What Part Of The Clean Water Act Deals With Destruction Of Wetlands
National Water Summary on Wetland Resources
U.s. Geological Survey Water Supply Newspaper 2425
Wetland Management and Research
Wetland Protection Legislation
- By Todd H. Votteler, University of Texas
Thomas A. Muir, National Biological Service
| The people of the United States take begun to recognize that wetlands have numerous and widespread benefits. Even so, many of the appurtenances and services wetlands provide have little or no market place 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 deposition and destruction. Other mechanisms for wetland protection include acquisition, planning, mitigation, disincentives for conversion of wetlands to other land uses, technical assist, 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 force, 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 Section 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 bureau's say-so for wetland protection. The Corps' duties are related to navigation and h2o supply. The EPA's authorities are related to protecting wetlands primarily for their contributions to the chemic, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation'southward waters. The FWS'due south government are related to managing fish and wildlife-game species and threatened and endangered species. Wetland authorization 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 than responsibleness is delegated from the Federal Government to us, State wetland programs are gaining in importance. Thus far, States have devoted more attention to regulating coastal wetlands than inland wetlands. The most comprehensive Land 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 H2o 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 alien interests yet be, such equally that betwixt 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 credible in tabular array 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 fabricated to reconcile some of these differences, many policies volition have to be modified to achieve consistency. Despite all the regime legislation, policies, and programs, wetlands volition not exist protected if the regulations are not enforced. Perhaps the best way to protect wetlands is to brainwash the public of their benefits. If the public does not recognize the benefits of wetland preservation, wetlands will not be preserved. Protection tin be accomplished only through the cooperative efforts of citizens. | If the public does non recognize the benefits of wetland preservation, wetlands will not be preserved | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FEDERAL WETLAND PROTECTION PROGRAMS AND POLICIES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Federal Government protects wetlands direct and indirectly through regulation, by acquisition, or through incentives and disincentives as described in table half dozen. 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" plan and the Coastal Management and Coastal Barriers Resources Acts, provide additional protection. Coastal wetlands more often than not benefit nearly from the current network of statutes and regulations. Inland wetlands are more than vulnerable than coastal wetlands to deposition 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. As well discussed are some of the States' roles in Federal wetland policies.The Make clean Water DeedThe Federal Government regulates, through Section 404 of the Clean H2o Act, some of the activities that occur in wetlands. The Section 404 programme originated in 1972, when Congress substantially amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Human action and created a Federal regulatory program to command the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands and other waters of the United States. Discharges are usually associated with projects such as channel construction and maintenance, port development, fills to create dry land for development sites near the h2o, 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 country, are regulated as Department 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 responsibleness for implementing the permitting plan under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Nonetheless, Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act gives the EPA dominance to veto the permit if discharge materials at the selected sites would adversely affect such things as municipal h2o supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wild fauna, 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 procedure for a Department 404 let is shown in figure 39. After notice and opportunity for a public hearing, the Corps' District Engineer may issue or deny the let. The Commune Engineer must comply with the EPA's Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and must consider the public interest when evaluating a proposed permit. Iv 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 activeness may provide confronting 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 piece of work and the extent and permanence of the benign or detrimental effects on the public and individual uses to which the surface 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 Land fish and wild fauna agencies, as the organizations in possession of most of the land'south biological information, have important advisory roles in the Section 404 program. The FWS and NOAA (if a coastal expanse 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 let applications, hearings, or other information-collecting activities. All the same, the public interest review usually does not involve public comment unless the permit is likely to generate meaning 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 exist acted upon. If the FWS or NOAA disagree with a permit approved by a District Engineer, they can request that the allow exist reviewed at a higher level within the Corps. Yet, the Assistant Secretary of the Army has the unilateral right to refuse all requests for college level reviews. The Assistant Secretary accepted the boosted review of 16 of the 18 requested out of the full 105,000 private 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 furnishings of these activities differ, the Corps has issued general regulations to deal with a broad range of activities that could crave a Section 404 permit. The Corps can forgo individual let review by issuing general permits on a State, regional, or nationwide footing. Full general permits cover specific categories of activities that the Corps determines will take minimal effects on the aquatic surroundings, including wetlands. General permits are designed to allow activities with minimal furnishings to brainstorm with little, if any, delay or paperwork. Full general permits authorize approximately 75,000 activities annually that might otherwise require a let (U.S. Environmental Protection Bureau, 1991); nevertheless, virtually activities in wetlands are not covered by full general permits (Morris, 1991). | Not all dredge and make full activities require a Department 404 allow. 