Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

March 1984

NTIS order #PB84-175918
Recommended Citation:

Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-O-206, March 1984).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-601014

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword

This report presents the findings and conclusions of OTA’s analysis of approaches

to wetlands use. Historically, wetlands were considered wastelands and conversion to other

uses was actively encouraged. Two trends in recent decades, however, have altered this

perception. First, there has been a growing appreciation for the esthetic and recreational

qualities of wetlands; and second, there is now a general recognition of the hydrological

and ecological services that wetlands provide. In spite of this increased awareness of the

esthetic, recreational, and ecological values of wetlands, pressure to convert wetlands to

cropland, commercial development sites, and other uses is still significant in certain regions

of the country. This presents a conflict between those who want to convert wetlands to

other uses and those who feel they should be left in their natural state.

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), now referred to as

the Clean Water Act, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to regulate

the disposal of dredged or fill material into ‘‘the waters of the United States, which includes many wetlands. Because this act opened the way for Federal regulation of many

development activities that occur in wetlands, the 404 program has been the center of considerable controversy. Federal regulation of privately owned wetlands through 404 is viewed

by some as land-use control, traditionally the legal domain of State and local governments.

Others, who view wetlands as a national water resource, argue that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect those wetlands that are important to the public.

OTA undertook this study at the request of the Senate Committee on Environment

and Public Works and its Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution. It describes the ecological values of wetlands, trends in wetlands use, and the effect of Federal and State wetland

programs on wetlands. In addition, OTA reviewed the existing scientific literature to provide background information on the ecological services provided by wetlands. Although

this report deals broadly with wetlands and their use, many of its findings relate directly

to the Corps’ 404 program, which is the major avenue for Federal involvement in regulating

some activities that use wetlands. Furthermore, because agricultural drainage and clearing have been responsible for the vast majority of wetland conversions since the mid-1950’s,

OTA examined in some detail the policies that encourage the conversion of wetlands to

agricultural uses.

The data available to resolve these issues proved scanty and of highly mixed quality.

For example, good data on wetland trends is only available for the 20-year period prior

to implementation of the 404 program. Thus, generalizations about the values of wetlands

or the effects of Federal programs, while valid to broad policymaking, are often misleading

if applied to site-specific situations. However, within the limitations of this uncertainty,

this OTA report provides a policy perspective that could lead to more coherent and rational policies for managing

OTA is grateful for

ment from many people

the competing uses of wetlands.

the support, assistance, and cooperation received in this assessrepresenting a great diversity of viewpoints on wetland issues.

= JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

. . .

Ill
Wetlands Advisory Panel

William H. Patrick, Jr., Chairman

Director, Laboratory for Wetland Soils and Sediment, Louisiana State University

Hope M. Babcock Ralph Manna, Jr.

National Audubon Society Division of Regulatory Affairs

Earl H. Beistline New York Department of Environmental Conservation

Dean, School of Mineral Industry William Manning

University of Alaska Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.

Charles E. Fraser

President

Sea Pines Co.

Donald W. Gilman

Alaska State Senator

Laurence R. Jahn

Vice President

Wildlife Management Institute

Joseph S. Larson

Chairman, Department of Forestry and

Wildlife Management

University of Massachusetts

Stanley L. Lattin

Director of Planning and Economic Development

Port of Grays Harbor

Eric Metz

California Coastal Commission

Mark Rey

National Forest Products Association

Laurence Sirens

President

Maryland Waterman’s Association

Hobart G. Truesdell, II

President

First Colony Farms

Daniel E. Willard

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Indiana University

Jay A. Leitch

Department of Agricultural Economics

North Dakota State University
OTA Project Staff—Wetlands Assessment

John Andelin,

Science, Information,

Assistant Director, OTA

and Natural Resources Division

Robert Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

William Barnard, Project Director

Joan Ham, Analyst Daniel Kevin, Analyst

Christopher Ansell, Research Analyst

Administrative Staff

Kathleen Beil Jacquelynne Mulder Kay Senn

Principal Contractors and Other Contributors

Center for Environmental Studies, North Dakota State University

Center for Governmental Responsibility, University of Florida

Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska

Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University

John R. Clark

Ken Cook

William E. Davis*

ESA/Madrone

Warren E. Frayer

JACA Corp.

Jon A. Kusler

Orie L. Loucks

National Wetlands Technical Council, Environmental Law Institute

R. Wayne Nelson & Associates

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University

Leonard Shabman

Shapiro & Associates, Inc.

Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts

Kathryn M. White, Writer/Editor

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson

Glenda Lawing Linda A. Leahy Cheryl J. Manning

● OTA staff
Contents

Chapter Page

1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Wetland Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3. Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4. Wetland Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5. Wetland Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6. Impacts and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

7. The Effects of the 404 Program ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

8. Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

9. Capabilities of the States in Managing the Use of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Appendix—List of Acronyms and Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Chapter 1

Summary

Photo credit’ US. Fish and Wildlife Service-L Chilers

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-E. Laverne Srnith
Contents

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .

Values and Uses of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Intrinsic Qualities and Ecological Services Associated With Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland Conversions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trends in Wetland Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Programs and Policies Affecting Wetland Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Programs Discouraging Wetland Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Programs Encouraging Wetland Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Administration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Wetland Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local Wetland Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ... ....

Policy Considerations and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...

3

5

5

5

6

7

10

12

13

13

13

13

13

13

14

14

TABLES

Table No. Page

I. Wetland Conversions From Mid-1950’s to Mid-1970’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Major Federal Programs Affecting the Use of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

A. Actual Wetland Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

B. 404 Permit Statistics, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The use of wetlands—the marshes, swamps,

bogs, bottom lands, and tundra that comprise about

5 percent of the contiguous United States and about

60 percent of Alaska—is a source of controversy

between those who want to convert these areas to

other uses and those who want them left in their

natural state. Some wetlands can provide natural

ecological services such as floodwater storage, erosion control, improved water quality, habitat for

fish and wildlife, and food chain support. In addition, many wetlands are esthetically pleasing and

offer varied recreational and educational opportunities. At the same time, these wetlands may provide sites for housing, agriculture, or commercial

development.

Wetlands are usually characterized by emergent

plants growing in soils that are periodically or normally saturated with water. * They occur along

gradually sloping areas between uplands and deepwater environments, such as rivers, or form in basins that are isolated from larger water bodies. Of

the 90 million acres of vegetated wetlands in the

lower 48 States, 95 percent are located in inland,

freshwater areas; the rest are coastal, saltwater wetlands. In addition, it is estimated that nearly 60

percent of the State of Alaska-or over 200 million

acres— is covered by wetlands.

