assert regulatory
jurisdiction over waters that are dry nearly all the time is uncertain, in light of recent
court rulings — including the Supreme Court’s June 2006 ruling in Rapanos v.
United States — that have narrowed rather than expanded Corps jurisdiction. While
the Court’s plurality ruling in that case was split (there was no majority opinion) and
left open to many jurisdictional questions,20 these groups argue that ephemeral waters
are for the most part not legally jurisdictional or subject to a requirement for a
Section 404 permit. The Corps stated that it will assert jurisdiction over ephemeral
streams on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with case law as it evolves and with
any future agency guidance on recent court cases.
Mitigation Requirements. The Corps acknowledges that, although minimal
adverse effects are anticipated from the nationwide permit program, the use of NWPs
may still affect the aquatic environment. Therefore, the permits include a general
condition detailing how district engineers may require compensatory mitigation to
offset the authorized impacts. Mitigation is intended to compensate for lost functions
and values resulting from permitted activities. Compensatory mitigation can be
accomplished through the restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of
aquatic resources, either by the permittee’s individual project, or the use of mitigation
banks or other consolidated mitigation efforts. Mitigation requirements incorporated
in the nationwide permit program have become more specific over time, especially
since 1996, and are viewed by environmental protection advocates as critically
important.
Before reissuance in 2002, this general condition required one-for-one
mitigation of adverse impacts to wetlands with a stated preference for restoration of
wetland impacts over preservation (see discussion on page 6).21 In 2002, the Corps
revised the mandate to allow a case-by-case waiver of this requirement in cases
where the Corps determines that some other form of mitigation, such as
establishment of vegetated buffers, is more appropriate. The intention of the change,
the Corps said, was to have a more ecologically and watershed-based approach to
mitigation. In the agency’s view, the one-for-one acreage requirement was too
restrictive, in that it focused solely on wetlands but did not allow the Corps to
mitigate aquatic impacts to streams and other non-wetland aquatic resources.
Because the Corps regulates the entire aquatic environment, not just wetlands, it said,
mitigation should consider the entire aquatic environment, as well. The Corps said
20
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33263, The Wetlands Coverage of the
Clean Water Act Is Revisited by the Supreme Court: Rapanos v. United States, by Robert
Meltz and Claudia Copeland.
21
The policy preference for restoration derives from the fact that preservation does not
provide new acres and thus cannot compensate for wetlands loss on an acreage basis.
CRS-15
that it will require mitigation for impacts based on a watershed approach, often
involving a mix of vegetated buffers and other mitigation in non-wetland areas.
Thus, for example, a district engineer might authorize a project with impacts on a
particular wetland and require mitigation within the overall aquatic environment of
the particular watershed involved but not wetland-acre-for-wetland-acre mitigation.
This approach, the Corps said, allows district engineers to require the mitigation for
project impacts that best protects the aquatic environment.22
Environmentalists strongly opposed this change in 2002, saying that it
effectively ignores the principle of “no net loss” of wetlands which has been a goal
of national wetlands policy since 1990. In response, Corps officials said that under
the revision, project applicants must ensure that wetland functions are replaced and
that the “no net loss” goal be met on an acreage basis within a Corps district.23
Environmental groups also argued that the Corps is too quick to look towards
mitigation as the answer for development activities affecting wetlands and should
focus on avoiding impacts as a first priority.
In 2007 the Corps also made certain modifications to the general condition for
mitigation. Previously, compensatory mitigation was required for all activities
requiring a PCN and for permanent losses of U.S. waters, at a minimum one-for-one
ratio, unless the district engineer decides that another form of mitigation would be
more appropriate. The Corps modified this requirement in 2007 by adding a onetenth of an acre threshold — that is, if a PCN is required, and if the proposed activity
is expected to result in the loss of more than one-tenth of an acre of wetlands, the
permittee must comply with compensatory mitigation requirements. Mitigation
banks and in-lieu fee programs can be used for compensatory mitigation activities
authorized by nationwide permits. The Corps also added language stating that
district engineers may require mitigation when certain functions and services of
waters of the United States would be permanently changed by the permitted activity
(such as conversion of a forested wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently
maintained utility line right-of-way).
In the decision documents accompanying the NWP proposal in 2006, the Corps
estimated that in total the permits (including the six new permits) will be used 52,434
times per year and are expected to impact 6,366 acres of wetlands and other waters
per year. The Corps also estimated that 19,501 acres will be mitigated to offset the
impacts of authorized activities. The data in these estimates was based on reported
use of the NWPs during FY2003 and the period of July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, as
well as a survey of Corps district offices.
Environmental groups were skeptical of these data, asserting that it is unclear
how the numbers were obtained, due to inconsistencies in the Corps’ permit database.
22
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Issuance of Nationwide Permits,” 67
Federal Register 2063-2067, January 15, 2002.
23
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
clarifies inaccuracies in wetlands permit reporting,” press release, January 16, 2002.
CRS-16
Even more troubling is the notion that the Corps uses these flawed permit
numbers to arrive at the acres of wetlands and waters impacted, and for the
presumed use and impact of the proposed NWPs. Again, we can only assume
that the Corps has averaged the impacts associated with some subset of known
nationwide permit applications. This type of statistical mean does not provide
us with the actual impact to waters of the United States, nor can it be used as a
basis for predicting the future cumulative impacts of the proposed NWPs.24
In their comments on the 2006 proposal, environmentalists continued to be
critical of the Corps’ reliance on mitigation as the basis for concluding that impacts
of the nationwide permits will be minimal. They pointed to the incomplete track
record of mitigation projects described in a number of reports, including a June 2001
report of the National Research Council25 and a 2005 GAO report, showing that
mitigation is not fully successful and does not compensate for wetlands lost to
permitted fills.26 In light of the lack of data that mitigation is performed or that it
would successfully replace lost functions and values, they asserted that the Corps
lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that mitigation will render the impacts of
authorized activities minimal. If an activity requires mitigation, these critics said, by
definition it has more than minimal adverse effects to begin with, and under the
Clean Water Act, activities with more than minimal adverse effects can only be
authorized by an individual permit. They noted that the Council on Environmental
Quality has said that relying on mitigation to assume impacts are reduced below the
threshold of significance violates the National Environmental Policy Act.27 The
Corps acknowledges that ecological success of mitigation varies widely, but argues
that mitigation is important to ensuring that nationwide permits result in minimal
adverse effects. The Corps says that it has increased its compliance efforts to ensure
that authorized projects are constructed as authorized, and that mitigation is
successful.
Under the reissued NWPs, compensatory mitigation would be required for all
wetland losses that exceed one-tenth of an acre, unless the district engineer issues a
project-specific waiver. Industry was critical that the Corps appears to elevate one
form of mitigation (compensation) above all others28 and does not give district
24
Gulf Restoration Network et al., Comments Submitted on Docket number COE-20060005, p. 4.
25
National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Compensating for Wetland
Losses under the Clean Water Act, Washington, 2001, 267 p.
26
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Wetlands Protection: Corps of Engineers Does
Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure that Compensatory Mitigation is
Occurring,” GAO-05-898, September 2005.
27
Council on Environmental Quality, “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,” March 23, 1981.
28
Under its regulations and policy, when the Corps evaluates standard permit applications,
it first determines that potential impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources have been
avoided to the maximum extent practicable; remaining unavoidable impacts will then be
mitigated to the extent appropriate and practicable, in a sequence beginning with avoidance
of impacts, followed by minimization of adverse impacts, and then compensatory mitigation
(continued...)
CRS-17
engineers flexibility to determine the extent to which mitigation is needed, on a caseby-case basis. Environmental groups, on the other hand, strongly objected to
allowing waivers from mitigation requirements and giving discretion to district
engineers, particularly because the NWPs contain no criteria or performance
standards that would govern mitigation.
Coal Mining Activities. The use of nationwide permits to authorize coal
mining activities has been and continues to be controversial, particularly in
connection with NWP 21, which concerns surface coal mining activities. Critics say
that the environmental impacts of coal mining are typically far greater than the
standard set forth in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(e), that authorized
activities will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects, individually and
cumulatively. The mining industry argues that nationwide permit procedures are
necessary to minimize regulatory burdens that would threaten the economics of coal
mining and to provide the kind of flexibility needed by industry to respond to quickly
changing operating requirements. The Corps responds that the terms and conditions
of NWP 21 are sufficient to ensure that environmental impacts are minimal.
Nationwide permit 21 authorizes discharges from surface coal mining activities
which result in no more than minimal impacts (site-specifically and cumulatively) to
the aquatic environment. There is no acreage limit or threshold for a project to use
this permit. The Corps reissued NWP 21 in 2002 with two changes intended to
strengthen environmental protection for projects authorized by the permit. First, the
reissued permit requires the Corps to determine appropriate mitigation in accordance
with nationwide permit general conditions, rather than relying primarily on less
restrictive state-required mitigation established under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, as had previously been the case. Second, the revised permit
requires explicit authorization before the activity can take place, rather than only
requiring preconstruction notification, as in the past.
Critics were less focused on these 2002 changes than on the basic permit itself,
because environmentalists have long contended that the permit authorizes disposal
of coal mining waste material which buries streams with overburden material,
thereby disturbing the natural stream processes and water quality in entire watersheds
and resulting in permanent loss of habitat. According to that view, mitigation cannot
sufficiently compensate for these impacts, and any use of this permit is inconsistent
with ensuring “minimal adverse effects” on the aquatic environment.
Contributing to controversy over NWP 21 is the fact that in recent years the
Corps has allowed the use of this permit to authorize mountaintop mining activities
in several Appalachian states (e.g., West Virginia and Kentucky).29 This practice
involves removing the tops of mountains to expose and remove underlying coal
28
(...continued)
for unavoidable impacts which remain. Compensatory mitigation might include restoration
of a former wetland, or enhancement for specified purposes such as water quality
improvement.
29
For information, see CRS Report RS21421, Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current
Controversies, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS-18
seams. Upon completion of the coal removal, some amount of the waste rock is
placed back on the top of the mountain, while the majority is disposed in nearby
valleys where streams and wetlands are filled with the excess mining waste.
Environmentalists have sought to strengthen regulation of mountaintop mining, if not
halt it altogether, in part by arguing that the practice should be regulated under more
stringent Clean Water Act provisions than Section 404, which authorizes the
nationwide permit program. So far, protection advocates have been unsuccessful in
their efforts. The Corps continues to assert that use of NWP 21 for surface mining
and mountaintop mining activities avoids and minimizes impacts to the extent
practicable and that adequate mitigation can be used to determine that a project has
minimal effects. These activities, the Corps believes, can result in a “substantial
improvement in downstream water quality and aquatic habitat within a watershed.”30
Citizen groups have filed lawsuits seeking generally to halt the Corps’ use of
nationwide permit 21 for mountaintop mining operations. In the first such case, a
federal district court ruled that NWP 21 violates the Clean Water Act by authorizing
activities that have more than minimal adverse environmental effects. In 2004, the
court enjoined the Corps from using NWP 21 to authorize new mountaintop mining
in southern West Virginia and ordered the Corps to revoke previous authorization for
11 operations. On appeal, the judgment of the district court and the injunction
against NWP 21 were vacated when the court of appeals found that the Corps had
complied with the Clean Water Act when it promulgated NWP21 (Ohio Valley
Environmental Coalition v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493 (CA4 2005)). The case was
remanded to the district court to address remaining issues that were never decided,
fact-based issues such as when a general permit is appropriate. In January 2005,
three groups filed a lawsuit to extend the 2004 West Virginia federal district court
decision to Kentucky valley fills (Kentucky RiverKeeper v. Rowlette, Civil No. 05181, E.D.Ky.). Both of these cases are pending.