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, woods roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment (Morris, 1991). In improver, 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 touch statement is prepared. Not all methods of altering wetlands are regulated by Section 404. Common methods of altering wetlands are listed in tabular array 7. Unregulated methods include: wetland drainage, the lowering of ground-water levels in areas adjacent to wetlands, permanent flooding of existing wetlands, deposition of textile that is not specifically divers as dredged and fill textile by the Make clean Water Human action, and wetland vegetation removal (Function 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 Bailiwick of jersey. Nether this arrangement, the EPA is responsible for approving Land assumptions and retains oversight of the State Section 404 plan, and the Corps retains the navigable waters permit plan (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). States cannot issue permits over EPA'south objection, simply EPA has the authority to waive its review for selected categories of permit applications. Few States have chosen to assume the plan, in office because few Federal resources are available to assist States and assumption does not include navigable waters (World Wildlife Fund, 1992). | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Swampbuster" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The plan that seeks to remove Federal incentives for the agronomical conversion of wetlands is function of the Food Security Act of 1985 and 1990, and is known as "Swampbuster." Swampbuster renders farmers who tuckered or otherwise converted wetlands for the purpose of planting crops afterward Dec 23, 1985, ineligible for most Federal subcontract subsidies. Through Swampbuster, Congress directed the U.Due south. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to dull wetland conversion by agronomical activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). The authorities programs that Swampbuster specifically affects are listed in Department 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 yr simply past not using wetlands for growing crops. Swampbuster is administered by USDA's Consolidated Farm Service Agency. The NRCS and the FWS serve every bit technical consultants (Earth 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 Plan provides financial incentives to farmers to restore and protect wetlands through the use of long-term easements (usually xxx-yr 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 plan. 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 co-ordinate to the environmental benefit per dollar. Easements crave that farmers implement conservation plans approved past the NRCS and the FWS. Enrollment in the pilot program was authorized for ix States. The programme'southward 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). Considering 74 pct of Usa' wetlands are on individual land, programs that provide incentives for private landowners to preserve their wetlands, such equally the Wetland Reserve Program, are critical for protecting wetlands (Quango of Environmental Quality, 1989). | "Swampbuster" removes Federal incentives for the agricultural conversion of wetlands. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Littoral Wetlands Protection Programs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The 1972 Littoral Zone Direction Act and the 1982 Littoral Barriers Resources Deed protect littoral wetlands. The Coastal Zone Direction Act encourages States (35 States and territories are eligible, including the Dandy Lakes States) to establish voluntary littoral zone direction plans nether 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 audio evolution of coastal resources. The program provides States with some command over wetland resource by requiring that Federal activities exist consistent with State littoral zone management plans, which tin can be more stringent than Federal standards (World Wild animals Fund, 1992, p. 87). A State as well can crave that design changes or mitigation requirements be added to Section 404 permits to be consistent with the State littoral zone management program. The Coastal Zone Direction Deed has provided every bit much every bit 80 pct 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 Human activity's authorities are limited to wetlands within a State's coastal zone boundary, the definition of which differs amid 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 bulwark areas, including wetlands, designated equally part of the Coastal Barrier Resources Organisation. Congress designates areas for inclusion in the Littoral Barriers Resources Organization 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 course of protection.) One time in the Littoral Barriers Resources System, these areas are rendered ineligible for almost all Federal financial subsidies for programs that might encourage evolution. In particular, these lands no longer authorize for Federal alluvion insurance, which discourages development because littoral lands are often bailiwick 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 Bulwark Resources Act are to minimize the loss of human life, to reduce damage to fish and wild animals habitats and other valuable resources, and to reduce wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues (Watzin, 1990). In the time to come, eligible surplus authorities land volition be included if approved past the FWS. Nigh 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 direction of flood plains and wetlands by Federal agencies. The Executive Orders require Federal agencies to consider the straight and indirect adverse effects of their activities on alluvion plains and wetlands. This requirement extends to any Federal action inside a flood plainly or a wetland except for routine maintenance of existing Federal facilities and structures. The Clinton assistants has proposed revising Executive Society 11990 to directly Federal agencies to consider wetland protection and restoration planning in the larger calibration watershed/ecosystem context. | The Coastal Zone Management Programme provides States with some control over wetland resources. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WETLAND Depiction 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 place and delineate wetland boundaries (U.South. Regular army Corps of Engineers, 1987). In January of 1989, the EPA, Corps, SCS, and FWS adopted a unmarried manual for delineating wetlands under the Section 404 and Swampbuster programs-The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (commonly referred to equally the "1989 Manual"). The "1989 Manual" establishes a national standard for identifying and delineating wetlands by specifying the technical criteria used to make up one's mind the presence of the three wetland characteristics: wetland hydrology, water-dependent vegetation, and soils that have developed under anaerobic conditions (U.Southward. Environmental Protection Bureau, 1991). | In 1991, the President'due south Quango on Competitiveness proposed revisions to the 1989 Manual because of some business organisation that nonwetland areas were regularly being classified every bit wetlands (Environmental Law Reporter, 1992a). The proposed 1991 Manual was characterized by many wetland scientists every bit politically based rather than scientifically based. In September of 1992, Congress authorized the National Academy of Science to conduct a $400,000 written report of the methods used to place and delineate wetlands (Environmental Police Reporter, 1992b). On August 25, 1993, the Clinton administration's wetland policy, proclaimed that, "Federal wetlands policy should exist based upon the best scientific discipline bachelor" (White Business firm Office of Ecology Policy, 1993) and the 1987 Corps Manual is the sole delineation manual for the Federal Authorities until the National Academy of Sciences completes its report (White Firm Part of Environmental Policy, 1993). | "Federal wetlands policy should be based upon the best scientific discipline 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 past creating a new wetland, restoring a sometime 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 straight on a case-by-case onsite ground, or through a cyberbanking 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-ane replacement. A mitigation bank is a designated wetland that is created, restored, or enhanced to recoup for hereafter wetland loss through development. It may be and usually is located somewhere other than near the site to be destroyed and built past 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 equally compensation for whatever detail project. ***Mitigation bank credit definitions are an attempt to place those features [of wetland] which permit reasonable approximations of replacement" (U.Southward. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, p. 63). Wetland evaluation methods have been developed or are existence developed to address the problem of evaluating 2 dissimilar wetlands so that the degradation of one can be offset by the restoration, enhancement, or cosmos 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 past receiving a taxpayer subsidy. | Several problems are associated with wetland mitigation. The concept of wetland bounty may really encourage destruction of natural wetlands if people believe that wetlands tin be hands replaced. A 1990 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation report examined the success of wetland creation projects and found that the success charge per unit of created tidal wetlands was 45 percent, whereas the success charge per unit for created freshwater wetlands was only 12 percent. (Redmond, 1992). Figure 40 shows the relative success of wetland mitigation projects overall in s Florida. The credible factor controlling the lower success charge per unit for freshwater wetlands was the difficulty in duplicating wetland hydrology, that is, h2o-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 united 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 nearly the number of acres of wetlands affected past mitigation or the effectiveness of particular mitigation techniques because of the lack of followup. Several studies in Florida reported that as many as 60 pct of the required mitigation projects were never even started (Lewis, 1992). In addition, the mitigation wetland commonly was not the aforementioned 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 asking of EPA. The short-term recommendation of the forum was to decrease wetland losses and increment wetland restoration and cosmos-the concept of "no net loss"-as a national goal. This implied that when wetland loss was unavoidable, cosmos and restoration should replace destroyed wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). On August 25, 1993, President Clinton unveiled his new policy for managing America'south wetland resource. The program was developed past 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 Upkeep, 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 cyberspace loss" of wetland acreage rather than "no net loss" of wetland functions. | The President's wetland proposal would expand Federal authorization under the Section 404 program to regulate the draining of wetlands in improver to regulating dredging and filling of wetlands. Other proposed changes to the Federal permitting plan include the requirement that well-nigh Department 404 permit applications exist approved or disapproved inside 90 days, and the addition of an entreatment process for applicants whose permits are denied. The EPA and the Corps are directed to relax regulatory restrictions that cause simply modest adverse furnishings to wetlands such every bit activities affecting very small areas. The Clinton policy calls for avoiding future wetland losses by incorporating wetland protection into Land and local authorities watershed-management planning. This new policy also significantly expands the apply of mitigation banks to compensate for federally approved wetland development or loss. Clinton's proposals relaxed some of the current restrictions on agricultural furnishings 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. Likewise, dominance 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 Boosted Data:Todd H. Votteler,4312 Larchmont Avenue, Dallas, TX 75205 Thomas A. Muir, | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Go along to ' Wetland Research by Federal Agencies' , or render to ' Contents'
/nwsum/WSP2425/history.html
Maintainer: Water Webserver Team
Last modified: Tue January 29 08:thirty:55 EST 2002
Source: https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/legislation.html
Posted by: comptonwhicily74.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Part Of The Clean Water Act Deals With Destruction Of Wetlands"
Post a Comment