|
The people of the United States have begun to recognize that wetlands
have numerous and widespread benefits. However, many of the goods and
services wetlands provide have little or no market value. Because of
this, the benefits produced by wetlands accrue primarily to the
general public. Therefore, the Government provides incentives and
regulates and manages wetland resources to protect the resources from
degradation and destruction. Other mechanisms for wetland protection
include acquisition, planning, mitigation, disincentives for
conversion of wetlands to other land uses, technical assistance,
education, and research. Although many States have their own wetland regulations, the Federal Government bears a major responsibility for regulating wetlands. The five Federal agencies that share the primary responsibility for protecting wetlands include the Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service). Each of these agencies has a different mission that is reflected in the implementation of the agency's authority for wetland protection. The Corps' duties are related to navigation and water supply. The EPA's authorities are related to protecting wetlands primarily for their contributions to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. The FWS's authorities are related to managing fish and wildlife-game species and threatened and endangered species. Wetland authority of NOAA lies in its charge to manage the Nation's coastal resources. The NRCS focuses on wetlands affected by agricultural activities.
|
States are becoming more active in wetland protection. As of 1993, 29
States had some type of wetland law (Want, 1993). Many of these
States have adopted programs to protect wetlands beyond those programs
enacted by the Federal Government. As more responsibility is
delegated from the Federal Government to the States, State wetland
programs are gaining in importance. Thus far, States have devoted
more attention to regulating coastal wetlands than inland wetlands.
The most comprehensive State programs include those of Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and
Minnesota (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Many of these States regulate
those activities affecting wetlands that are exempt from the Clean
Water Act, Section 404 program. (For more information on specific
State wetland protection programs, see the State Summary section of
this volume.) Despite the current recognition of wetland benefits, many potentially conflicting interests still exist, such as that between the interests of landowners and the general public and between developers and conservationists. Belated recognition of wetland benefits and disagreement on how to protect them has led to discrepancies in local, State, and Federal guidelines. Discrepancies in Federal programs are apparent in table 6, which shows programs that encourage conversion of wetlands and those that discourage conversion of wetlands. Conflicting interests are the source of much tension and controversy in current wetland protection policy. Although attempts are being made to reconcile some of these differences, many policies will have to be modified to achieve consistency. Despite all the government legislation, policies, and programs, wetlands will not be protected if the regulations are not enforced. Perhaps the best way to protect wetlands is to educate the public of their benefits. If the public does not recognize the benefits of wetland preservation, wetlands will not be preserved. Protection can be accomplished only through the cooperative efforts of citizens. |
If the public does not recognize the benefits of wetland preservation, wetlands will not be preserved | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FEDERAL WETLAND PROTECTION PROGRAMS AND POLICIES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Federal Government protects wetlands directly and indirectly
through regulation, by acquisition, or through incentives and
disincentives as described in table 6. Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act is the primary vehicle for Federal regulation of some of the
activities that occur in wetlands. Other programs, such as the
"Swampbuster" program and the Coastal Management and Coastal Barriers
Resources Acts, provide additional protection. Coastal wetlands
generally benefit most from the current network of statutes and
regulations. Inland wetlands are more vulnerable than coastal
wetlands to degradation or loss because current statutes and policies
provide them less comprehensive protection. Several of the major
Federal policies and programs affecting wetlands are discussed in the
following few pages. Also discussed are some of the States' roles in
Federal wetland policies.