Within the last 200 years, 30 to 50 percent of the

wetlands in the lower 48 States have been converted

● The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) used the term “wetland”

in 1952 to describe a number of diverse environments that shared characteristics of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats—i .e., lands at least

temporarily inundated, but with “emergent’ vegetation adapted to

saturated soil conditions. Presently, there are two major Federal definitions. One definition was established by FWS for purposes of mapping and classification of wetlands; the second, more restrictive, definition was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of regulation. As a

result, FWS has estimated that in the mid- 1970’s there were 99 million

acres of vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands in the lower 48 States.

In comparison, the Corps estimates that its jurisdiction extends over

approximately 64 million acres of wetlands. The differences in the

interpretation of what constitutes a wetland have led to considerable

confusion and a great deal of controversy. Disagreement exists, for

example, over whether parts of the Alaskan tundra and drier sections

of bottom land hardwoods should be considered wetlands.

to other uses by activities such as agriculture, mining, forestry, oil and gas extraction, and urbanization. According to the most recent Federal survey,

a net amount of approximately 11 million acres of

wetlands in the lower 48 States were converted

to such other uses between the mid- 1950’s and mid1970’ s.” This amount was equivalent to a net loss

each year of about 550,000 acres, or about 0.5

percent of remaining wetlands. The vast majority of actual losses—about 80 percent—involved

draining and clearing of inland wetlands for agricultural purposes. Although some wetland losses

were due to natural causes such as erosion, sedimentation, subsidence, and sea level rise, at least

95 percent of actual wetland losses over the last

25 years were due to man’s activities. The best

available information indicates that present national

wetland-conversion rates are about half of those

measured in the 1950’s and 1960’s or about 300,000

acres per year. This reduction is due primarily to

declining rates of agricultural drainage, and secondarily to government programs that regulate wetlands use.

At this time, Federal policies and programs do

not deal consistently with wetlands use. In fact,

they affect wetland use in opposing ways. Some

policies encourage conversions: tax deductions and

credits can significantly reduce wetland conversion

costs for farmers. On the other hand, regulatory

and acquisition programs discourage conversions.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ regulatory

program established by section 404 of the Clean

Water Act, provides the major avenue of Federal

involvement in controlling the use of wetlands

by regulating discharges of dredged or fill material into wetlands.

For those activities that come under regulation

by the Corps, annual conversions are reduced na-

*The analyses presented in this study apply only to vegetated wetlands. If unvegetated habitats, such as mud flats, were included, the

quantitative estimates describing wetland trends could change by as

much as 10 to 20 percent. However, the overall wetland trends in

the lower 48 States and the policy options discussed later are not significantly affected by differences in wetland definitions.

3
4 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

tionwide by about 50 percent, or 50,000 acres of

wetlands per year, primarily through project modifications. Because most activities that occur in

coastal wetlands are regulated by the Corps and/or

State wetland programs, coastal wetlands are

reasonably well protected. However, many activities, such as excavation and traditional clearing and drainage for farming and other uses, are

not regulated by either the Corps or by most State

wetland programs. These activities were responsible for the vast majority of past conversions, especially in inland areas, where 95 percent of the Nation’s wetlands are located. Inland, freshwater

wetlands are generally poorly protected.

The current rates of wetland loss are not likely

to have catastrophic environmental impacts in the

next few years, but the continued incremental conversion of wetlands, especially in certain inland regions of the country, could have significant adverse

ecological effects over the next few decades. To address this situation, the Federal Government could

play an important role in integrating ongoing efforts to manage the Nation’s wetlands.

Over the next decade existing wetland programs

can be integrated in a few successive steps. First,

the Federal Government could complete its ongoing mapping of wetlands; high priority could be

assigned to those areas where development pressures are high. Next, the wetlands in different

regions of the country could be categorized according to their relative values. This would enable existing wetland programs to be tailored in a consistent and integrated manner to the broad categories

of wetlands and to prospective development activities. If deemed necessary, the Government could

broaden the scope of different wetland programs

(e.g., regulation, acquisition, leasing, etc.) to

include the full range of wetland values, rather than

continuing to focus on individual values, such as

wildlife habitat. By taking these steps, higher value

wetlands would receive more protection than wetlands of lower value. Developers also would have

prior knowledge about standards and requirements

for converting specific wetland areas, thus simplifying the regulatory process.

For such an integrated approach to wetlands

management, further efforts also would be needed

to reduce uncertainties about: recent wetland

trends, the ecological significance of additional

wetland conversions, and the effect of major policies and programs on wetlands use. A detailed

work plan developed by an interagency working

group would help to ensure that all required activities are accomplished in a timely manner.

Finally, while this plan is being developed, Congress may wish to provide additional protection for

wetlands, especially higher value wetlands that may

be subject to agricultural conversion. This could

be done through acquisition or easements from the

Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, or through leases from the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Water Bank Program. All of

these options can provide comparable levels of protection. For a given level of funding, many more

wetlands can be protected with leases than with

easements or acquisition; however, leases only provide short-term protection.

During the course of this study, data were collected from the scientific literature, Government

reports, and responses to questionnaires about wetlands use from 37 out of 38 Corps districts, from

48 States, and from 11 out of 20 trade associations

surveyed. The Office of Technology Assessment

(OTA) also conducted case studies of wetland

trends in 13 States and minor studies in 8 States, *

and interviewed many Federal and State personnel and industry representatives. Because agricultural activities were responsible for the vast majority

of past wetland conversions, agricultural policies

were surveyed in somewhat greater detail than were

most other Federal policies.

As a result of its studies, OTA has identified

three issues related to wetlands management. First,

should Federal involvement in protecting wetlands

be increased or decreased? Second, should the Federal Government improve its policymaking capability through a systematic collection and analysis of

additional information about wetlands? Finally,

should the Federal Government develop a more integrated approach for managing the use of wetlands? More detailed analyses of the technical and

institutional information that relates to these policy

options are presented in later chapters of this report.

● Case studies were conducted for Alaska, California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington.

Minor studies were conducted in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont.
Ch. l—Summary ● 5

The results of the study are presented in this sum- programs and policies affecting wetland use, and

mary in three sections: values and uses of wetlands, policy considerations and options.

VALUES AND USES OF WETLANDS

The Intrinsic Qualities and Ecological

Services Associated With Wetlands

Some people value wetlands for their intrinsic

qualities. Their primary motivation for protecting

wetlands is simply a desire to preserve natural areas

for future generations, or because they are often

the last areas to be developed. Others value the

varied and abundant flora and fauna found in wetlands and the opportunities for hunting, fishing,

boating, and other recreational activities. While recreational benefits can be quantified to some extent,

the other intrinsic values of wetlands are, for the

most part, intangible. For this reason, the justification for protecting wetlands has often focused on

the importance of the ecological services or resource values that wetlands provide, which are more

scientifically and economically demonstrable than

intrinsic qualities (box A).