In the September 2006 proposal to reissue the 2002 permits, the Corps noted a
number of administrative steps that have been taken to address public concerns about
NWP 21, such as adopting a standard operating procedure for review of permit
applications. In the proposal, the Corps requested public comment on the need for
an acreage limit for this permit, as it previously included none. The mining industry
generally supported NWP 21 and two related new permits, 49 and 50. However, they
opposed any acreage limit on NWP 21, saying that the permit would be useless to
them if it included an acreage limit. Most coal companies would not be able to
comply with such a limit and would, therefore, be required to obtain an individual
permit, they said. Getting an individual permit imposes costs of time and money to
applicants and to government, industry contended, without additional environmental
benefits. In the revised permits, issued in March 2007, the Corps did not include an
acreage limit for NWP21.
Environmental critics cited data on the degrading impacts of current NWP 21
to aquatic life in Appalachian streams, as well as terrestrial resources and wildlife,
including data from a programmatic environmental impact statement on mountaintop
30
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Issuance of Nationwide Permits,” 67
Federal Register 2043, January 15, 2002.
CRS-19
mining prepared by the Corps which acknowledged that fills authorized by this
permit have eliminated more than 1,200 miles of streams in the past.31 In the 2006
decision document for NWP 21, the Corps estimated that in total this permit will be
used 204 times per year and is expected to impact 81 acres of wetlands and other
waters per year. The Corps also estimated that 71 acres will be mitigated to offset
the permit’s impacts. Environmental groups argued that there is no support for the
Corps’ claim that mitigation will reduce impacts of this permit to a minimal level,
and urged that individual permits should be required. In their view, nationwide
permits should only be used for mining-related activities with lesser impacts than
valley fills, such as road crossings, temporary sediment ponds, or stream diversions.
The Corps responds that NWP 21, like the other nationwide permits, requires
compliance with general conditions, which address many of these criticisms.
Two of the new permits, 49 and 50, also address coal mining activities. The
Corps’ intention with the proposed new permits was to provide incentives to coal
remining and underground mining activities, arguing that for permittees that meet
specified terms and conditions such as acreage impact limits, it will be faster to gain
authorization under an NWP than it would be to obtain an individual permit. It is the
Corps’ judgment that the environment will benefit from encouraging coal remining
in this manner. By allowing such activities to proceed under a nationwide permit,
rather than requiring an individual permit, the environmental benefits of remining
(such as removing existing sources of water pollution that harm downstream waters)
are more likely to occur, according to the Corps. Further, while acknowledging that
permits 21, 49, and 50 have the potential to result in more than minimal adverse
effects on water quality, the agency contended that compensatory mitigation,
opportunities for division engineers to impose regional conditions, and site-specific
evaluation of PCNs will ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimal. In
the decision documents accompanying the NWP proposal, the Corps estimated that
permits 49 and 50 will be used 204 times per year and are expected to impact 475
acres of wetlands and other waters per year. The Corps also estimated that 404 acres
will be mitigated to offset the impacts of authorized activities.
Environmental critics said that the Corps has no factual basis for determining
that impacts of the new coal mining permits will be minimal, since there are no
documented data for estimating future impacts of permits that did not exist before
2007. They point out that coal mining waste contains chemicals that are toxic to
aquatic life; there have been cases of spills of impounded wastes, with impacts that
are more than minimal. Underground mining is a destructive practice, they said, that
results in loss of stream and wetland functions through subsidence and waste
disposal. They also argue that the general permit process is inappropriate for such
large scale activities.
Fills Within the 100-Year Floodplain. As discussed above, in 2000 the
Corps established a general condition for the nationwide permit program limiting
activities within the 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA. In 2002, the Corps
31
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,” October 2005. Available at [http://www.
epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm].
CRS-20
modified a portion of this general condition to delete a mandate that permittees
document that the project meets FEMA-approved requirements and delete a
requirement for preconstruction notification to the Corps for certain activities
occurring in the 100-year floodplain. Environmental critics argued that the
modification allows development in ecologically sensitive floodplain areas. The
Corps said it believed that requiring applicants to comply with FEMA requirements
is just as effective as also requiring applicants to document their compliance and that
the changes to this general permit condition would not reduce the floodplain
restrictions adopted in 2000.
This general condition prohibits the use of certain NWPs (39, 40, 42, and 44)
to authorize discharges of dredged of fill material in waters of the United States
resulting in permanent above-grade fills within mapped 100-year floodplains located
above or below headwaters of streams. It also prohibits the use of NWP 43
(stormwater management) discharges within mapped 100-year floodplains located
below headwaters. Activities covered by these permits are subject to PCN
requirements, meaning that the permittee must notify the district engineer before
beginning the work and cannot proceed sooner than 45 days after filing a complete
PCN without written notice from the Corps. In 2007, the Corps modified the general
condition related to mitigation to simply require permittees to comply with applicable
state or local floodplain management requirements that have been approved by
FEMA. Thus, potential impacts to 100-year floodplains will be addressed through
case-by-case review resulting from preconstruction notification by the permittee. The
Corps argued that modifying this general condition will increase government
efficiency by promoting conformity with state and local planning and zoning efforts,
and federal programs, since FEMA is the lead federal agency for floodplain
management.
While industry groups supported this change, environmental groups and others
criticized lifting restrictions on activities in the 100-year floodplain, saying that
allowing fills in the 100-year floodplain could lead to catastrophic consequences
during significant flood events. Restrictions should be retained or even strengthened,
some said, so as to prevent cumulative losses of valuable resources which are
allowable under FEMA requirements. Without regulatory limits, development can
occur in the floodplain, inducing citizens to occupy areas that are at risk of severe
flooding. Environmental groups argued that the job of reducing U.S. flood losses by
controlling new development should not be left just to state and local governments
and that the Corps’ regulatory responsibility under the CWA is not lessened by the
involvement of other agencies. In the 2007 reissued permits, the Corps said that the
revised general condition will provide protection to floodplain values that is
appropriate to the scope of the Corps’ regulatory authority; additional restrictions or
prohibitions on development in the 100-year floodplain are more appropriate to land
use planning and zoning, not Corps regulations.
Other Issues Concerning Nationwide Permits
The nationwide permits issued since 1996 have raised a number of additional
issues. For example, the program is intended to balance a desire for administrative
simplicity and reduced regulatory burden, on the one hand, with protecting aquatic
resources, including wetlands. Yet, many industry stakeholders question whether a
CRS-21
number of administrative requirements of the permits, such as advance notification
to the Corps and other agencies, written verification of permit compliance, and
opportunities for regional conditions, are tilted too much in the direction of
protecting aquatic resources and not enough in the direction of regulatory relief,
while also making the nationwide permit program unduly complicated.
Regional Conditioning. The purpose of regional conditioning is to consider
local differences in aquatic resource functions and values to ensure that nationwide
permits do not authorize activities with more than minimal adverse effects on the
aquatic environment. One type of regional conditioning is done by district and
division engineers who propose specific conditions if there are concerns for the
aquatic environment in a particular district, watershed, or other geographic region.
Corps officials also may propose revocation of NWP authorization for all, some, or
portions of the nationwide permits. A second type of regional conditions is imposed
by state Section 401 water quality certification or for state coastal zone consistency
(see discussion below). Regional conditions might include identifying distinct
watersheds or waterbodies where certain nationwide permits should be suspended or
revoked, thus requiring landowners to obtain individual project-specific permits;
reducing the acreage thresholds in certain types of waters; or adding notification
requirements for all permitted work in certain watersheds. The permits issued in
2000 provided a new and somewhat more formal approach than in the past to
developing appropriate conditional requirements in each Corps District, providing
explicitly for public input and coordination with federal resource agencies.
The 2002 permits emphasized that, like the 1996 and 2000 permits, the NWP
program will rely greatly on regional conditioning to adjust the national program to
local watersheds. A district engineer can either add special conditions to the NWP
authorization or exercise discretionary authority to require an individual permit. This
flexibility continues to cause various concerns among stakeholders, with some
environmentalists arguing that more restrictive national standards on the NWPs
should be imposed instead of relying upon a discretionary authority process. Some
in industry believe that the discretionary authority results in greater complexity and
less predictability for regulated entities.
However, regarding increased use of regional conditioning to strengthen
permits, some environmental groups have been skeptical that the Corps would be
able to attach meaningful conditions, while developers have had the opposite concern
— that restrictions imposed by Corps regions would be unduly burdensome.32
The 2007 reissued NWPs continue the Corps’ reliance on regional conditioning
and review of preconstruction notification of specific projects as a way for regulators
to ensure that impacts of activities are minimal. Echoing their concerns about the
Corps’ reliance on compensatory mitigation, environmental groups criticized the
Corps’ expectation that regional conditioning can assure that impacts are minimal.
Industry groups contend that regional conditions make the NWPs more complex and
burdensome for both the Corps and permit applicants. “As more conditions are
32
“Six New Classes of Activities Covered Under Proposed Corps Replacement Permits,”
Daily Environment Reporter, June 25, 1998, No. 122, p. AA-1.
CRS-22
placed on the use of NWPs, fewer permit applicants fall outside of the many
restrictions and exclusions, thus fewer will qualify for the efficient NWP process.”33
State Coordination Issues. Implementation of the Corps’ regulatory
program, including the nationwide permits, requires considerable coordination
between federal and state governments. For one thing, many states (and some
localities) administer their own wetlands management and protection programs
which vary in the way wetlands are defined and the activities that may or may not
take place within or near regulated wetlands, and officials attempt to minimize
duplication and overlap.
More important, however, is a coordinating responsibility given to states under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This provision requires certification by states
that a proposed project seeking a federal license or permit, such as a Section 404
permit, will not violate a state’s water quality standards.34 In addition, the 34 states
and territories that operate management programs under the Coastal Zone
Management Act are required to provide concurrence that the activity is consistent
with the state’s coastal zone management (CZM) program. Review under the 401
water quality certification process or CZM concurrence is an important means by
which states ensure that their water quality concerns will be considered in federally
licensed activities, because a state can use this authority to place its own conditions
on the federal permit, or to deny the permit’s use in that state.35 Coordination begins
at the time the Corps proposes to issue or reissue the nationwide permit package.
However, coordination evidences a number of tensions between the Corps and states,
especially when states deny certification or CZM concurrence.
NWP Reissuance: Public Review and Coordination; State
Responses. Issuance or reissuance of NWPs begins approximately six months in
advance of expiration of existing nationwide permits. The process involves
publishing the proposal for public comment and coordinating with states.
Publication of the proposed permits in the Federal Register initiates a 60-day public
comment period on the draft permits and also serves as the Corps’ request to states
to issue, deny, or waive certification of the NWPs. Concurrent with the Federal
Register Notice, Corps district offices solicit comments on proposed regional
conditions and also on their proposals to suspend or revoke some or all of the NWPs,
if they have issued or propose to issue regional general permits, programmatic
general permits, or letters of permission in lieu of NWPs. The comment period for
district public notices is 45 days.
After reviewing public comments on the draft NWPs, the Corps prepares final
NWPs, which are subject to another round of review by interested federal agencies
33
National Association of Home Builders, “Advice and Recommendations of the National
Association of Home Builders on the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers’
Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits,” p. 19.
34
States also may waive 401 certification, which is effectively the same as issuing an
unqualified certification.
35
For additional information, see CRS Report 97-488, Clean Water Act Section 401:
Background and Issues, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS-23
(but not the public). The Corps then publishes the final NWPs, which become
effective 60 days after publication. During the 60-day period, Corps division
engineers approve regional conditions for the final NWPs and issue decision
documents which address the environmental considerations related to the use of
NWPs in specific Corps districts. The decision documents certify that the NWPs,
together with any regional conditions or geographic revocations, will only authorize
activities that result in minimal individual adverse effects on the aquatic
environmental at the regional level.