The Clean Water ActThe Federal Government regulates, through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, some of the activities that occur in wetlands. The Section 404 program originated in 1972, when Congress substantially amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and created a Federal regulatory plan to control the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands and other waters of the United States. Discharges are commonly associated with projects such as channel construction and maintenance, port development, fills to create dry land for development sites near the water, and water-control projects such as dams and levees. Other kinds of activities, such as the straightening of river channels to speed the flow of water downstream and clearing land, are regulated as Section 404 discharges if they involve discharges of more than incidental amounts of soil or other materials into wetlands or other waters. |
The Corps and the EPA share the responsibility for implementing the
permitting program under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However,
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to veto the
permit if discharge materials at the selected sites would adversely affect
such things as municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas,
wildlife, or recreational resources. By 1991, the EPA had vetoed 11 of
several hundred thousand permits since the Act was passed (Schley and
Winter, 1992). The review process for a Section 404 permit is shown in figure 39. After notice and opportunity for a public hearing, the Corps' District Engineer may issue or deny the permit. The District Engineer must comply with the EPA's Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and must consider the public interest when evaluating a proposed permit. Four questions related to the guidelines are considered during a review of an application:
|
The Clean Water Act regulates dredge and fill activities that would adversely affect wetlands. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Through a public interest review, the Corps tries to balance the benefits
an activity may provide against the costs it may incur. The criteria
applied in this process are the relative extent of the public and private
need for the proposed structure or work and the extent and permanence of
the beneficial or detrimental effects on the public and private uses to
which the area is suited. Some of the factors considered in the public
interest review are listed in figure 39.
Cumulative effects of numerous piecemeal changes are considered in addition
to the individual effects of the projects. The FWS, NOAA, and State fish and wildlife agencies, as the organizations in possession of most of the country's biological data, have important advisory roles in the Section 404 program. The FWS and NOAA (if a coastal area is involved) provide the Corps and the EPA with comments about the potential environmental effects of pending Section 404 permits. Other government agencies, industry, and the public are invited to participate through public notices of permit applications, hearings, or other information-collecting activities. However, the public interest review usually does not involve public comment unless the permit is likely to generate significant public interest or if the potential consequences of the permit are expected to be significant. All recommendations must be given full consideration by the Corps, but there is no requirement that they must be acted upon. If the FWS or NOAA disagree with a permit approved by a District Engineer, they can request that the permit be reviewed at a higher level within the Corps. However, the Assistant Secretary of the Army has the unilateral right to refuse all requests for higher level reviews. The Assistant Secretary accepted the additional review of 16 of the 18 requested out of the total 105,000 individual permits issued between 1985 and 1992 (Schley and Winter, 1992). Because many activities may cause the discharge of dredged and fill materials, and the potential effects of these activities differ, the Corps has issued general regulations to deal with a wide range of activities that could require a Section 404 permit. The Corps can forgo individual permit review by issuing general permits on a State, regional, or nationwide basis. General permits cover specific categories of activities that the Corps determines will have minimal effects on the aquatic environment, including wetlands. General permits are designed to allow activities with minimal effects to begin with little, if any, delay or paperwork. General permits authorize approximately 75,000 activities annually that might otherwise require a permit (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991); however, most activities in wetlands are not covered by general permits (Morris, 1991).
|
Not all dredge and fill activities require a Section 404 permit. Many
activities that cause the discharge of dredged and fill materials are
exempt from Section 404. The areas specifically exempted from Section 404
include: normal farming, forestry, and ranching activities; dike, dam,
levee, and other navigation and transportation structure maintenance;
construction of temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites; and
construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads
for moving mining equipment (Morris, 1991). In addition, the Corps' flood-
control and drainage projects and other Federal projects authorized by
Congress and planned, financed, and constructed by a Federal agency also
are exempt from the Section 404 permitting requirements if an adequate