The intrinsic qualities and ecological services provided by wetlands can vary significantly from one

wetland to another and from one region of the country to another. For example, mangrove swamps,

while only of marginal importance to waterfowl,

are very important for erosion control along the

Florida coast. Some wetlands provide benefits that

are primarily local or regional in nature; other benefits may be national or even international in scope.

Because of the many differences between individual wetlands, the significance of their ecological services and intrinsic qualities must be determined on an individual or regional basis.

In making such a determination, the dollar value

of the ecological services that wetlands provide can

sometimes be quantified. The Corps, for instance,

estimated that the loss of the entire 8,422 acres of

wetlands within the Charles River Basin in Massachusetts would result in average annual flood damages of over $17 million. However, because the

many intrinsic qualities of wetlands cannot be quantified, it is usually difficult to place generally accepted dollar values on wetlands.

Wetland Conversions

Wetlands can provide important sites for development activities such as agriculture, forestry, port

and harbor development, oil and gas extraction,

housing and urban growth, mining, and water resource development. Wetland drainage for agricultural purposes is particularly widespread in the

Lower Mississippi River Valley and in some areas

of the Southeast. Some activities, such as peat mining and cranberry production, can take place only

in wetlands or in former wetlands; other activities

may achieve cost savings by using wetlands rather

than upland areas. Some wetlands lie over natural

resources such as oil, gas, and phosphate ore deposits. For example, unprocessed phosphate ore

underlying wetlands in coastal areas of North Carolina may be worth several hundred thousand dollars per acre. Although development activities

that affect wetlands are probably worth billions

of dollars annually, data were not available for

OTA to estimate the total net monetary values

of these activities as they relate to wetlands.

Development activities that involve excavation (or dredging), filling, clearing, draining,

or flooding of wetlands generally have the most

significant and permanent impacts on wetlands

and the ecological services they provide. The extent of these impacts varies among projects, depending on the scale and timing of the project, the type

of wetland affected, and many other variables. In

many cases, project impacts can be reduced by redesigning the project or by modifying construction

timetables.

The ability to restore significantly degraded wetlands or converted areas to their original condition

depends on the type of wetland and on the degree

to which it has been affected by natural processes

or by particular development activities. For example, former San Francisco Bay wetlands that were

formerly used for agriculture are now being restored

by removing manmade dikes that once separated

them from the Bay. It is also possible to create new
6 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation
Ch. l—Summary ● 7

photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wetlands provide food and habitat for many species of fish and wildlife. Waterfowl, in particular, often require wetland

habitats for breeding and nesting.

Table 1 .—Wetland Conversions From Mid-1950’s

to Mid-1970’s

Original acreage

mid-1950’s Net Iossa

(million acres) Million acres Conversion rate

Coastal. . . 4.8 0.4 8.30/o

Inland . . . . 100.0 11.0 11 .0 ”/0

aNet losses are calculated by subtracting the gains in wetlands (from rnaninduced and natural causes) from the actual losses of wetlands.

SOURCE: Original data from FWS National Wetland Trends Study, 1983.

Ninety-seven percent of actual wetland losses

(or conversions from wetland to nonwetland areas)

occurred in inland, freshwater areas during this 20-

year period (fig. A). Agricultural conversions involving drainage, clearing, land leveling, ground

water pumping, and surface water diversion were

responsible for 80 percent of these conversions. Of

the remainder, 8 percent resulted from the construction of impoundments and large reservoirs, 6

percent from urbanization, and 6 percent from

other causes, such as mining, forestry, and road

construction. Fifty-three percent of these conversions occurred in forested areas, such as bottom

lands. Of the actual losses of coastal wetlands, approximately 56 percent resulted from dredging for

marinas, canals, and port development, and to a

lesser extent from shoreline erosion; 22 percent resulted from urbanization; 14 percent from disposing of dredged material or from creating beaches;

6 percent from natural or man-induced transition

of saltwater wetlands to freshwater wetlands; and

2 percent from agriculture.

Wetland conversions have adversely impacted

the environment in some regions of the country.

For example, reductions in Pacific-flyway migratory waterfowl have been directly correlated to the

conversion of about 90 percent of California’s wetlands. While the ecological significance for the Nation of wetland conversions over the last several

decades is uncertain, the environment will undoubtedly be negatively affected if conversions continue.

PROGRAMS AND POLICIES AFFECTING WETLAND USE

Wetland use is directly and indirectly affected part, during the past two decades. These programs

by a variety of Federal (table 2), State, local, and affect wetland use through regulation, acquisition,

private programs that were developed, for the most leasing, easements, and general policy guidance.
8 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Figure A.—Actual Wetland Conversions (mid-1950’s to mid-1970’s)

Freshwater wetlands

(in thousands of acres)

Saltwater wetlands

(in thousands of acres)

Total saltwater wetland

loss (actual): 482,000 acres

SOURCE: U S, Fish and Wildlife Service Nation

Total freshwater wetland

loss (actual): 14,677,000 acres

al Wetland Trends Study, 1982

Photo Credit: OTA Staff

Wetlands are often attractive sites for real estate development because of their waterside location.

This Louisiana housing development near New Orleans, for instance, is constructed

on filled wetlands
Ch. l—Summary • 9

Table 2.—Major Federal Programs Affecting the Use of Wetlands

Program or act Primary implementing agency Effect of program

L Discouraging or Preventing

Wetlands Conversions

A. Regulation:

Section 404 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Clean Water Act (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . Department of Defense

B. Acquisition:

Migratory Bird Hunting and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

Conservation Stamps (1934) . . . . . . . . Department of the Interior (DOI)

Federal Aid to Wildlife

Restoration Act (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . FWS

Wetlands Loan Act (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . FWS

Land and Water

Conservation Fund (1955) . . . . . . . . . . FWS, National Park Service (DOI)

Water Bank Program (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture Stabilization

and Conservation Service,

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

U.S. Tax Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

C. Other general policies or programs:

Executive Order 11990,

Protection of Wetlands (1977). . . . . . . All Federal agencies

Coastal Zone Management

Act (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Department of Commerce

Il. Encouraging Wetlands Conversion

U.S. Tax Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IRS

Regulates many activities that involve

disposal of dredged or fill material

in waters of the United States, including many wetlands

Acquires or purchases easements on

wetlands from revenue from fees paid

by hunters for duck stamps

Provides grants to States for acquisition, restoration, and maintenance of

wildlife areas

Provides interest-free Federal loans for

wetland acquisitions and easements

Acquires wildlife areas

Leases wetlands and adjacent upland

habitat from farmers for waterfowl

habitat over 10-year period

Provides deductions for donors of

wetlands and to some not-for-profit

organizations

Minimizes impacts on wetlands from

Federal activities

Provides Federal funding for wetland

programs in most coastal States

Encourages farmers to drain and clear

wetlands by providing tax deductions

and credits for all types of general

development activities

Payment-in-Kind (PIK) Program. . . . . . . . USDA Indirectly encourages farmers to place

previously unfarmed areas, including

wetlands, into production

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1983.