Also during the 60-day post-publication period, states and Indian Tribes
complete their 401 water quality certification and CZMA consistency decisions.
Water quality certifications and/or CZMA consistency determinations may be issued
without conditions, issued with conditions, or denied for specific NWPs. Conditions
placed as a result of 401 certification or CZMA concurrent by a state automatically
become part of a nationwide permit in that state. Many states have denied blanket
water quality certification for certain NWPs. For example, many states have opposed
NWP 29 since it was first issued in 1995, and about one-third of states have denied
401 certification, because the permit was determined to be inconsistent with state
water quality standards or other state wetlands management activities. Other states
have attached additional conditions to the use of NWPs to ensure that water quality
impacts are minimal.
The Corps believes, in general, that activities authorized by NWPs will not
violate state or tribal water quality standards and will be consistent with CZM plans.
Thus, if a state denies a water quality certification or disagrees that the activities
authorized by the NWPs are consistent with a state CZM program, the Corps will
deny authorization for the affected activities within that state, but does so without
prejudice. Thus, when applicants request approval of such activities, and the Corps
determines that the activities meet the terms and conditions of the NWP, the Corps
will issue provisional verification letters, notifying the applicant that NWP
authorization is contingent upon obtaining the necessary project-specific water
quality certificate or waiver thereof, or CZMA consistency determination, from the
state, through a process called “individual certification of NWP use on a case-by-case
basis.”
An issue of long-standing concern to states is the fact that, if a state denies 401
certification or CZM concurrence, the Corps does not necessarily consider the state’s
action sufficient cause to deny issuance of the federal permit. When this happens in
the case of nationwide permits, the state is forced either to accept the permitted
activity, as authorized by the Corps, or to expend its resources to review the project
separately and issue a 401 certification with conditions specific to that project. States
object that when the Corps issues provisional verification of NWP authorization, this
puts pressure on states to certify projects. Many states take the position that, if a state
denies certification, the Corps should evaluate the project under the individual permit
process. States would like the Corps to treat a 401 denial of an NWP as a veto. The
Corps may deny the permit (withdrawing its applicability in a state), but will not
always do so. The Corps does not believe that state denial of 401 certification should
be the sole basis for requiring an individual permit. The Corps’ position is that
denial of state water quality certification for a nationwide permit does not necessarily
mean that unacceptable adverse effects will occur on a case-by-case basis, and the
CRS-24
Corps prefers that the burden of conditioning or restricting the project at that point
be with the state through issuance of a project-specific 401 certification or CZM
consistency determination.
This tension over state and federal responsibilities does not exist under other
Clean Water Act permits. For example, under the act’s discharge permit program for
industrial and municipal sources (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System program in Section 402 of the act), if a state denies 401 water quality
certification, EPA insists on changes to the project until it gains certification.
One option is for states to seek approval of a programmatic general permit
(PGP; see discussion in footnote 4), if the state is qualified and has sufficient
regulatory authority. The Corps would then suspend federal permitting, and there
would be less question over state water quality or other requirements. This is the
case in a number of states with PGP programs, which replace some or all of the
federal nationwide permits. State PGPs are duplicative of some nationwide permits
and offer a more streamlined regulatory process for applicants. Another option is for
states to seek authorization for full assumption of the 404 program, a more
complicated process than PGP approval, and only Michigan and New Jersey have
done so. However, not all states are interested or able to seek PGP approval or full
program authorization. Thus, even though the Corps has stated its intention to work
in partnership with states, most states will continue to conduct 401 certification
reviews of nationwide and other wetlands permits, and it is likely that conflicts over
water quality certification will persist.
Defining Minimal Adverse Effects, Assessing Cumulative Impacts.
Some observers have been critical that, while the Corps has made some
environmentally strengthening improvements to many of the nationwide permits
since 1996, it has not addressed a number of outstanding concerns. For example,
both environmental groups and industry groups have criticized the Corps for
declining to define what are “minimal adverse effects.” Industry groups contend that
a determination of minimal effects is central to whether an individual permit is
required. If the Corps cannot define “minimal effects,” they say, how can it claim
that any particular restriction is required to achieve it? Environmental groups argue
a different point, that without defining what “minimal” is, the Corps cannot argue
that, even with specified restrictions, a given activity will have only minimal
environmental impacts. On these points, the Corps’ general position is that it is not
appropriate to define or dictate these matters on a nationwide basis, because what
constitutes minimal adverse environmental effects can vary widely from state to state
and watershed to watershed.
Environmentalists have urged the Corps to conduct a cumulative impact analysis
of the nationwide permit program. The agency has declined to do so, contending that
the permits do not constitute a major federal action having a significant effect on the
human environment, since Corps data on the usage of permits suggest that the
adverse effects, even cumulatively, are less than minimal. Thus, the agency argues
that it is not required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, nor is a cumulative impact analysis
warranted. In February 1998, environmental groups brought suit against the Corps
for failure to fully evaluate the effects of the nationwide permit program. Partly in
CRS-25
response to this litigation, the Corps announced in June 1998 that it would prepare
a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) on the nationwide permit
program and would consult with the other federal resource agencies, although the
Corps continued to hold that the program has no significant impact on the
environment or on endangered species.36 The Corps viewed voluntary preparation
of this PEIS as part of its commitment to ensure that the nationwide program
authorizes only activities with minimal individual and cumulative environmental
effects. A draft PEIS was issued in July 2001,37 and the Corps said at the time that
a final PEIS would be issued early in 2002. This did not occur, because the Corps
determined that it was not necessary to complete the PEIS. For the nationwide
permits, the Corps contends that it fulfills the requirements of NEPA through the
issuance of environmental assessments.38
Rather than conducting an EIS for any of the nationwide permits individually
or a PEIS for the package of permits, the Corps prepares “preliminary decision
documents” for each proposed NWP, including an environmental assessment and a
Finding of No Significant Impact. These documents consider the environmental
effects of each NWP from a national perspective, and thus comply with requirements
of NEPA. Environmental groups are strongly critical of these documents, saying that
they “consist mostly of rote boilerplate with little actual analysis and no real
evaluation of alternatives.”39 Others argue that the documents “are nearly identical
in language for each NWP, and merely reiterate the language of section 404(e) of the
Clean Water Act, as if repeating the mantra that the impacts are minimal, they
magically become minimal.”40 By extracting data from each of the 2006 draft
decision documents, environmental groups estimated that the permits proposed by
the Corps would impact 31,800 acres over five years, or 49.7 square miles. While
these groups argue that the data used by the Corps are flawed and undercount likely
impacts, they also argue that it is not reasonable to conclude that impacts of that
scope are below the required threshold of minimal, even with the addition of regional
conditions and district engineers’ discretionary authority to limit impacts.41
36
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Finding of No Significant Impact for
the Nationwide Permit Program,” June 23, 1998.
37
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Draft Nationwide Permits
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,” July 31, 2001.
38
David B. Olson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication, November 17,
2006.
39
Natural Resources Defense Council et al., Comments Submitted on Docket #COE-20060005, p. 32.
40
Gulf Restoration Network et al., Comments Submitted on Docket number COE-20060005, p. 13.
41
Ibid., pp. 2-5.
CRS-26
Congressional Interest
Congressional interest in legislation to revise the federal wetlands regulatory
program has been apparent for several years, as groups have pursued proposals
intended to simplify and streamline permitting; revise federal and state roles in
permitting; or clarify the geographic reach of Clean Water Act programs, in response
to court cases that have created jurisdictional uncertainties. (For additional
information, see CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues.) None has
focused specifically on nationwide permits. For some time, controversy over the
direction of overall wetlands policy has been a major component of debates on the
Clean Water Act and is partly the reason that no comprehensive clean water
legislation has been enacted. Interest groups have been unable to reach consensus on
whether legislative reform is needed and, if so, how far it should extend.
Congress has shown some interest in permitting issues, however. In April 1997,
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held an oversight hearing on the developments concerning nationwide
permits and other issues.42 In June 1997, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Private Property held a similar hearing.43
At both hearings, witnesses representing developers and other groups subject to
wetlands regulation expressed concern about impacts of the overall wetlands
regulatory program, and a number were critical of the 1996 changes to the nationwide
permit program, saying that the changes would be costly and could result in project
delays. Administration witnesses supported the modifications, responding that the
changes would allow the Corps to implement a more fair, flexible, and effective
program which is appropriately responsive to environmental protection needs.
Interest in these topics recurred in the 106th Congress, focusing on changes to
nationwide permit 26. Regulatory issues first were addressed in the FY2000 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill. As approved by the House in July
1999, this bill included a provision to require the Corps to submit a study on the
workload impact and compliance costs of replacement permits for NWP 26.
Landowner and developer groups supported the provision, contending that the costs
and impacts should be better identified before revised permits were issued, but the
Clinton Administration opposed it, saying that the study was unnecessary and would
increase wetlands loss in the nation by delaying issuance of replacement permits.
The final bill, P.L. 106-60, modified the House language by directing the Corps to
study the workload impacts and costs of compliance of the proposed replacement
permits, but dropped language that would have required submission of a report to
Congress before publication of final permits. In March 2000, the Corps reported
42
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, “Recent Regulatory
and Judicial Developments on Wetlands,” Hearing, 105th Cong., 1st sess., April 29, 1997
(105-36), 461 p.
43
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on
Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, “Wetlands: Review of Regulatory
Changes,” Hearing, 105th Cong., 1st sess., June 26, 1997 (S.Hrg. 105-328), 230 p.
CRS-27
estimates of increased permitted workload and compliance costs associated with
changes to the nationwide permit program that were proposed in July 1999.
In connection with the FY2001 funding bill for the Corps, Congress addressed
the issue of the activity-specific permits issued in 2000, but it did not attempt to
modify or rescind the permits themselves. Congress included legislative language
in the FY2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, directing the
Corps to improve the analysis and increase information available to the public
regarding the costs of the nationwide permit program and permit processing times.
This bill was enacted in October 2000 as P.L. 106-377 (after the effective date of the
replacement permits that were issued in March 2000). It directed the Corps to revise
its cost estimate of the nationwide permits program, based on the final replacement
permits (which differed in a number of ways from the July 1999 proposal); prepare
a plan to manage the additional workload of these permits; provide quarterly program
performance reports and annual reports on two specific Corps divisions; and provide
improved information on permit applications and the functioning of the
administrative appeals process. A revised analysis of the permitting changes and
incremental compliance costs for the 2000 permits was issued in August 2001.44 This
report concluded that the replacement package would increase by about 25% the
number of individual permit applications submitted to the Corps, due to activity
restrictions and new general conditions, and that processing time and pending
applications would rise steadily each year. In principle, the additional permitting
time could be avoided if the Corps’ permitting budget were increased sufficiently, the
report said.45
It has been nearly 10 years since Congress examined the nationwide permit
program through oversight hearings and eight years since there was legislative
consideration, in connection with appropriations bills. As this report has described,
the program has continued to evolve and to generate wide-ranging concerns among
stakeholder and interest groups. Future congressional attention may address the
overall regulatory program, as well as specific issues raised by the Corps’ reissuance
of the permits in 2007.
44
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, “Cost Analysis for the 2000
Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits,” August 2001.
45
Appropriations for the Corps’ regulatory program, which totaled $117 million in FY2000,
have increased 35% to $158.4 million in FY2007. The President’s FY2008 budget requests
$180 million.Recently, Obama
Administration initiatives and actions intended to restrict harmful effects of surface coal mining
activities in Appalachia have drawn congressional attention and criticism that is likely to continue
in the 112th Congress and that could include oversight of the Corps’ regulatory program generally.