environmental impact statement is prepared. Not all methods of altering wetlands are regulated by Section 404. Common methods of altering wetlands are listed in table 7. Unregulated methods include: wetland drainage, the lowering of ground-water levels in areas adjacent to wetlands, permanent flooding of existing wetlands, deposition of material that is not specifically defined as dredged and fill material by the Clean Water Act, and wetland vegetation removal (Office of Technology Assessment, 1984). State authority over the Federal Section 404 program is a goal of the Clean Water Act. Assumption of authority from the EPA has been completed only by Michigan and New Jersey. Under this arrangement, the EPA is responsible for approving State assumptions and retains oversight of the State Section 404 program, and the Corps retains the navigable waters permit program (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). States cannot issue permits over EPA's objection, but EPA has the authority to waive its review for selected categories of permit applications. Few States have chosen to assume the program, in part because few Federal resources are available to assist States and assumption does not include navigable waters (World Wildlife Fund, 1992).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Swampbuster" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The program that seeks to remove Federal incentives for the agricultural conversion of wetlands is part of the Food Security Act of 1985 and 1990, and is known as "Swampbuster." Swampbuster renders farmers who drained or otherwise converted wetlands for the purpose of planting crops after December 23, 1985, ineligible for most Federal farm subsidies. Through Swampbuster, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to slow wetland conversion by agricultural activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). The government programs that Swampbuster specifically affects are listed in Section 1221 of the Food Security Act. If a farmer loses eligibility for USDA programs under Swampbuster, he or she may regain eligibility during the next year simply by not using wetlands for growing crops. Swampbuster is administered by USDA's Consolidated Farm Service Agency. The NRCS and the FWS serve as technical consultants (World Wildlife Fund, 1992). | The Swampbuster was amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to create the Wetland Reserve Program. The Wetland Reserve Program provides financial incentives to farmers to restore and protect wetlands through the use of long-term easements (usually 30-year or permanent). The program provides farmers the opportunity to offer a property easement for purchase by the USDA and to recieve cost-share assistance (from 50 to 75 percent) to restore converted wetlands. Landowners make bids to participate in the program. The bids represent the payment they are willing to accept for granting an easement to the Federal Government. The Consolidated Farm Service Agency ranks the bids according to the environmental benefit per dollar. Easements require that farmers implement conservation plans approved by the NRCS and the FWS. Enrollment in the pilot program was authorized for nine States. The program's goal is to enroll 1 million acres by 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). Funding for this program is appropriated annually by Congress (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994). Because 74 percent of United States' wetlands are on private land, programs that provide incentives for private landowners to preserve their wetlands, such as the Wetland Reserve Program, are critical for protecting wetlands (Council of Environmental Quality, 1989). | "Swampbuster" removes Federal incentives for the agricultural conversion of wetlands. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coastal Wetlands Protection Programs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act and the 1982 Coastal Barriers
Resources Act protect coastal wetlands. The Coastal Zone Management Act
encourages States (35 States and territories are eligible, including the
Great Lakes States) to establish voluntary coastal zone management plans
under NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program and provides funds for
developing and implementing the plans. The NOAA also provides technical
assistance to States for developing and implementing these programs. For
Federal approval, the plans must demonstrate enforceable standards that
provide for the conservation and environmentally sound development of
coastal resources. The program provides States with some control over
wetland resources by requiring that Federal activities be consistent with
State coastal zone management plans, which can be more stringent than
Federal standards (World Wildlife Fund, 1992, p. 87). A State also can
require that design changes or mitigation requirements be added to Section
404 permits to be consistent with the State coastal zone management plan.
The Coastal Zone Management Act has provided as much as 80 percent of the
matching-funds grants to States to develop plans for coastal management
that emphasize wetland protection (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Some
States pass part of the grants on to local governments. The Act's
authorities are limited to wetlands within a State's coastal zone boundary,
the definition of which differs among States. As of 1990, 23 States had
federally approved plans. The 1982 Coastal Barriers Resources Act denies Federal subsidies for development within undeveloped, unprotected coastal barrier areas, including wetlands, designated as part of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Congress designates areas for inclusion in the Coastal Barriers Resource System on the basis of some of the following criteria (Watzin, 1990):
|
In addition, States, local governments, and conservation organizations
owning lands that were "otherwise protected" could have their lands added
to this system until May 1992. ("Otherwise protected" lands are areas
within undeveloped coastal barriers that were already under some form of
protection.) Once in the Coastal Barriers Resources System, these areas
are rendered ineligible for almost all Federal financial subsidies for
programs that might encourage development. In particular, these lands no
longer qualify for Federal flood insurance, which discourages development
because coastal lands are frequently subject to flooding and damage from
hurricanes and other storms. The FWS is responsible for mapping these
areas and approves lands to be included in the system. The purposes of the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act are to minimize the loss of human life, to
reduce damage to fish and wildlife habitats and other valuable resources,
and to reduce wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues (Watzin, 1990). In
the future, eligible surplus government land will be included if approved
by the FWS. About 95 percent of the 788,000 acres added to the system in
1990 along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts consists of coastal wetlands and
near-shore waters (World Wildlife Fund, 1992).