25-415 0 - 84 - 2
10 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Federal Programs Discouraging

Wetland Conversions

Federal Regulation-The 404 Program

Under the River and Harbor Act of 1899, the

Corps regulates all activities that could directly affect the navigability of rivers and coastal waters used

for interstate commerce. In 1972, Congress gave

the Corps the responsibility of regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material in the Nation’s

waters under section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA). Through this program, the Corps evaluates the impacts of proposed development projects

on wetlands in light of its review and comments

from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the States.

If a project’s impact on the environment is judged

to be significant, the permit application can be

denied, the project can be modified to minimize

impacts, or the permit applicant can purchase or

restore other wetlands to compensate for project impacts. EPA also has veto authority over any proposed sites for disposing of dredged or fill material.

In this way, the 404 program provides broad regulatory authority over wetland use by many types

of development activities.

The Corps initially interpreted the geographic

scope of its new authority to include only traditionally navigable waters. However, after a 1975

decision by the District Court for the District of Columbia in National Resources Defense Council,

Inc. v. Cal/away, the scope of the 404 program was

expanded to encompass ‘‘all waters of the United

States. ” The issue of the Corps’ expanded jurisdiction was hotly debated, but left unchanged in a close

vote, when CWA was amended in 1977. Many

view this broad authority as a significant extension

of the Federal Government’s constitutional powers

that borders on land-use control; others view it as

necessary to protect the public’s interests in the

quality of the Nation’s waters.

There are fundamental differences in the way

Federal agencies and various special interest

groups interpret the intent of section 404, which,

as stated in the preface to CWA, is to ‘‘restore

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (sec.

101[a]). The Corps views its primary function

in carrying out the law as protecting the quality of water. Although wetland values are considered in project reviews, the Corps does not feel

that section 404 was designed specifically to protect wetlands. FWS, EPA, NMFS, and environmental groups feel that the mandate of CWA

obliges the Corps to protect the integrity of wetlands, including their habitat values.

LIMITATIONS OF THE 404 PROGRAM

The Corps’ 404 program now provides the

major avenue for Federal involvement in regulating activities that use wetlands; however, in

terms of comprehensive wetland management,

it has major limitations.

First, in accordance with CWA, the 404 program

regulates only the discharge of dredged or fill

material onto wetlands. Projects involving excavation, drainage, clearing, and flooding of wetlands

are not explicitly covered by section 404 and are

not usually regulated by the Corps. * Yet such activities were responsible for the vast majority of inland wetland conversions between the mid-1950’s

and the mid-1970’s. Rarely have these activities

been halted or slowed because of Federal, State,

or local wetland regulations. Without more direct

government involvement, the conversion of

most inland wetlands is likely to continue

unabated.

Second, the Corps does not have adequate resources to regulate activities effectively in all waters

of the United States. Instead of case-by-case review,

it uses general permits for isolated waters and head-

● The regulation of wetland draining and/or clearing operations for

agricultural purposes is highly contentious and variable among Corps

districts. Some conversions involving the discharge of fill material from

ditching operations onto wetlands are regulated either individually

or under general permits. Individual permits are usually issued with

few modifications because of difficulties in demonstrating adverse water

quality and/or cumulative impacts. Some conversions do not involve

the discharge of fill material onto wetlands. Others are not regulated

due to failure of the Corps’ administration and lax enforcement or

because the Corps and EPA may use a narrower definition of wetlands

than scientists or environmental groups. Alternatively, farmers may

convert potential ‘ ‘wetlands’ in dry years when wetland vegetation

is not present or they may drain wetlands through ditches on nonwetland areas. In accordance with present Corps policy, the clearing

of bottom lands is not generally regulated by most districts, except

in a portion of Louisiana as a direct result of a ruling by the Fifth

Circuit Court. However, one Corps district has significantly slowed

some large-scale clearing operations, although the extent of its jurisdiction is controversial.
Ch. I—Summary ● 1 1

water areas. Because there are few application or

reporting requirements for activities within areas

covered by general permits, the Corps has limited

regulatory control over these areas.

Third, several administrative problems presently

limit the program’s effectiveness, including significant variations in the way different districts implement key elements of the 404 program, the lack of

coordination between some districts and other Federal and State agencies, inadequate public awareness efforts, and the low priority given monitoring

and enforcement.

EFFECTS OF THE 404 PROGRAM ON WETLANDS

Estimates made by OTA based on the best available information suggest that present conversion

rates are probably about 300,000 acres per

year. * Approximately 250,000 acres per year result

from the unregulated conversion of inland wetlands, primarily for agricultural use, while 50,000

acres per year result from conversions regulated by

the 404 program and State regulatory programs.

Of this latter figure, about 5,000 acres are located

in coastal areas.

According to their own estimates for 1980-81,

the Corps authorized projects that, if completed in

accordance with the conditions of the permits, resulted in the conversion of about 50 percent of the

acreage applied for. Data from NMFS for the coastal wetlands (in the lower 48 States) indicate that

the 404 program, in combination with State regulatory programs, reduced the conversion of coastal

saltwater wetlands by 70 to 85 percent in 1981.

In addition, some conversions maybe deterred simply by the existence of the regulatory programs, and

other conversions may be avoided through preapplication consultations with the Corps.

Finally, each year about 5,000 acres of vegetated

wetlands are either created or restored for mitigation purposes as a direct result of the ‘‘conditioning’ of 404 permits.

● Because of uncertainties and variability associated with available

data and the extrapolations that were made from these data, these

estimates may be off by 10 to 20 percent.

EFFECTS OF THE 404 PROGRAM

ON DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Developers’ objections to the 404 program focus mainly on the delays and costs imposed by the

regulatory process. There are probably numerous

cases where the regulatory costs to developers have

been substantial-in some cases, millions of dollars.