Congressional Research Service
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Background ................................................................................................................................2
Nationwide Permits: 1977-2007 ............................................................................................3
Permit Reissuance in 2007 ....................................................................................................5
Critiques .....................................................................................................................................7
Mitigation Requirements.......................................................................................................8
Coal Mining Activities ........................................................................................................ 11
Fills Within the 100-Year Floodplain................................................................................... 13
Other Issues Concerning Nationwide Permits ...................................................................... 14
Regional Conditioning .................................................................................................. 14
State Coordination Issues .............................................................................................. 15
Defining Minimal Adverse Effects, Assessing Cumulative Impacts ............................... 17
Recent Administration Activity Concerning the Surface Coal Mining NWP......................... 18
Congressional Interest............................................................................................................... 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 21
Congressional Research Service
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
Introduction
Federal laws require government approval prior to beginning any work in or over waters of the
United States that affects the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters, or prior to
discharging dredged or fill material into U.S. waters. Regulatory programs that implement these
laws are administered through permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps),
which shares responsibility with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority
of the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act.
The Corps’ regulatory process involves two types of permits: general permits for actions by
private landowners that are similar in nature and will likely have a minor effect on wetlands, and
individual permits for more significant action. A nationwide permit is a form of general permit
that authorizes a category of activities throughout the nation and is valid only if the conditions
applicable to the permit are met. These permits are issued under authority of Section 404(e) of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under Section 404,
permits are required for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
Under Section 10, permits are required for any structures or other work that affect the course,
location, or condition of navigable waters of the United States.
Nationwide permits, which currently number 49, are issued for five-year periods and thereafter
must be renewed. They were most recently reissued in total in March 2007. At issue in the
nationwide permit program is the balance of two objectives: providing regulatory protection to
ensure minimal impacts on aquatic resources, and providing a fair and efficient regulatory
system. For several years, however, interest groups of differing perspectives have criticized the
program and increasingly question whether either objective is being achieved, much less both
objectives. Stakeholders involved in this debate include, on the one hand, industry groups (e.g.,
members of building—especially homebuilding—design, realtor, and petroleum and mining
organizations) and, on the other, environmental advocacy groups, along with many state water
quality, water resources, and environmental agencies.
Particularly under the Clean Water Act, the Corps’ regulatory authority is broadly defined. It
covers waters of the United States, including the territorial seas, and includes traditionally
navigable waterways capable of supporting interstate and foreign commerce, plus their
tributaries, and adjacent wetlands and isolated waters where the use, degradation, or destruction
of such waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce.1 In fact, much of the public concern
about the nationwide permit program—with regard to impacts of authorized activities, and terms
and conditions intended to limit impacts—often focuses on permits for projects that affect the
nation’s wetlands. Controversies about the permit program are compounded by disputes about the
data on which the Corps bases its conclusions that adverse environmental impacts of authorized
activities are minimal. Critics, especially environmental advocates, argue that the Corps’ data are
dated (the most recent available statistics are from 2003) and inaccurate, because the Corps lacks
an effective tracking and monitoring system for evaluating impacts.
1
Debate about the jurisdictional reach of the Corps’ regulatory program has been a controversial policy and judicial
issue for some time. It is beyond the scope of this report, but for additional information see CRS Report RL33483,
Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by Claudia Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
The nationwide permit regulatory program has drawn Congress’s attention several times in the
past, but not recently. In 1997, House and Senate committees held oversight hearings to review
several issues and controversies. In 1999 and again in 2000, congressional appropriators directed
the Corps to take certain actions concerning its overall regulatory program, and nationwide
permits in particular.
This report describes and reviews the nationwide permit program and discusses several major
issues that have drawn the attention of stakeholder interest groups, including program complexity,
coordination with states, and assessing cumulative impacts of the program.
Background
General permits, including nationwide permits, are a key means by which the Corps seeks to
minimize the burden and delay of its regulatory program: they authorize a landowner or
developer to proceed with the covered activity without having to obtain an individual, sitespecific permit in advance. Individual permits are subject to public notice, public hearing, and
case-by-case evaluation which typically involve longer time before the activity is authorized.
General permits are intended to allow certain activities to proceed with little delay or paperwork.
According to Corps data, in 2003, general permits entailed average processing time of 24 days, in
contrast with individual permits, which, on average, took 187 days of processing and evaluation,
once an application was completed. Approximately 74,000 activities per year (representing 92%
of the Corps’ regulatory workload) were authorized by nationwide and other general permits. The
Corps acknowledges that it does not have resources to evaluate all of these activities as individual
permits. General permits, including nationwide permits, authorize activities that usually would be
authorized through the individual permit process with little or no change in the scope of the
work. 2 While more than half require advance notification to the Corps for some or all covered
activities, others only require after-the-fact notification. The following are examples of
nationwide permits:3
•
Placement of aids to navigation approved by, and installed according to, U.S.
Coast Guard requirements (nationwide permit 1);
•
Activities related to construction and maintenance of authorized outfall structures
and associated intake structures (nationwide permit 7);
•
Stream or river bank stabilization activities necessary to prevent erosion
(nationwide permit 13);
•
Minor dredging, that is, dredging of no more than 25 cubic yards of material
(nationwide permit 19);
•
Activities associated with restoration, enhancement, or establishment of wetlands
and riparian areas where the activities result in net increase in aquatic resource
functions and services (nationwide permit 27);
2
64 Federal Register 32268, July 21, 1999.
The full text of the current nationwide permits and related general conditions, issued in March 2007, is available at
http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/nwp/nwp2007_gen_conditions_def.pdf.
3
Congressional Research Service
2
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
•
Discharges of dredged or fill material for the construction or expansion of
residential developments (nationwide permit 29); and
•
Discharges for construction or expansion of recreational facilities such as ski
areas and golf courses (nationwide permit 42).
Many nationwide permits have specific conditions and terms (such as maximum acreage
limitations). In addition, a number of general conditions apply to some or all nationwide permits;
for example, no activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation; no activity
may jeopardize a threatened or endangered species; discharges into spawning areas and migratory
waterfowl breeding areas must be avoided, to the maximum extent practicable; and discharges of
dredged or fill material must be minimized or avoided through mitigation to offset more than
minimal impacts on the aquatic environment, to the maximum extent practicable.
The specific statutory authority for these permits is Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act.
In carrying out the functions relating to the discharge of dredged or fill material under this
section, the Secretary [of the Army] may, after notice and opportunity for public hearing,
issue general permits on a State, regional, or nationwide basis for any category of activities
involving discharges of dredged or fill material if the Secretary determines that the activities
in such category are similar in nature, will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects
when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effect on the
environment.
Nationwide Permits: 1977-2007
The Corps first issued regulations for general permits in the mid-1970s, and Congress codified
the concept in amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1977 (P.L. 95-217). Nationwide and other
general permits4 are valid only for a period of five years, as is the case with other Clean Water Act
permits. Thus, they were reissued in 1982 and 1987. They were reissued as a group in November
1991, taking effect in January 1992. Prior to 1991, the nationwide program involved little
individualized review of these permits, as the guiding criterion was that covered activities impose
so minimal an environmental impact that the full review given individual permits was not
warranted. In the 1991 revisions, however, district engineers were given greater authority to
modify, suspend, or revoke nationwide permits for specific activities, and division engineers were
authorized to exercise discretionary authority to revoke applicability of specific nationwide
permits in high value aquatic areas and to then require individual permits for the activity. Further,
preconstruction notification (PCN) to the Corps was required for several of the nationwide
4
Section 404(e) of the act authorizes the Corps to promulgate general permits on a regional, state, or nationwide basis.
The Corps’ regulations authorize the issuance of general permits on a regional (sub-state) or statewide basis by district
or division engineers, rather than headquarters, which issues the nationwide permits. The Corps uses the general permit
authority to authorize statewide general permits covering activities in states that are deemed to have sufficient state
regulatory authority. These statewide general permits (programmatic general permits, or PGPs) are derived from an
existing state, local, or other federal agency program and are designed to avoid duplication with that program. They
function as a substitute for full state program authorization to administer the 404 program. Depending on the core state
program, state PGPs may encompass all wetlands regulation in a state, certain waters only, or certain types of regulated
activities. Once a PGP is approved, the Corps suspends its permit activity in lieu of the authorized state or sub-state
entity, although the Corps retains the right to override the PGP and issue a federal permit in individual cases. Thus, in
addition to 49 nationwide permits, the Corps has authorized several hundred regional general permits (RGPs) and more
than 50 PGPs. Also, some activities qualify for abbreviated permit processing with authorization by district engineers
in the form of Letters of Permission.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
permits,5 and when such notice is required, the applicant must provide a wetlands delineation, as
well. Advance notification is intended to give the Corps time to determine that the adverse effects
of the discharge or activity will be minimal. The district engineer generally has 45 days to notify
the person of approval to proceed or, instead, of the need to obtain an individual permit before the
applicant may proceed. Even with those changes, the nationwide permits did not attract
significant controversy when they were reissued in 1991.
More attention and more controversy focused on the Corps’ process of reissuing the permits in
1996.The Corps had several substantive purposes behind modifying the permits at that time. One
was the need to better ensure that permits have minimal adverse effects, especially on isolated
wetland areas. A second was the need to better regionalize the program, by emphasizing that
Corps officials (38 district and 11 division engineers) should condition nationwide permits on a
local basis with limitations that reflect differences in aquatic ecosystem functions and values that
exist across the nation. Third was the Corps’ desire to restrict a particular nationwide permit,
NWP 26, which authorized discharges in headwaters or isolated waters. Critics had long been
concerned that this permit was overly broad and had resulted in large amounts of unmonitored
wetland losses. Consequently, in 1996 the Corps re-issued NWP 26 but with modifications that
reduced the allowed acreage limits and required advance notification by the applicant if the
discharge would affect ⅓ acre or more. Further, the Corps reissued this permit only for two years,
intending to replace NWP 26 with activity-based permits.
In March 2000, the Corps issued several new activity-based permits to authorize specific
categories of activities, replacing the approach in NWP 26, which was based on acreage and
particular geographic types of waters (headwaters and isolated wetlands). The final permits6
repealed NWP 26 entirely, authorized five specific activity-based permits as replacements,
modified several existing NWPs and general conditions, and added two new general conditions.
They became effective June 7, 2000. The five new permits covered the following activities:
residential, commercial, and institutional developments (NWP 39); reshaping of existing
serviceable drainage ditches constructed in non-tidal waters (NWP 41); recreational facilities
(NWP 42); stormwater management facilities (NWP 43); and aggregate and hard rock
mineral/mining activities (primarily commercial sand, gravel, stone, and hard rock metals and
minerals) (NWP 44).
Several of the new permits issued in 2000 (residential, commercial, and institutional activities;
recreational facilities; and stormwater management facilities) required compensatory mitigation
to offset unavoidable losses of waters of the United States. Compensatory mitigation may be
provided through restoration, enhancement, or creation of aquatic habitats; preservation of
adjacent open or green space; land trusts; or mitigation banks. A mitigation bank is a site where
wetlands or other aquatic resources have been restored, created, enhanced, or preserved to
provide compensatory mitigation in advance of the authorized impacts. The entity that developed
the mitigation bank provides these aquatic resources in return for payment from the permittee.
Specific compensatory mitigation requirements are determined by district engineers on a case-bycase basis, but the basic Corps concept was that there should be a minimum requirement of an
acre-for-acre (1:1) wetland replacement as compensatory mitigation for all activities requiring
5
A PCN is a brief document that is intended to provide the Corps district engineer with enough information to
determine whether an activity is authorized by a nationwide permit. Detailed studies or analyses are not required.