Flood-Plain and Wetland Protection OrdersExecutive Orders 11988, Floodplain Management, and 11990, Protection of Wetlands, were signed by President Carter in 1977. The purpose of these Executive Orders was to ensure protection and proper management of flood plains and wetlands by Federal agencies. The Executive Orders require Federal agencies to consider the direct and indirect adverse effects of their activities on flood plains and wetlands. This requirement extends to any Federal action within a flood plain or a wetland except for routine maintenance of existing Federal facilities and structures. The Clinton administration has proposed revising Executive Order 11990 to direct Federal agencies to consider wetland protection and restoration planning in the larger scale watershed/ecosystem context. |
The Coastal Zone Management Program provides States with some control over wetland resources. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WETLAND DELINEATION STANDARDS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Corps published, in 1987, the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, a technical manual that provides guidance to Federal agencies about how to use wetland field indicators to identify and delineate wetland boundaries (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). In January of 1989, the EPA, Corps, SCS, and FWS adopted a single manual for delineating wetlands under the Section 404 and Swampbuster programs-The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (commonly referred to as the "1989 Manual"). The "1989 Manual" establishes a national standard for identifying and delineating wetlands by specifying the technical criteria used to determine the presence of the three wetland characteristics: wetland hydrology, water-dependent vegetation, and soils that have developed under anaerobic conditions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). | In 1991, the President's Council on Competitiveness proposed revisions to the 1989 Manual because of some concern that nonwetland areas were regularly being classified as wetlands (Environmental Law Reporter, 1992a). The proposed 1991 Manual was characterized by many wetland scientists as politically based rather than scientifically based. In September of 1992, Congress authorized the National Academy of Science to conduct a $400,000 study of the methods used to identify and delineate wetlands (Environmental Law Reporter, 1992b). On August 25, 1993, the Clinton administration's wetland policy, proclaimed that, "Federal wetlands policy should be based upon the best science available" (White House Office of Environmental Policy, 1993) and the 1987 Corps Manual is the sole delineation manual for the Federal Government until the National Academy of Sciences completes its study (White House Office of Environmental Policy, 1993). | "Federal wetlands policy should be based upon the best science available." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MITIGATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mitigation is the attempt to alleviate some or all of the detrimental
effects arising from a given action. Wetland mitigation replaces an
existing wetland or its functions by creating a new wetland, restoring a
former wetland, or enhancing or preserving an existing wetland. This is
done to compensate for the authorized destruction of the existing wetland.