But little verifiable data are available to document the overall impacts of the 404 program on

development activities, especially as they relate

to costs imposed by other programs and policies

(e. g., sec. 10 of the River and Harbor Act, National Environmental Policy Act requirements,

State programs, and local ordinances) and general

economic conditions.

Some developers question the need for a Federal

program to protect all wetlands; the congressional

intent of section 404 relative to wetland protection;

inadequate consideration by regulatory agencies of

the value of development activities; inconsistencies

in the program implementation by Corps districts;

and possible inefficiencies or inequities in program

administration, including duplication of State wetland programs. Many also believe that the market

value of wetland areas decreases when they fall

within the jurisdiction of the Corps’ regulatory program.

All permit applicants bear at least some 404-

related costs resulting from permit denials, modifications of projects, permit processing, and

processing delays. Of approximately 11,000 project applications per year, slightly less than 3 percent are denied; about one-third are significantly

modified; and about 14 percent are withdrawn by

applicants (fig. B). About half are approved without

significant modifications. In 1980 approximately

one-third of all issued permits took longer than 120

days to process; in 1983 the average processing time

was about 70 days. Less than 1 percent of all permitted projects require an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS), which may take several years to

complete. Delays in processing permit applications for a relatively few large-scale projects (that

represent the bulk of the economic value of all proposed development activities) probably account for

a substantial portion of the total costs to industry

associated with the 404 program.
12 Ž Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Figure B.– 404 Permit Statistics, 1981

Permits modified

red

cts

de

uce

nied

Permits withdrawn by applicant

Total number of permit applications: 11,000/year

SOURCES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Office of Technology Assessment.

Federal Economic Measures

Since Federal outlays for wetland acquisitions, easements, and leases total only a few million dollars a year, economic measures can be

used to protect wetlands only on a highly selective basis. An estimated 10 million acres of

wetlands in the lower 48 States are protected

through Federal ownership, easements, and leases.

Federal wildlife refuges also protect about 29 million

acres of wetlands in Alaska.

Full ownership or easements provide the Government with the most effective mechanism for directly

controlling the use of wetlands. Full ownership is

probably most suited for situations where management of a wetland as part of the system of national

refuges, parks, and forests is desired or where the

goal is to preserve the wetland in perpetuity, regardless of the benefits of potential development activities. Perpetual easements provide almost the

same level of control as full ownership, while the

wetlands remain in private hands. Recent Federal

costs of wetland purchases by FWS range from $600

to as much as $1,200/acre for some bottom lands.

Easements typically cost the Government about

$200/acre. Federal funding for wetland acquisition

and easements is provided through sale of Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (duck

stamps) and through the Wetlands Loan Act of

1961 and the Land and Water Conservation Act

of 1965,

Leases can provide a high degree of Federal control for the period of the lease. Through the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Water Bank Program,

authorized by the Water Bank Act of 1970, private

landowners or operators generally receive, through

10-year leases, annual payments of $5 to $10/acre

for most designated wetlands and up to $55/acre

for adjacent upland areas.

Tax writeoffs are given to owners who donate

wetlands to Government or conservation agencies.

Federal Programs Encouraging

Wetland Conversions

Tax deductions and credits for all types of

general development activities provide the most

significant Federal incentive for farmers to clear

and drain wetlands. They also shift a significant

portion of the conversion costs to the general taxpayer. The dollar value of these tax incentives is

greater at higher income levels. They include:

●

●

●

●

first-year tax deductions of up to 25 percent

of gross farm income for draining expenses

(expenses in excess of this limit may be

deducted in subsequent years);

tax deductions for depreciation on all capital

investments necessary for draining or clearing activities;

tax deductions for interest payments related

to draining and clearing activities; and

investment tax credits equal to 10 percent of

the installation cost of the drainage tile.

Price supports and target prices for commodities may have encouraged some wetland conversion by setting guaranteed floor prices for some

crops grown on converted wetlands, but few farmers have been enrolled in these programs over the

past decade. Other USDA policies that may provide assistance for wetland conversions take the

form of technical assistance and cost-sharing for

the construction of a wide variety of conservation

projects, loans from the Farmers Home Administration to finance conversions, and Federal compensation through crop insurance for crop losses

from flooding in wetland areas. These forms of assistance are probably of limited significance in influencing a farmer’s decision to convert wetlands

to cropland.
Ch. I—Summary ● 1 3

Administration Policies

The administration’s goals with respect to wetlands are unclear. On the one hand, the Corps has

revised its administrative procedures for the 404

program to reduce the regulatory burden on industry and to increase the role of the States. Some of

these changes may have reduced the level of wetlands protection provided by 404, although there

will never be quantitative data to support this or

any other statement made about the effects of these

programmatic changes on wetlands. Administration support for State coastal management programs also has been reduced significantly, and no

funds have been requested in the past 3 years for

wetland acquisition. On the other hand, the Department of the Interior proposed a bill, Protect Our

Wetlands and Duck Resources Act (POWDR), to

eliminate some Federal expenditures for some wetland activities, increase funding to States for wetland conservation, extend the Wetlands Loan Act

for 10 years, and increase revenues for wetland acquisition through additional fees for duck

and wildlife refuge visitation permits.

State Wetland Programs

stamps

Almost all 30 coastal States (including those

bordering the Great Lakes) have programs that

directly or indirectly regulate the use of their

coastal wetlands. Most inland States do not have

specific wetland programs. Through a combination of the 404 program and State programs,

most coastal wetlands are regulated reasonably

well; inland wetlands, which comprise 95 percent of the Nation’s wetlands, generally are not

regulated by States.

Developers often object to the apparent duplication between the 404 program and State regulatory

programs. However, representatives from most

States with wetland programs believe that the

404 program and State regulatory programs

complement one another. Corps districts often let

State agencies take the lead in protecting wetlands,

using the 404 program to support their efforts. If

certain EPA requirements are met, States can assume the legal responsibility for administering that

portion of the 404 program covering waters that

are not traditionally navigable. Twelve States have

evaluated or are evaluating this possibility, and four

are administering pilot programs to gain practical

experience prior to possible program assumption.

Michigan is the only State that has applied for 404

program assumption. In general, most States have

neither the capability nor the desire to assume

sole responsibility for regulating wetland use

without additional resources from the Federal

Government; some States would be reluctant to

do so even with government support.

Local Wetland Programs

In some areas of the country, the principal means

of wetland protection outside of the 404 program

comes from local regulations (including zoning controls) and acquisition programs.