6
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits; Final Notice,”
65 Federal Register 12818, March 9, 2000.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
preconstruction notification. Greater than a 1:1 ratio can be required in some cases to adequately
replace aquatic resource functions and values lost as a result of NWP-authorized activities.
The new general conditions adopted in 2000 put limits on the use of nationwide permits for
projects within critical resource waters, and for permanent above-grade wetland fills within the
100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Critical
resource waters are those designated as having particular environmental or ecological
significance (such as designated marine sanctuaries and state natural heritage sites). Regarding
the 100-year floodplain, the Corps said it sought to ensure that the nationwide permit program
discourages further development that would reduce the flood storage capacity of the floodplain,
but not create undue constraints or costs on the regulated public, unless necessary to improve the
aquatic environment.
In August 2001, with the approaching expiration of the 1996 nationwide permits, the Corps
proposed to reissue those and others that had been issued and modified since 1996 (including the
2000 replacement permits for NWP 26) in order to put all of the nationwide permits in the
program on a unified five-year schedule. 7
The proposals raised controversies and criticism from environmental advocates and some other
federal agencies, including EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental groups
said that the proposal would substantially weaken protection of the nation’s wetlands and streams.
On the other hand, industry groups said that the proposal involved only minor changes. These
changes offered some benefits, they said, but any such benefits are more than offset by problems
with the 2000 replacement permits, which developers and other groups continued to oppose,
saying that the permits impose arbitrary and burdensome restrictions. Following a public
comment period that generated more than 2,100 comments, the nationwide permits were reissued
in January 2002, essentially as proposed, with an effective date of March 18, 2002. The Corps’
action modified nine existing permits and six existing general conditions and added one general
condition. 8
Permit Reissuance in 2007
Authorization for the 2002 NWPs expired in March 2007. In preparation for that expiration, in
September 2006, the Corps published a proposal to reissue the 43 existing NWPs, with some
modification, and to issue six new permits. Following a public comment period, the permits were
reissued in March 2007, essentially as proposed, with an effective date of March 19, 2007.9 The
reissued permits also modified some of the general conditions and definitions that apply to
nationwide permits. The six new permits are:
•
Repair of Uplands Damaged by Discrete Events. This permit applies to activities
for restoration of upland areas that have been damaged by storms, floods, fire, or
7
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits,” 66
Federal Register 42069, August 9, 2001.
8
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Issuance of Nationwide Permits,” 67 Federal Register 2020,
January 15, 2002.
9
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Reissuance of Nationwide Permits; Notice,” 72 Federal Register
11091, March 12, 2007. A summary table, identifying changes in the 2007 permits, is available at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/NWP2007/PN-NWP07/NWP%20Table_2007_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
other discrete events. The permit only authorizes activities to restore damaged
areas to previously existing conditions. (NWP 45)
•
Discharges in Ditches. This permit applies to discharges of dredged or fill
material into certain types of ditches and canals that are constructed in upland
areas, that receive water from another water of the United States, and that divert
water to another water of the United States. The Corps argues that, with these
limitations, the types of ditches and canals covered by the permit are likely to
affect few aquatic resources, thus ensuring that the environmental impact of the
discharge is minimal. The permit is limited to discharges that cause the loss of no
more than one acre of waters of the United States. (NWP 46)
•
Pipeline Safety Program Designated Time-Sensitive Inspections and Repairs.
This permit authorizes inspection, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any
currently serviceable structure or fill for pipelines that are time-sensitive, for
example, following a pipeline rupture and are done in accordance with
Department of Transportation procedures. The new permit allows rapid response
when needed to reduce environmental impacts. No PCN is required. (NWP 47)
•
Existing Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities. This permit authorizes
structures or works in navigable waters, as well as discharges into all waters of
the United States, for the continued operation of existing commercial oyster,
clam, geoduck, mussel or scallop aquaculture operations. It does not apply to
new projects or expansion of existing ones and does not include operations that
raise crustaceans or finfish. (NWP 48)
•
Coal Remining Activities. This permit authorizes activities for the restoration of
coal mine sites that are causing physical and/or chemical impacts to water; many
are likely to be abandoned or closed sites. The permit allows new mining, either
at the site or as part of a reclamation project, or together with adjacent unmined
areas, and authorizes related discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal
waters of the United States. There is no specific acreage limit for this permit,
which applies only to activities already authorized under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act by the federal Office of Surface Mining or qualified
states. The applicant must demonstrate to the Corps that the overall project,
including the reclamation activity and any new mining, will result in a net
increase in aquatic resource functions. (NWP 49)
•
Underground Coal Mining Activities. This permit authorizes a number of
different activities associated with underground coal mining, such as excavating
rock and soil on the surface in order to expose coal seams; providing road access
for people and equipment to a site; and constructing acid mine drainage
impoundments or sedimentation ponds. It can be used to authorize permanent
structures or fills that will remain after reclamation of the site. The permit
authorizes discharges to non-tidal waters only. It does not authorize coal
preparation and processing activities outside the mine site (but these could be
authorized by NWP 21). Like NWP 21 (surface coal mining), no specific acreage
limit applies. (NWP 50)
The 2007 permits also modified a number of existing permits. For example, previously two
NWPs applied to construction of residential developments: NWP 29 (single unit residences) and
NWP 39 (multiple unit residential developments and commercial and institutional developments).
In 2007 the Corps modified these permits so that NWP 39 now authorizes commercial and
Congressional Research Service
6
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
institutional developments, and NWP 29 authorizes all types of residential developments. The
change in effect eliminates the previous NWP 29, which had a ¼-acre limit on authorized
discharges. As reissued, the revised NWP 29 has the same conditions as NWP 39: authorized
discharges would be limited to impacts affecting ½ acre of non-tidal waters and a 300-foot linear
foot limit on the loss of a stream bed. The Corps’ rationale for the changes to these two permits
was that it is inappropriate to establish different permits for single and multiple unit residential
developments, because impacts to the aquatic environment are determined by permit conditions
(such as the ½-acre limit), not the type of residential development. Regarding the changes to
NWP 39, the Corps argued that commercial developments (e.g., retail stores, industrial facilities,
and shopping centers) and institutional structures (e.g., schools, fire stations, hospitals, and places
of worship) are different from residential developments in a number of ways, such as different
state and local requirements concerning planning, zoning, and stormwater management.
Therefore, it is appropriate to group them in one permit (NWP 39) and to group residential
structures in a separate permit (NWP 29).
Both industry groups and environmental advocates criticized the modifications to NWP 29.
Industry groups, particularly homebuilders, objected to the fact that new NWP 29 would require
preconstruction notification (PCN) for all applications (previously, NWP 29 required PCN for
projects with certain impacts over one-tenth of an acre), arguing that it is unclear why a PCN
should be required for all activities, regardless of size. Many single-unit projects that previously
were not required to submit a PCN would have to do so under the revised permit, they said.
Further, they objected to the 300-foot linear limit and the ½-acre threshold under this permit,
saying these limits are too stringent (presumably for multiple unit developments) and will exclude
many projects with minimal impact from seeking a nationwide permit. Environmental groups, on
the other hand, argued that the ¼-acre threshold in NWP 29 should be retained, not increased.
Critiques
As noted previously, as the nationwide permit program has become more complex over time,
major interest groups have increasingly united to argue that the program as it has developed fails
to meet its overall objectives, although their reasons for this criticism are very different. One view
was expressed by an environmental advocacy group in comments on the 2006 draft NWPs.
The nationwide permit system was presumably developed in order to balance two somewhat
contrary objectives: to ensure that the permits issued result in only minimal impacts on
aquatic resources, and to provide a predictable, fair, and simply regulatory system for
citizens applying for permits. Given the complexity and confusion surrounding the
nationwide permit program, together with the clearly more than minimal environmental
impacts, we question whether either of these objectives is being achieved.10
Similar views were expressed by a group representing one set of land developers.
Over time, however, the NWPs have become increasingly restrictive and complex to the
point that they faintly resemble the streamlined permitting process Congress envisioned
when it enacted Section 404(e).... [T]he program waivers between providing administrative
relief and imposing red tape, between a truly streamlined process and one that is so severely
limited that few projects can qualify.... The history of the NWP has been a consistent
10
Gulf Restoration Network et al., Comments Submitted on Docket number COE-2006-0005, undated, pp. 1-2.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
tightening of the eligibility for the program.... Each time the Corps has drawn the line
between NWP eligibility and ineligibility, eligibility has been restricted, never relaxed.11
Beyond apparent broad agreement that the program fails to meet its objectives, the views of
industry and environmental advocacy groups diverge greatly. Major industry groups support the
NWP program, or the type of streamlined program that they believe was originally intended, and
agree with the Corps that the use of nationwide permits will result in minimal adverse
environmental impacts. Nevertheless, they were highly critical of many aspects of the Corps’
2006 proposal.
The Corps’ attempt to illegally expand its jurisdiction, the stringent and largely inflexible
acreage and PCN [preconstruction notification] thresholds, the lack of a proper
administrative process and record to support the proposal, the problematic regional
conditions and the overall trend toward the elimination of NWPs all contribute to a permit
package that is hardly even a semblance of the streamlined process directed by Congress.12
Major environmental groups argue that permitted activities will have more than minimal impacts
on the environment and that the Corps has no substantial or scientific evidence to conclude
otherwise. They argue that the permits are unlawful because they violate the requirements of
Section 404(e) that there may be no more than minimal adverse environmental effects on aquatic
resources, both individually and cumulatively. Environmental groups are highly critical of many
aspects of the program, such as inconsistent and inadequate PCN requirements, overly vague
requirements which will result in weakened regulatory protection, the granting of excessive
authority to Corps district engineers to waive permit limits in individual cases, and what they
describe as “irrational reliance” on compensatory mitigation to offset the harmful effects of
permitted activities. 13
In addition to general objections, a number of specific concerns became evident after issuance of
the 2002 permits and continue with the 2007 permits.
Mitigation Requirements
The Corps acknowledges that, although minimal adverse effects are anticipated from the
nationwide permit program, the use of NWPs may still affect the aquatic environment. Therefore,
the permits include a general condition detailing how district engineers may require
compensatory mitigation to offset the authorized impacts. Mitigation is intended to compensate
for lost functions and values resulting from permitted activities. Compensatory mitigation can be
accomplished through the restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic
resources, either by the permittee’s individual project, or the use of mitigation banks or other
consolidated mitigation efforts. Mitigation requirements incorporated in the nationwide permit
program have become more specific over time, especially since 1996, and are viewed by
environmental protection advocates as critically important.
11
National Association of Home Builders, “Advice and Recommendations of the National Association of Home
Builders on the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers’ Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits,”
undated, pp. 3, 21, 44.
12
Ibid., pp. 3-4.