Mitigation commonly is required as a condition for receiving a permit to
develop a wetland. Wetland mitigation can be conducted directly on a case-by-case onsite basis, or through a banking system. Onsite mitigation requires that a developer create a wetland as close as possible to the site where a wetland is to be destroyed. This usually involves a one-to-one replacement. A mitigation bank is a designated wetland that is created, restored, or enhanced to compensate for future wetland loss through development. It may be and usually is located somewhere other than near the site to be destroyed and built by someone other than the developer. The currency of a mitigation bank is the mitigation credit. "Mitigation banks require systems for valuing the compensation credits produced and for determining the type and number of credits needed as compensation for any particular project. ***Mitigation bank credit definitions are an attempt to identify those features [of wetland] which allow reasonable approximations of replacement" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, p. 63). Wetland evaluation methods have been developed or are being developed to address the problem of evaluating two different wetlands so that the degradation of one can be offset by the restoration, enhancement, or creation of the other and to assign either a qualitative or quantitative value to each wetland. When buying the credits, developers pay a proportionate cost toward acquiring, restoring, maintaining, enhancing, and monitoring the mitigation bank wetland. Banks cover their costs by selling credits to those who develop wetlands, or by receiving a taxpayer subsidy. |
Several problems are associated with wetland mitigation. The concept of
wetland compensation may actually encourage destruction of natural wetlands
if people believe that wetlands can be easily replaced. A 1990 Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation study examined the success of
wetland creation projects and found that the success rate of created tidal
wetlands was 45 percent, whereas the success rate for created freshwater
wetlands was only 12 percent. (Redmond, 1992). Figure 40 shows the relative success of wetland
mitigation projects overall in south Florida. The apparent factor
controlling the lower success rate for freshwater wetlands was the
difficulty in duplicating wetland hydrology, that is, water-table
fluctuations, frequency and seasonality of flooding, and
ground-water/surface-water interactions. A study of wetland mitigation practices in eight States revealed that in most of the States, more wetland acreage was destroyed than was required to be created or restored, resulting in a net loss of acreage when mitigation was included in a wetlands permit (Kentula and others, 1992). Less than 55 percent of the permits included monitoring of the project by site visit. A limited amount of information exists about the number of acres of wetlands affected by mitigation or the effectiveness of particular mitigation techniques because of the lack of followup. Several studies in Florida reported that as many as 60 percent of the required mitigation projects were never even started (Lewis, 1992). In addition, the mitigation wetland commonly was not the same type of wetland that was destroyed, which resulted in a net loss of some wetland types. (See article "Wetland Restoration and Creation" in this volume.)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECENT PRESIDENTIAL WETLAND PROTECTION INITIATIVES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In his 1988 Presidential address and in his 1990 budget address to
Congress, President Bush echoed the recommendations of the National Wetland
Policy Forum. The Forum was convened in 1987 by the Conservation
Foundation at the request of EPA. The short-term recommendation of the
forum was to decrease wetland losses and increase wetland restoration and
creation-the concept of "no net loss"-as a national goal. This implied
that when wetland loss was unavoidable, creation and restoration should
replace destroyed wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). On August 25, 1993, President Clinton unveiled his new policy for managing America's wetland resources. The program was developed by the Interagency Working Group on Federal Wetlands Policy, a group chaired by the White House Office on Environmental Policy with participants from the EPA, the Corps, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Justice, and Transportation. The Administration's proposals mix measures that tighten restrictions on activities affecting wetlands in some cases and relax restrictions in other areas. The Clinton policy endorses the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands; however, it clearly refers to "no net loss" of wetland acreage rather than "no net loss" of wetland functions. |
The President's wetland proposal would expand Federal authority under the
Section 404 program to regulate the draining of wetlands in addition to
regulating dredging and filling of wetlands. Other proposed changes to the
Federal permitting program include the requirement that most Section 404
permit applications be approved or disapproved within 90 days, and the
addition of an appeal process for applicants whose permits are denied. The
EPA and the Corps are directed to relax regulatory restrictions that cause
only minor adverse effects to wetlands such as activities affecting very
small areas. The Clinton policy calls for avoiding future wetland losses by incorporating wetland protection into State and local government watershed-management planning. This new policy also significantly expands the use of mitigation banks to compensate for federally approved wetland development or loss. Clinton's proposals relaxed some of the current restrictions on agricultural effects on wetlands and increased funding for incentives to preserve and restore wetlands on agricultural lands. The administration policy excluded 53 million acres of "prior converted croplands" from regulation as wetlands. Also, authority over wetland programs affecting agriculture was shifted from the FWS to the NRCS and proposed increased funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which pays farmers to preserve and restore wetlands on their property. |
"No net loss" of wetlands is a national goal. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References Cited | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For Additional Information:Todd H. Votteler,4312 Larchmont Avenue, Dallas, TX 75205
Thomas A. Muir, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