Private Initiatives

Private organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, and Ducks Unlimited, have protected thousands of acres of wetlands

through direct acquisition, partial interest, and

other means. For example, the Richard King Mellon Foundation recently gave the Nature Conservancy a $25 million grant toward its efforts to conserve wetland ecosystems in the United States.

Other national environmental organizations and

hundreds of local or regional organizations, including fish and game clubs, have also been active in

protecting wetlands.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND OPTIONS

Policy Considerations

Controversy over the 404 program has led to

much discussion of different ways of changing the

Federal involvement in controlling the use of wetlands. Decisions about the use of wetlands are not

usually simple and straightforward, but involve

judgments about:
14 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

●

●

●

●

●

the importance of wetlands to society relative

to the benefits associated with wetland development;

the relative significance of current rates of wetland conversion;

the desirability of temporarily deferring the immediate benefits from wetland conversion to

avoid the loss of potentially valuable resources;

the adequacy of existing programs and the

costs imposed by these programs on Government, development activities, and society at

large; and

the appropriate role of the Federal Government relative to the role of other levels of government and of private organizations.

In general, the greater the Federal involvement in

controlling the use of wetlands, the greater the costs

for wetland programs and for developers.

Policy Issues

OTA has identified three issues related to wetlands management:

1.

2.

3.

Should Federal involvement in protecting wetlands be increased or decreased?

Should the Federal Government improve its

policymaking capability through a systematic

collection and analysis of additional information about wetlands?

Should the Federal Government develop a

more integrated approach for managing the

use of wetlands?

These issues are interrelated. For example, if

Congress determines that the existing data are adequate to resolve issue 1, it would not be necessary

to pursue any policy options addressing issue 2. On

the other hand, Congress may decide to adopt options under issue 2 before attempting to make any

changes in the level of Federal involvement as discussed under issue 1. Developing an integrated system for managing wetlands use, as described under

issue 3, would require collecting more data about

wetlands, as outlined in options under issue 2.

Policy Options

Issue 1: Should Federal involvement in protecting

wetlands be increased or decreased?

Arguments about the desired degree of Federal

involvement in managing the use of wetlands can

be made from three different positions. First, in

favor of increasing the level of Federal involvement,

it can be argued that wetlands provide many valuable natural benefits to the public. Yet, from 30

to 50 percent of this resource has been converted

to other uses, and conversions continue. Because

most States generally do not seem inclined to fill

any gaps in the current Federal regulatory program,

a stronger Federal presence at least in those States

with weak programs may be indicated.

Others argue that wetlands have been converted

to other uses at rates of only 0.5 percent a year,

while present rates are probably even lower. Considering the great benefits that can derive from wetland conversions, regulatory costs stemming from

delays and permit denials are a high price to pay

for preserving a small percentage of the Nation’s

wetlands. Thus, the level of Federal involvement

should be reduced even though wetland conversions

might increase as a result of decreased regulation.

Third, it could be argued that existing Federal

programs, including the 404 program, provide the

appropriate level of wetlands management and protection overall. To some, existing data might not

indicate an urgency to halt all wetland conversions,

but wetlands (especially high-value wetlands) deserve some protection to avoid possible incremental

losses over the long term. In addition, the scanty

data on recent trends may provide little basis for

changing existing policies until more information

has been collected. Court decisions about the scope

of the 404 program and its implementation by the

Corps are also pending.

The use of privately owned wetlands is now controlled, to varying degrees, through a mix of economic measures and regulation. Numerous options

exist for modifying policy to increase or decrease

the present level of Federal involvement in managing and protecting wetlands.
Ch. 1—Suummary “ 15

Issue 1A: Options to increase Federal involvement

in managing wetlands

Federal involvement could be increased by

adopting any or all of the following options, which

are listed roughly in order of decreasing Federal

control over wetlands use, program costs, and costs

to developers. How significant these changes would

be is unknown. A single new wetlands statute could

be developed to combine existing policies with any

of the following options; however, if changes are

desired, it would likely be easier to modify existing

statutes individually.

Option 1: Broaden the scope of section 404 through

legislation.

Increase the types of activities covered by section 404. —Projects responsible for the vast majority of past wetland conversions (excavation,

drainage, clearing, and flooding of wetlands) are

not explicitly covered by section 404 or regulated

by most Corps districts. Increasing the types of activities covered by section 404 could reduce wetland conversions resulting from nonagricultural activities. Agricultural activities are so numerous that

it would be impractical to regulate all of them; however, it is probably possible to regulate large-scale

conversions. At present, not all clearing operations

are regulated and few modifications or denials are

made, even on those that are.

Explicitly address wetland values in section

404. —Because the term ‘ ‘wetland’ is used only

once in section 404 and is not defined, the objectives of CWA with regard to wetlands are open to

interpretation. The regulation of wetland-clearing

operations, particularly in bottom land areas, has

been the subject of constant controversy. If wetland values were addressed explicitly in section 404,

the Corps would have a clear mandate to consider

and protect the integrity of wetlands (including habitat values) as well as water quality. If this were

done, many wetland-clearing operations falling

within the Corps’ jurisdiction could be controlled.

Option 2: Remove the incentive for agricultural

conversions.

Eliminate tax incentives for agricultural conversions. —The cost of agricultural conversions to

a farmer can be reduced through tax credits and

deductions for costs associated with clearing and

draining activities. Tax incentives could be reduced

or eliminated for these activities if they occurred

on wetlands. However, the effect of this change on

wetland use would probably vary. In some areas

of the country, wetland conversions could become

unprofitable; in other areas, conversions probably

would still be profitable even without Federal tax

incentives.

The effects of eliminating these tax incentives

would be insignificant to the vast majority of

farmers and on the farm economy. For example,

deductions for wetland conversions were less than

0.3 percent of all farming deductions in 1980. In

addition, because of the relatively large acreage

of available cropland (i. e., 365 million acres),

neither commodity prices nor farm production

as a whole would be noticeably affected over the

near term if agricultural conversion of wetlands

were curtailed or eliminated. Nonetheless, eliminating tax benefits to farmers for wetland conversions will never be popular.

Increase appropriations for the Water Bank

Program. —The Water Bank Program, funded at

$8.8 million in 1982 and 1983, preserves wetlands

and adjacent uplands covered by the program for

10-year lease periods. Because the program is apparently popular with the agricultural community, additional appropriations would allow increased

enrollment and greater coverage of wetlands in agricultural areas. The program might also be more

attractive if payments were increased or adjusted

annually in response to changing pressures to convert wetlands rather than every 5 years, as it is now.