13
See generally, Comments of the Gulf Restoration Network et al.; Natural Resources Defense Council et al.,
Comments Submitted on Docket # COE-2006-0005; and Ohio Valley Environmental Council, “Re: Proposal to Reissue
and Modify Nationwide Permits, Docket No. COE-2006-0005,” November 27, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
Before reissuance in 2002, this general condition required one-for-one mitigation of adverse
impacts to wetlands with a stated preference for restoration of wetland impacts over
preservation. 14 In 2002, the Corps revised the mandate to allow a case-by-case waiver of this
requirement in cases where the Corps determines that some other form of mitigation, such as
establishment of vegetated buffers, is more appropriate. The intention of the change, the Corps
said, was to have a more ecologically and watershed-based approach to mitigation. In the
agency’s view, the one-for-one acreage requirement was too restrictive, in that it focused solely
on wetlands but did not allow the Corps to mitigate aquatic impacts to streams and other nonwetland aquatic resources. Because the Corps regulates the entire aquatic environment, not just
wetlands, it said, mitigation should consider the entire aquatic environment, as well. The Corps
said that it will require mitigation for impacts based on a watershed approach, often involving a
mix of vegetated buffers and other mitigation in non-wetland areas. Thus, for example, a district
engineer might authorize a project with impacts on a particular wetland and require mitigation
within the overall aquatic environment of the particular watershed involved but not wetland-acrefor-wetland-acre mitigation. This approach, the Corps said, allows district engineers to require the
mitigation for project impacts that best protects the aquatic environment. 15
Environmentalists strongly opposed this change in 2002, saying that it effectively ignores the
principle of “no net loss” of wetlands which has been a goal of national wetlands policy since
1990. In response, Corps officials said that under the revision, project applicants must ensure that
wetland functions are replaced and that the “no net loss” goal be met on an acreage basis within a
Corps district.16 Environmental groups also argued that the Corps is too quick to look towards
mitigation as the answer for development activities affecting wetlands and should focus on
avoiding impacts as a first priority.
In 2007 the Corps also made certain modifications to the general condition for mitigation.
Previously, compensatory mitigation was required for all activities requiring a PCN and for
permanent losses of U.S. waters, at a minimum one-for-one ratio, unless the district engineer
decides that another form of mitigation would be more appropriate. The Corps modified this
requirement in 2007 by adding a one-tenth of an acre threshold—that is, if a PCN is required, and
if the proposed activity is expected to result in the loss of more than one-tenth of an acre of
wetlands, the permittee must comply with compensatory mitigation requirements. Mitigation
banks and in-lieu fee programs can be used for compensatory mitigation activities authorized by
nationwide permits. The Corps also added language stating that district engineers may require
mitigation when certain functions and services of waters of the United States would be
permanently changed by the permitted activity (such as conversion of a forested wetland to a
herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way).
In the decision documents accompanying the NWP proposal in 2006, the Corps estimated that in
total the permits (including the six new permits) will be used 52,434 times per year and are
expected to impact 6,366 acres of wetlands and other waters per year. The Corps also estimated
that 19,501 acres will be mitigated to offset the impacts of authorized activities. The data in these
14
The policy preference for restoration derives from the fact that preservation does not provide new acres and thus
cannot compensate for wetlands loss on an acreage basis.
15
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Issuance of Nationwide Permits,” 67 Federal Register 20632067, January 15, 2002.
16
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers clarifies inaccuracies in wetlands
permit reporting,” press release, January 16, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
estimates was based on reported use of the NWPs during FY2003 and the period of July 1, 2005,
to June 30, 2006, as well as a survey of Corps district offices.
Environmental groups were skeptical of these data, asserting that it is unclear how the numbers
were obtained, due to inconsistencies in the Corps’ permit database.
Even more troubling is the notion that the Corps uses these flawed permit numbers to arrive
at the acres of wetlands and waters impacted, and for the presumed use and impact of the
proposed NWPs. Again, we can only assume that the Corps has averaged the impacts
associated with some subset of known nationwide permit applications. This type of statistical
mean does not provide us with the actual impact to waters of the United States, nor can it be
used as a basis for predicting the future cumulative impacts of the proposed NWPs.17
Environmentalists have continued to be critical of the Corps’ reliance on mitigation as the basis
for concluding that impacts of the nationwide permits will be minimal. They have pointed to the
incomplete track record of mitigation projects described in a number of reports, including a June
2001 report of the National Research Council18 and a 2005 GAO report, showing that mitigation
is not fully successful and does not compensate for wetlands lost to permitted fills. 19 In light of
the lack of data that mitigation is performed or that it would successfully replace lost functions
and values, they asserted that the Corps lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that mitigation will
render the impacts of authorized activities minimal. If an activity requires mitigation, these critics
said, by definition it has more than minimal adverse effects to begin with, and under the Clean
Water Act, activities with more than minimal adverse effects can only be authorized by an
individual permit. They noted that the Council on Environmental Quality has said that relying on
mitigation to assume impacts are reduced below the threshold of significance violates the
National Environmental Policy Act.20 The Corps acknowledges that ecological success of
mitigation varies widely, but argues that mitigation is important to ensuring that nationwide
permits result in minimal adverse effects. The Corps says that it has increased its compliance
efforts to ensure that authorized projects are constructed as authorized, and that mitigation is
successful.
Under the 2007 NWPs, compensatory mitigation is required for all wetland losses that exceed
one-tenth of an acre, unless the district engineer issues a project-specific waiver. Industry was
critical that the Corps appears to elevate one form of mitigation (compensation) above all others21
and does not give district engineers flexibility to determine the extent to which mitigation is
needed, on a case-by-case basis. Environmental groups, on the other hand, strongly objected to
allowing waivers from mitigation requirements and giving discretion to district engineers,
17
Gulf Restoration Network et al., Comments Submitted on Docket number COE-2006-0005, p. 4.
National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water
Act, Washington, 2001, 267 p.
19
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Wetlands Protection: Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective
Oversight Approach to Ensure that Compensatory Mitigation is Occurring,” GAO-05-898, September 2005.
20
Council on Environmental Quality, “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations,” March 23, 1981.
21
Under its regulations and policy, when the Corps evaluates standard permit applications, it first determines that
potential impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable;
remaining unavoidable impacts will then be mitigated to the extent appropriate and practicable, in a sequence
beginning with avoidance of impacts, followed by minimization of adverse impacts, and then compensatory mitigation
for unavoidable impacts which remain. Compensatory mitigation might include restoration of a former wetland, or
enhancement for specified purposes such as water quality improvement.
18
Congressional Research Service
10
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
particularly because the NWPs contain no criteria or performance standards that would govern
mitigation.
Coal Mining Activities
The use of nationwide permits to authorize coal mining activities has been and continues to be
controversial, particularly in connection with NWP 21, which concerns surface coal mining
activities. Critics say that the environmental impacts of coal mining are typically far greater than
the standard set forth in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(e), that authorized activities will
cause only minimal adverse environmental effects, individually and cumulatively. The mining
industry argues that nationwide permit procedures are necessary to minimize regulatory burdens
that would threaten the economics of coal mining and to provide the kind of flexibility needed by
industry to respond to quickly changing operating requirements.
Nationwide permit 21 authorizes discharges from surface coal mining activities which result in no
more than minimal impacts (site-specifically and cumulatively) to the aquatic environment. There
is no acreage limit or threshold for a project to use this permit. The Corps reissued NWP 21 in
2002 with two changes intended to strengthen environmental protection for projects authorized by
the permit. First, the permit requires the Corps to determine appropriate mitigation in accordance
with nationwide permit general conditions, rather than relying primarily on less restrictive staterequired mitigation established under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, as had
previously been the case. Second, the permit requires explicit authorization before the activity can
take place, rather than only requiring preconstruction notification, as in the past.
Critics were less focused on these 2002 changes than on the basic permit itself, because
environmentalists have long contended that the permit authorizes disposal of coal mining waste
material which buries streams with overburden material, thereby disturbing the natural stream
processes and water quality in entire watersheds and resulting in permanent loss of habitat.
According to that view, mitigation cannot sufficiently compensate for these impacts, and any use
of this permit is inconsistent with ensuring “minimal adverse effects” on the aquatic environment.
Contributing to controversy over NWP 21 is the fact that in recent years the Corps has allowed
the use of this permit to authorize mountaintop mining activities in several Appalachian states
(e.g., West Virginia and Kentucky). 22 This practice involves removing the tops of mountains to
expose and remove underlying coal seams. Upon completion of the coal removal, some amount
of the overburden, or excess spoil, is placed back on the top of the mountain, while the majority is
disposed in nearby valleys where streams and wetlands are filled with the mining waste.
Environmentalists have sought to strengthen regulation of mountaintop mining, if not halt it
altogether, in part by arguing that the practice should be regulated under more stringent Clean
Water Act provisions than Section 404. Citizen groups have filed lawsuits seeking generally to
halt the Corps’ use of nationwide permit 21 for mountaintop mining operations. So far, protection
advocates have been unsuccessful in their efforts. The Corps has asserted that use of NWP 21 for
surface mining and mountaintop mining activities avoids and minimizes impacts to the extent
practicable and that adequate mitigation can be used to determine that a project has minimal
22
For information, see CRS Report RS21421, Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies, by Claudia
Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
effects. These activities, the Corps has said, can result in a “substantial improvement in
downstream water quality and aquatic habitat within a watershed.”23
However, as discussed further below, the Obama Administration is reviewing NWP 21 in
connection with a broad review of the environmental impacts of mountaintop mining and has
proposed to prohibit use of the permit in conjunction with surface coal mining activities in the
Appalachian region (see “Recent Administration Activity Concerning the Surface Coal Mining
NWP”).
In the September 2006 proposal to reissue the 2002 permits, the Corps noted a number of
administrative steps taken to address public concerns about NWP 21, such as adopting a standard
operating procedure for review of permit applications. In the proposal, the Corps requested public
comment on the need for an acreage limit for this permit, as it previously included none. The
mining industry generally supported NWP 21 and two related new permits, 49 and 50. However,
they opposed any acreage limit on NWP 21, saying that the permit would be useless to them if it
included an acreage limit. Most coal companies would not be able to comply with such a limit
and would, therefore, be required to obtain an individual permit, they said. Getting an individual
permit imposes costs of time and money to applicants and to government, industry contended,
without additional environmental benefits. In the revised permits, issued in March 2007, the
Corps did not include an acreage limit for NWP21.
Environmental critics cited data on the degrading impacts of current NWP 21 to aquatic life in
Appalachian streams, as well as terrestrial resources and wildlife, including data from a
programmatic environmental impact statement on mountaintop mining prepared by the Corps
which acknowledged that fills authorized by this permit have eliminated more than 1,200 miles of
streams in the past.24 In the 2006 decision document for NWP 21, the Corps estimated that in total
this permit will be used 204 times per year and is expected to impact 81 acres of wetlands and
other waters per year. The Corps also estimated that 71 acres will be mitigated to offset the
permit’s impacts. Environmental groups argued that there is no support for the Corps’ claim that
mitigation will reduce impacts of this permit to a minimal level, and urged that individual permits
should be required. In their view, nationwide permits should only be used for mining-related
activities with lesser impacts than valley fills, such as road crossings, temporary sediment ponds,
or stream diversions. The Corps responded that NWP 21, like the other nationwide permits,
requires compliance with general conditions, which address many of these criticisms.
Two of the 2007 permits, 49 and 50, also address coal mining activities. The Corps’ intention with
these permits was to provide incentives to coal remining and underground mining activities,
arguing that for permittees that meet specified terms and conditions such as acreage impact limits,
it will be faster to gain authorization under an NWP than it would be to obtain an individual
permit and that the environment will benefit from encouraging coal remining in this manner. By
allowing such activities to proceed under a nationwide permit, rather than requiring an individual
permit, the environmental benefits of remining (such as removing existing sources of water
pollution that harm downstream waters) are more likely to occur, according to the Corps. Further,
while acknowledging that permits 21, 49, and 50 have the potential to result in more than minimal
23
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Issuance of Nationwide Permits,” 67 Federal Register 2043,
January 15, 2002.
24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement,” October 2005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
adverse effects on water quality, the agency contended that compensatory mitigation,
opportunities for division engineers to impose regional conditions, and site-specific evaluation of
PCNs will ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimal. In the decision documents
accompanying the NWP proposal, the Corps estimated that permits 49 and 50 will be used 204
times per year and are expected to impact 475 acres of wetlands and other waters per year. The
Corps also estimated that 404 acres will be mitigated to offset the impacts of authorized activities.