Encourage wetland preservation through the

Payment-in-Kind Program.—In 1983, USDA instituted its Payment-in-Kind (PIK) Program,

wherein farmers withdrew cropland from production in exchange for commodities that would have

been produced on the cropland. In fiscal year 1983,

approximately 82 million acres of cropland were

taken out of production as a result of the PIK Program. However, many farmers are apparently simultaneously putting other land, which could include wetlands, into production. If the PIK Program is used in future years, it may be possible to

include special provisions that would encourage the

preservation of wetlands.
16 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Option 3: Increase appropriations for acquisition

and easement programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System contains

over 33 million wetland acres: 4 million are in the

lower 48 States and 29 million are in Alaska. The

National Park System contains untabulated but

substantial wetland acreage. Federal funding for

these programs could be increased, and greater priority could be given to wetlands in purchasing decisions. Federal wetland-related income, such as the

fee charged for duck stamps, could be increased to

support these programs.

Option 4: Increase tax benefits for wetland preservation through legislation.

Congress could alter Federal taxation policies to

increase the attractiveness of donating wetlands or

of selling conservation easements to Government

agencies or to private conservation groups for the

purpose of preservation. While the acreage of wetlands being protected might increase, the ecological

value of the wetlands donated would probably vary.

Option 5: Reverse the Corps’ 1982 administrative

changes to the 404 program.

The Corps’ recent administrative changes to the

404 program have been designed to streamline the

permit process. For example, average processing

time for individual permits has been reduced from

over 120 to about 70 days. Although the Army contends that the level of wetlands protection actually

achieved has been unchanged by the administrative

measures, anecdotal and qualitative evidence suggests that these changes, such as the expanded use

of general permits, have generally reduced the

amount of potential control over wetland use.

However, existing data do not allow quantification

of the effects of these administrative changes on

wetland trends. Reversing these changes would reestablish the administrative framework for regulating wetland use at levels that existed before the administration’s 1982 regulatory reform initiatives.

Option 6: Improve the Corps’ administration of the

existing 404 program.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the 404 program could be improved by implementing the

following measures, which may require modest

increases in program funding and personnel. Congressional oversight may also be required to determine the extent to which these options are implemented by the Corps.

Standardize Corps’ district procedures.—The

Corps’ 404 program is implemented by 38 semiautonomous district offices that often differ greatly in how they interpret and implement the 404

program. Some inconsistencies could be avoided

through continued and increased use of regulatoryguidance letters on presently vague policies, such

as those on the mitigation of project impacts. Districts also could exchange information about successful solutions to common problems.

Improve coordination among Federal agencies and between the 404 and State regulatory

programs. -Improved coordination, increased use

of single public notices, and joint processing of permit applications could provide ‘ ‘one-stop shopping” for permit applicants and reduce procedural

duplication and delays. Procedures of this sort already have been successfully implemented in a few

Corps districts.

Increase program publicity.—Many people

planning development activities on wetlands are

unaware of the 404 program and its permit requirements. Greater public understanding could lead to

better planning and result in fewer violations, less

damage to wetlands, and reduced costs to developers stemming from delays and fines.

Improve monitoring and enforcement. —

Many districts make inadequate efforts to monitor

for permit violations, particularly in inland wetland

areas. Action is often taken only in response to

reported violations. This situation could be improved by increasing district funding, using personnel specifically for this purpose, and by providing equipment (e. g., observation planes) as needed.

A congressional mandate may also be required.

Establish reporting requirements for general

permits. —The Corps does not monitor activities

covered by general permits or the impacts of such

activities on wetlands. More complete reporting

could be required so that individual and cumulative impacts associated with individual projects

could be assessed. If reports indicated unacceptable impacts, permit requirements could be

strengthened.
Ch. l—Summary • 17

Issue 1B: Options to decrease Federal involvement

in managing wetlands

If Federal involvement in protecting wetlands appears to Congress to be too great, a number of options could be adopted. Some options reduce funding for Federal programs; others reduce the scope

of the 404 program. Legislative action is desired

by some who favor extensive and permanent reforms in the program. The following options for

decreasing the level of Federal involvement will also

decrease wetlands protection, costs for the Federal

Government, and regulatory costs to developers.

How great these decreases will be is unknown.

Option 1: Amend section 404.

In a February 10, 1983, letter to EPA, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) outlined

several possible legislative changes to section 404,

including the options below. OTA analysis indicates

that any combination of these options that includes

either of the first two changes probably would provide a level of Federal wetland regulation and 404-

related costs to industry similar to those that

existed prior to full implementation of the 404

program.

Transfer the 404 program to the States.—Most

coastal wetlands are reasonably well regulated by

404 and State programs; most inland wetlands are

not. In those coastal States with strong wetland programs, transfer of the 404 program to the States

probably would not affect wetland use in a major

way. In States with relatively weak or no programs,

such an option would reduce control over wetlands,

especially inland wetlands, unless the Federal Government provided large amounts of financial and

technical assistance to strengthen State programs.

Even with assistance, some States still might not

effectively regulate wetland use.

Expand the use of general permits to include

all projects other than those occurring in traditionally navigable waters.—Since monitoring and

enforcement requirements for general permits are

usually not a high priority in most Corps districts,

development of most wetlands would, for all practical purposes, be uncontrolled by the Federal Government. Instead, States would have primary responsibility for regulating the use of most wetlands.

Eliminate permitting requirements for any incidental discharges.—If section 404(f)2 were eliminated, it would be very unclear whether or not the

Corps would be required to regulate discharges of

dredged or fill material that are incidental to activities that convert waters of the United States to

a new use. Thus, the clearing of wetlands, such as

the bottom land hardwoods, would probably become less stringently regulated than it is at present.

Make 404(b)1 guidelines only advisory in nature.— Section 404(b)1 guidelines are developed by

EPA in conjunction with the Corps. Through this

change, EPA’s role in the 404 program would be

significantly reduced and nonenvironmental factors

could be used by the Corps to override environmental concerns.

Give the Corps sole authority to define

“dredged material” and ‘‘fill material’ and activities that constitute a discharge.—This provision would eliminate EPA’s current legal involvement in Corps decisions about what activities and

types of fill material, such as garbage, would be

regulated.

Option 2: Decrease appropriations for acquisition,

easement, and leasing programs.

The Federal Government spends several million

dollars each year for wetland acquisition, easements, or leases. Federal funding for these programs could be decreased; similarly, lower priority could be given to wetland purchases. Either action would have little effect on industry.

Option 3: Rescind Executive Order 11990.

Regulations developed by many Federal agencies in response to Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, could be rescinded. This would

allow, for instance, Federal assistance to farmers

for wetland drainage.

Issue 2: Should the Federal Government improve its

policymaking capability through a systematic collection and analysis of additional information about wetlands?