Environmental critics said that the Corps has no factual basis for determining that impacts of the
coal mining NWPs will be minimal, since there are no documented data for estimating future
impacts of permits that did not exist before 2007. They point out that coal mining waste contains
chemicals that are toxic to aquatic life; there have been cases of spills of impounded wastes, with
impacts that are more than minimal. Underground mining is a destructive practice, they said, that
results in loss of stream and wetland functions through subsidence and waste disposal. They also
argue that the general permit process is inappropriate for such large scale activities.
Fills Within the 100-Year Floodplain
As discussed above, in 2000 the Corps established a general condition for the nationwide permit
program limiting activities within the 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA. In 2002, the
Corps modified a portion of this general condition to delete a mandate that permittees document
that the project meets FEMA-approved requirements and delete a requirement for preconstruction
notification to the Corps for certain activities occurring in the 100-year floodplain. Environmental
critics argued that the modification allows development in ecologically sensitive floodplain areas.
The Corps said it believed that requiring applicants to comply with FEMA requirements is just as
effective as also requiring applicants to document their compliance and that the changes to this
general permit condition would not reduce the floodplain restrictions adopted in 2000.
This general condition prohibits the use of certain NWPs (39, 40, 42, and 44) to authorize
discharges of dredged of fill material in waters of the United States resulting in permanent abovegrade fills within mapped 100-year floodplains located above or below headwaters of streams. It
also prohibits the use of NWP 43 (stormwater management) discharges within mapped 100-year
floodplains located below headwaters. Activities covered by these permits are subject to PCN
requirements, meaning that the permittee must notify the district engineer before beginning the
work and cannot proceed sooner than 45 days after filing a complete PCN without written notice
from the Corps. In 2007, the Corps modified the general condition related to mitigation to simply
require permittees to comply with applicable state or local floodplain management requirements
that have been approved by FEMA. Thus, potential impacts to 100-year floodplains will be
addressed through case-by-case review resulting from preconstruction notification by the
permittee. The Corps argued that modifying this general condition will increase government
efficiency by promoting conformity with state and local planning and zoning efforts, and federal
programs, since FEMA is the lead federal agency for floodplain management.
While industry groups supported this change, environmental groups and others criticized lifting
restrictions on activities in the 100-year floodplain, saying that allowing fills in the 100-year
floodplain could lead to catastrophic consequences during significant flood events. Restrictions
should be retained or even strengthened, some said, so as to prevent cumulative losses of valuable
resources which are allowable under FEMA requirements. Without regulatory limits,
development can occur in the floodplain, inducing citizens to occupy areas that are at risk of
severe flooding. Environmental groups argued that the job of reducing U.S. flood losses by
controlling new development should not be left just to state and local governments and that the
Congressional Research Service
13
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
Corps’ regulatory responsibility under the CWA is not lessened by the involvement of other
agencies. In the 2007 reissued permits, the Corps said that the revised general condition will
provide protection to floodplain values that is appropriate to the scope of the Corps’ regulatory
authority; additional restrictions or prohibitions on development in the 100-year floodplain are
more appropriate to land use planning and zoning, not Corps regulations.
Other Issues Concerning Nationwide Permits
The nationwide permits issued since 1996 have raised a number of additional issues. For
example, the program is intended to balance a desire for administrative simplicity and reduced
regulatory burden, on the one hand, with protecting aquatic resources, including wetlands. Yet,
many industry stakeholders question whether a number of administrative requirements of the
permits, such as advance notification to the Corps and other agencies, written verification of
permit compliance, and opportunities for regional conditions, are tilted too much in the direction
of protecting aquatic resources and not enough in the direction of regulatory relief, while also
making the nationwide permit program unduly complicated.
Regional Conditioning
Corps officials have the authority to apply special conditions to use of any of the nationwide
permits or even to revoke use of specific permits in aquatic environments of particularly high
value or in specific geographic areas. Indeed, the Corps expects its district and division engineers
to utilize a significant amount of regional conditioning to ensure effective protection at the local
level of wetlands and other water resources, because aquatic resource functions and values vary
considerably across the country and cannot be imposed through more stringent national
limitations (regional conditioning cannot be used to make an NWP less restrictive).
The purpose of regional conditioning is to consider local differences in aquatic resource functions
and values to ensure that nationwide permits do not authorize activities with more than minimal
adverse effects on the aquatic environment. One type of regional conditioning is done by district
and division engineers who propose specific conditions if there are concerns for the aquatic
environment in a particular district, watershed, or other geographic region. Corps officials also
may propose revocation of NWP authorization for all, some, or portions of the nationwide
permits. A second type of regional conditions is imposed by state Section 401 water quality
certification or for state coastal zone consistency (see discussion below). Regional conditions
might include identifying distinct watersheds or waterbodies where certain nationwide permits
should be suspended or revoked, thus requiring landowners to obtain individual project-specific
permits; reducing the acreage thresholds in certain types of waters; or adding notification
requirements for all permitted work in certain watersheds. The permits issued in 2000 provided a
new and somewhat more formal approach than in the past to developing appropriate conditional
requirements in each Corps District, providing explicitly for public input and coordination with
federal resource agencies.
For more than a decade, the NWP program has relied greatly on regional conditioning to adjust
the national program to local watersheds. A district engineer can either add special conditions to
the NWP authorization or exercise discretionary authority to require an individual permit. This
flexibility continues to cause various concerns among stakeholders, with some environmentalists
arguing that more restrictive national standards on the NWPs should be imposed instead of
Congressional Research Service
14
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
relying upon a discretionary authority process. Some in industry believe that the discretionary
authority results in greater complexity and less predictability for regulated entities.
However, regarding increased use of regional conditioning to strengthen permits, some
environmental groups have been skeptical that the Corps would be able to attach meaningful
conditions, while developers have had the opposite concern—that restrictions imposed by Corps
regions would be unduly burdensome. 25
The 2007 reissued NWPs continue the Corps’ reliance on regional conditioning and review of
preconstruction notification of specific projects as a way for regulators to ensure that impacts of
activities are minimal. Echoing their concerns about the Corps’ reliance on compensatory
mitigation, environmental groups criticized the Corps’ expectation that regional conditioning can
assure that impacts are minimal. Industry groups contend that regional conditions make the
NWPs more complex and burdensome for both the Corps and permit applicants. “As more
conditions are placed on the use of NWPs, fewer permit applicants fall outside of the many
restrictions and exclusions, thus fewer will qualify for the efficient NWP process.”26
State Coordination Issues
Implementation of the Corps’ regulatory program, including the nationwide permits, requires
considerable coordination between federal and state governments. For one thing, many states (and
some localities) administer their own wetlands management and protection programs which vary
in the way wetlands are defined and the activities that may or may not take place within or near
regulated wetlands, and officials attempt to minimize duplication and overlap.
More important, however, is a coordinating responsibility given to states under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. This provision requires certification by states that a proposed project seeking a
federal license or permit, such as a Section 404 permit, will not violate a state’s water quality
standards.27 In addition, the 34 states and territories that operate management programs under the
Coastal Zone Management Act are required to provide concurrence that the activity is consistent
with the state’s coastal zone management (CZM) program. Review under the 401 water quality
certification process or CZM concurrence is an important means by which states ensure that their
water quality concerns will be considered in federally licensed activities, because a state can use
this authority to place its own conditions on the federal permit, or to deny the permit’s use in that
state.28 Coordination begins at the time the Corps proposes to issue or reissue the nationwide
permit package. However, coordination evidences a number of tensions between the Corps and
states, especially when states deny certification or CZM concurrence.
25
“Six New Classes of Activities Covered Under Proposed Corps Replacement Permits,” Daily Environment Reporter,
June 25, 1998, No. 122, p. AA-1.
26
National Association of Home Builders, “Advice and Recommendations of the National Association of Home
Builders on the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers’ Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits,” p.
19.
27
States also may waive 401 certification, which is effectively the same as issuing an unqualified certification.
28
For additional information, see CRS Report 97-488, Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues, by
Claudia Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
15
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
NWP Reissuance: Public Review and Coordination; State Responses
Issuance or reissuance of NWPs begins approximately six months in advance of expiration of
existing nationwide permits. The process involves publishing the proposal for public comment
and coordinating with states. Publication of the proposed permits in the Federal Register initiates
a 60-day public comment period on the draft permits and also serves as the Corps’ request to
states to issue, deny, or waive certification of the NWPs. Concurrent with the Federal Register
Notice, Corps district offices solicit comments on proposed regional conditions and also on their
proposals to suspend or revoke some or all of the NWPs, if they have issued or propose to issue
regional general permits, programmatic general permits, or letters of permission in lieu of NWPs.
The comment period for district public notices is 45 days.
After reviewing public comments on the draft NWPs, the Corps prepares final NWPs, which are
subject to another round of review by interested federal agencies (but not the public). The Corps
then publishes the final NWPs, which become effective 60 days after publication. During the 60day period, Corps division engineers approve regional conditions for the final NWPs and issue
decision documents which address the environmental considerations related to the use of NWPs
in specific Corps districts. The decision documents certify that the NWPs, together with any
regional conditions or geographic revocations, will only authorize activities that result in minimal
individual adverse effects on the aquatic environmental at the regional level.
Also during the 60-day post-publication period, states and Indian Tribes complete their 401 water
quality certification and CZMA consistency decisions. Water quality certifications and/or CZMA
consistency determinations may be issued without conditions, issued with conditions, or denied
for specific NWPs. Conditions placed as a result of 401 certification or CZMA concurrent by a
state automatically become part of a nationwide permit in that state. Many states have denied
blanket water quality certification for certain NWPs. For example, many states have opposed
NWP 29 since it was first issued in 1995, and about one-third of states have denied 401
certification, because the permit was determined to be inconsistent with state water quality
standards or other state wetlands management activities. Other states have attached additional
conditions to the use of NWPs to ensure that water quality impacts are minimal.
The Corps believes, in general, that activities authorized by NWPs will not violate state or tribal
water quality standards and will be consistent with CZM plans. Thus, if a state denies a water
quality certification or disagrees that the activities authorized by the NWPs are consistent with a
state CZM program, the Corps will deny authorization for the affected activities within that state,
but does so without prejudice. Thus, when applicants request approval of such activities, and the
Corps determines that the activities meet the terms and conditions of the NWP, the Corps will
issue provisional verification letters, notifying the applicant that NWP authorization is contingent
upon obtaining the necessary project-specific water quality certificate or waiver thereof, or
CZMA consistency determination, from the state, through a process called “individual
certification of NWP use on a case-by-case basis.”
An issue of long-standing concern to states is the fact that, if a state denies 401 certification or
CZM concurrence, the Corps does not necessarily consider the state’s action sufficient cause to
deny issuance of the federal permit. When this happens in the case of nationwide permits, the
state is forced either to accept the permitted activity, as authorized by the Corps, or to expend its
resources to review the project separately and issue a 401 certification with conditions specific to
that project. States object that when the Corps issues provisional verification of NWP
authorization, this puts pressure on states to certify projects. Many states take the position that, if
Congressional Research Service
16
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
a state denies certification, the Corps should evaluate the project under the individual permit
process. States would like the Corps to treat a 401 denial of an NWP as a veto. The Corps may
deny the permit (withdrawing its applicability in a state), but will not always do so. The Corps
does not believe that state denial of 401 certification should be the sole basis for requiring an
individual permit. The Corps’ position is that denial of state water quality certification for a
nationwide permit does not necessarily mean that unacceptable adverse effects will occur on a
case-by-case basis, and the Corps prefers that the burden of conditioning or restricting the project
at that point be with the state through issuance of a project-specific 401 certification or CZM
consistency determination.
This tension over state and federal responsibilities does not exist under other Clean Water Act
permits. For example, under the act’s discharge permit program for industrial and municipal
sources (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program in Section 402 of the act),
if a state denies 401 water quality certification, EPA insists on changes to the project until it gains
certification.
One option is for states to seek approval of a programmatic general permit (PGP; see discussion
in footnote 4), if the state is qualified and has sufficient regulatory authority. The Corps would
then suspend federal permitting, and there would be less question over state water quality or other
requirements. This is the case in a number of states with PGP programs, which replace some or
all of the federal nationwide permits. State PGPs are duplicative of some nationwide permits and
offer a more streamlined regulatory process for applicants. Another option is for states to seek
authorization for full assumption of the 404 program, a more complicated process than PGP
approval, and only Michigan and New Jersey have done so. However, not all states are interested
or able to seek PGP approval or full program authorization. Thus, even though the Corps has
stated its intention to work in partnership with states, most states will continue to conduct 401
certification reviews of nationwide and other wetlands permits, and it is likely that conflicts over
water quality certification will persist.
Defining Minimal Adverse Effects, Assessing Cumulative Impacts
Some observers have been critical that, while the Corps has made some environmentally
strengthening improvements to many of the nationwide permits since 1996, it has not addressed a
number of outstanding concerns. For example, both environmental groups and industry groups
have criticized the Corps for declining to define what are “minimal adverse effects.” Industry
groups contend that a determination of minimal effects is central to whether an individual permit
is required. If the Corps cannot define “minimal effects,” they say, how can it claim that any
particular restriction is required to achieve it? Environmental groups argue a different point, that
without defining what “minimal” is, the Corps cannot argue that, even with specified restrictions,
a given activity will have only minimal environmental impacts. On these points, the Corps’
general position is that it is not appropriate to define or dictate these matters on a nationwide
basis, because what constitutes minimal adverse environmental effects can vary widely from state
to state and watershed to watershed.
Environmentalists have urged the Corps to conduct a cumulative impact analysis of the
nationwide permit program. The agency has declined to do so, contending that the permits do not
constitute a major federal action having a significant effect on the human environment, since
Corps data on the usage of permits suggest that the adverse effects, even cumulatively, are less
than minimal. Thus, the agency argues that it is not required to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, nor is a cumulative impact
Congressional Research Service
17
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
analysis warranted. In February 1998, environmental groups brought suit against the Corps for
failure to fully evaluate the effects of the nationwide permit program. Partly in response to this
litigation, the Corps announced in June 1998 that it would prepare a programmatic environmental
impact statement (PEIS) on the nationwide permit program and would consult with the other
federal resource agencies, although the Corps continued to hold that the program has no
significant impact on the environment or on endangered species.29 The Corps viewed voluntary
preparation of this PEIS as part of its commitment to ensure that the nationwide program
authorizes only activities with minimal individual and cumulative environmental effects. A draft
PEIS was issued in July 2001,30 and the Corps said at the time that a final PEIS would be issued
early in 2002. This did not occur, because the Corps determined that it was not necessary to
complete the PEIS. For the nationwide permits, the Corps contends that it fulfills the
requirements of NEPA through the issuance of environmental assessments.31
Rather than conducting an EIS for any of the nationwide permits individually or a PEIS for the
package of permits, the Corps prepares “preliminary decision documents” for each proposed
NWP, including an environmental assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact. These
documents consider the environmental effects of each NWP from a national perspective, and thus
comply with requirements of NEPA. Environmental groups are strongly critical of these
documents, saying that they “consist mostly of rote boilerplate with little actual analysis and no
real evaluation of alternatives.”32 Others argue that the documents “are nearly identical in
language for each NWP, and merely reiterate the language of section 404(e) of the Clean Water
Act, as if repeating the mantra that the impacts are minimal, they magically become minimal.”33
By extracting data from each of the 2006 draft decision documents, environmental groups
estimated that the permits proposed by the Corps would impact 31,800 acres over five years, or
49.7 square miles. While these groups argue that the data used by the Corps are flawed and
undercount likely impacts, they also argue that it is not reasonable to conclude that impacts of
that scope are below the required threshold of minimal, even with the addition of regional
conditions and district engineers’ discretionary authority to limit impacts.34
Recent Administration Activity Concerning the Surface Coal
Mining NWP
On June 11, 2009, officials of EPA, the Corps, and the Department of the Interior signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency Action Plan (IAP) outlining a series of
administrative actions to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of mountaintop mining in
Appalachia. The plan includes a series of near-term and longer-term actions that emphasize
specific steps, improved coordination, and greater transparency of decisions.35 A key element is
29
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Finding of No Significant Impact for the Nationwide Permit
Program,” June 23, 1998.
30
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Draft Nationwide Permits Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement,” July 31, 2001.
31
David B. Olson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication, November 17, 2006.
32
Natural Resources Defense Council et al., Comments Submitted on Docket #COE-2006-0005, p. 32.
33
Gulf Restoration Network et al., Comments Submitted on Docket number COE-2006-0005, p. 13.
34
Ibid., pp. 2-5.
35
For additional information on these Administration actions, see CRS Report RS21421, Mountaintop Mining:
Background on Current Controversies, by Claudia Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
18
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
an agreement detailing criteria that will be used to coordinate and expedite review of pending
permit applications for surface coal mining operations in Appalachia (including but not limited to
mountaintop mining projects).
In July 2009, the Corps published a two-part proposal concerning one aspect of the IAP, the use
of Nationwide Permit 21 to authorize mountaintop mining activities.36 First, the Corps proposed
permanent modification of this NWP to prohibit its use in conjunction with surface coal mining
activities in the Appalachian region. Second, because modification of the NWP is a long-term
process, the Corps also proposed to temporarily suspend NWP 21 for surface coal mining
activities in the Appalachian region in order to quickly halt the use of NWP 21 in the region.
Surface coal mining activities in other regions would not be affected. The proposed suspension
and modification would mean that surface coal mining activities in Appalachia would need to be
evaluated through the Corps’ detailed individual permit review process, rather than under a
streamlined nationwide permit. The Corps explained its reason in the proposal:
[T]he Corps now believes that impacts of these activities on jurisdictional waters of the
United States, particularly cumulative impacts, would be more appropriately evaluated
through the individual permit process, which entails increased public and agency
involvement, including an opportunity for public comment on individual projects.37
Subsequently, in June 2010 the Corps acted to suspend use of NWP 21 in the Appalachian region
immediately (the second part of the July 2009 proposal) as an interim measure while it continues
to evaluate permanent modification or suspension of the permit (the first part of the 2009
proposal), which expires in 2012. According to the Corps’ announcement, NWP 21 activities in
the affected region that had been verified by the Corps prior to June 18, 2010, will continue to be
authorized until March 18, 2012, unless modified on a case-by-case basis.38 The Corps estimated
that the immediate suspension would affect approximately six operations that at the time were
seeking to use NWP 21; they would then have to submit applications for individual permits to
authorize their activities.
Congressional Interest
Congressional interest in legislation to revise the federal wetlands regulatory program has been
apparent in the past, as groups have pursued proposals intended to simplify and streamline
permitting; revise federal and state roles in permitting; or clarify the geographic reach of Clean
Water Act programs, in response to court cases that have created jurisdictional uncertainties.39
None has focused specifically on nationwide permits. For some time, controversy over the
direction of overall wetlands policy has been a major component of debates on the Clean Water
Act and is partly the reason that no comprehensive clean water legislation has been enacted since
1987. Interest groups have been unable to reach consensus on whether legislative reform is
needed and, if so, how far it should extend.
36
Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Proposed Suspension and Modification of
Nationwide Permit 21,” 74 Federal Register 34311-34316, July 15, 2009.
37
Ibid. at 34313.
38
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Suspension of Nationwide Permit 21,” 75 Federal Register 117, June
18, 2010.
39
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by Claudia Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
19
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
Congress has shown some interest in permitting issues, however. In April 1997, a House
Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the developments
concerning nationwide permits and other issues.40 In June 1997, a Senate Environment and Public
Works subcommittee held a similar hearing.41 At both hearings, witnesses representing developers
and other groups subject to wetlands regulation expressed concern about impacts of the overall
wetlands regulatory program, and a number were critical of the 1996 changes to the nationwide
permit program, saying that the changes would be costly and could result in project delays.
Administration witnesses supported the modifications, responding that the changes would allow
the Corps to implement a more fair, flexible, and effective program which is appropriately
responsive to environmental protection needs.
Interest in these topics recurred in the 106th Congress, focusing on changes to nationwide permit
26. Regulatory issues first were addressed in the FY2000 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill. As approved by the House in July 1999, this bill included a provision to
require the Corps to submit a study on the workload impact and compliance costs of replacement
permits for NWP 26. Landowner and developer groups supported the provision, contending that
the costs and impacts should be better identified before revised permits were issued, but the
Clinton Administration opposed it, saying that the study was unnecessary and would increase
wetlands loss in the nation by delaying issuance of replacement permits. The final bill, P.L. 10660, modified the House language by directing the Corps to study the workload impacts and costs
of compliance of the proposed replacement permits, but dropped language that would have
required submission of a report to Congress before publication of final permits. In March 2000,
the Corps reported estimates of increased permitted workload and compliance costs associated
with changes to the nationwide permit program that were proposed in July 1999.
In connection with the FY2001 funding bill for the Corps, Congress addressed the issue of the
activity-specific permits issued in 2000, but it did not attempt to modify or rescind the permits
themselves. Congress included legislative language in the FY2001 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, directing the Corps to improve the analysis and increase
information available to the public regarding the costs of the nationwide permit program and
permit processing times. This bill was enacted in October 2000 as P.L. 106-377 (after the
effective date of the replacement permits that were issued in March 2000). It directed the Corps to
revise its cost estimate of the nationwide permits program, based on the final replacement permits
(which differed in a number of ways from the July 1999 proposal); prepare a plan to manage the
additional workload of these permits; provide quarterly program performance reports and annual
reports on two specific Corps divisions; and provide improved information on permit applications
and the functioning of the administrative appeals process. A revised analysis of the permitting
changes and incremental compliance costs for the 2000 permits was issued in August 2001.42 This
report concluded that the replacement package would increase by about 25% the number of
individual permit applications submitted to the Corps, due to activity restrictions and new general
conditions, and that processing time and pending applications would rise steadily each year. In
40
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, “Recent Regulatory and Judicial Developments on Wetlands,” Hearing, 105th Cong., 1st
sess., April 29, 1997 (105-36), 461 p.
41
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands,
Private Property and Nuclear Safety, “Wetlands: Review of Regulatory Changes,” Hearing, 105th Cong., 1st sess., June
26, 1997 (S.Hrg. 105-328), 230 p.
42
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, “Cost Analysis for the 2000 Issuance and
Modification of Nationwide Permits,” August 2001.
Congressional Research Service
20
The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program
principle, the additional permitting time could be avoided if the Corps’ permitting budget were
increased sufficiently, the report said.43
It has been more than a decade since Congress examined the nationwide permit program through
oversight hearings or through legislation, in connection with appropriations bills. As this report
has described, the program has continued to evolve and to generate wide-ranging concerns among
stakeholder and interest groups. Further, the Obama Administration’s initiatives and actions
concerning surface coal mining activities in Appalachia (see “Recent Administration Activity
Concerning the Surface Coal Mining NWP”) have drawn congressional attention and criticism
that is likely to continue in the 112th Congress and that could include oversight of the Corps’
regulatory program generally.
Author Contact Information
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov, 7-7227
43
Appropriations for the Corps’ regulatory program, which totaled $117 million in FY2000, have increased to $190
million in FY2010. The President’s FY2011 budget requests $193 million.
Congressional Research Service
21