At this time there is uncertainty about current

trends in wetland use, the environmental

significance of further wetland conversions, and
18 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

the current effects of major policies and programs

on wetlands, Whether or not additional information should be collected depends on a judgment

about its potential contribution to Congress’ policymaking capability and its value to Federal program administrators. For some people, the available information may be adequate for setting present and future wetland policy. Further information,

while perhaps useful in fine-tuning policies, may

seem unwarranted given the cost. In this case, option 1 might be selected. On the other hand, existing uncertainties may make it difficult to isolate

realistic policy choices and to determine the effect

of these options. For instance, it may be difficult

for some to decide what changes, if any, should be

made to section 404 without better knowing how

the current program has affected trends in wetland

use. In this latter case, option 2 could be selected.

Option 1: No, current information is adequate.

For some policymakers, existing information

may be adequate to make present and future decisions about wetland policies and programs. Some

new information will be collected as the result of

existing Federal programs. In particular, FWS is

planning to update its analysis of national trends

to cover the 10-year period following the mid1970’s. Also, EPA, FWS, NMFS, and the Corps

will continue to conduct research on wetland values.

Option 2: Yes, collect additional information.

For other policymakers, making decisions about

wetland policies and programs may be difficult at

this time because of major gaps in technical information. Past efforts have primarily supported the

missions of the agencies conducting the research,

rather than the policymaking process. Congress’

policymaking capability could be significantly improved if the three concurrent research elements

described below were undertaken. To ensure that

the results produced by these efforts are brought

to bear on the overall policymaking process, an integrated plan (with budgets and schedules) for conducting and coordinating all these policy-related activities could be developed by an interagency

working group headed by a Federal agency. This

information would not necessarily be available unless Congress takes steps to ensure its collection.

Element 1: Determine recent trends of wetland use. —The FWS’s recently completed statistical analysis of wetland trends provides information on wetland use only between the mid-1950’s

and the mid-1970’s. As currently planned, FWS

will update its analysis of national trends to cover

the 10-year period following the mid-1970’s. However, better information on regional trends could

be collected to determine where wetland-conversion

rates are most critical and where development pressures are greatest. Such regional analyses would entail an increase in the number of sites surveyed.

Element 2: Evaluate the significance of additional wetland conversions.—The extent to which

the environment will be degraded by additional

conversions of wetlands is known only in a few

cases. For example, if all the prairie potholes in the

upper Midwest were lost, we know that North

American duck populations would decrease by

about half. On the other hand, we do not know the

importance of wetland-derived detritus for estuarine

fish and shellfish populations relative to other

sources of food, such as algae and detritus from upland areas. Yet this type of information provides

a technical basis for changing levels of protection

for specific types of wetlands. A detailed understanding of all wetland systems in the United States

is not necessary; much could be learned from a

small number of long-term studies of wetland systems within specific physiographic regions, river

basins, or estuaries.

Element 3: Further analyze the effect of major policies and programs on wetlands use.—Additional analysis by an interagency working group

on the effects of Federal and State wetland programs

on wetland trends could provide a basis for modifying existing programs, especially in light of the

results of the two options just discussed. For example, the Corps could compile more thorough information on project acreages and types of wetlands

impacted. In addition, a detailed evaluation of the

capabilities and limitations of State programs, individually and in combination with the 404 program, could indicate possible ways of improving

the efficency and effectiveness of different programs

that have a major effect on wetlands.
Ch. l—Summary • 19

Issue 3: Should the Federal Government develop a

more integrated approach for managing

wetlands?

About 5 percent of the lower 48 States, or about

90 million acres, is covered by wetlands. These wetlands are geographically dispersed and their relative

abundance varies from region to region. In some

regions, wetlands provide important ecological services; in other regions, their values are primarily intrinsic (e. g., wilderness, esthetic, recreation, etc.).

Wetlands of widely different value can be found

in the same regions. Due to the inherent variability among wetland values, their wide and variable

distribution, and the large number of conversion

activities (i. e., a few tens of thousands) that are proposed each year, the use of wetlands is difficult

to manage.

Federal wetland programs generally deal with

wetlands in a piecemeal manner; that is, each

program generally focuses on certain ecological

services, wetland types, and/or geographic areas.

For example, FWS acquisition and easement programs focus mainly on protecting wetlands (and upland areas) that are important for wildlife. However, many wetlands that provide other ecological

services, such as flood control, might also warrant

acquisition. USDA’s Water Bank Program leases

valuable waterfowl nesting and breeding habitat in

prime agricultural areas of the country. Leasing of

nonagricultural areas to protect other ecological

sex-vices is not within the scope of this program.

An integrated approach for managing wetlands

could be considered.

Option 1: Yes, an integrated approach for managing wetlands use should be developed.

This integrated approach would involve “tailoring’ or adjusting existing acquisition, leasing, or

regulatory policies on a regional basis to wetlands

of different values and to different development activities prior to possible wetland conversion.

Developing an integrated approach to wetlands

management would involve four sequential steps.

First, the FWS’s ongoing inventory of wetlands

would be continued or accelerated, Second, the wetlands in an inventoried region would be categorized

according to their relative values. Third, existing

wetland policies and programs would be ‘‘tailored’

or adjusted according to their category and specific

characteristics. For example, higher value wetlands

covered by 404 could be stringently regulated

through individual permits; lower value wetlands

could be covered by less stringent general permits.

Fourth, different Federal, State, or local programs

could be applied to different wetland categories and

types of development activities in a more integrated

fashion.

This approach has several advantages. High-value wetlands with different ecological services could

be given an appropriate level of protection. Agency funding and personnel could be focused on highvalue wetlands in different regions of the country

rather than all wetlands in general or wetlands that

provide a single ecological service. Regulators, developers, and the public would be aware of the status of the wetlands in their particular areas prior

to any proposals to convert them to other uses. Developers also would have prior knowledge about

standards and requirements for converting specific

wetland areas. The time required for processing

most 404 permits would be significantly reduced.

Finally, decisions about wetland use would be more

predictable and consistent.

The four steps involved in this approach are described in more detail in the following discussion.

Step 1: Continue or accelerate the ongoing

mapping of wetlands by FWS.—At this time, a

detailed inventory of 30 percent of the wetlands in

the lower 48 States and 4 percent in Alaska has been

completed. An additional 5 percent of the lower 48

States and 2 percent of Alaska can be mapped each

year at an annual cost of $3.5 million per year. With

greater funding, this inventory effort could be

accelerated.

Step 2: Categorize wetlands.—Once inventoried, wetlands would then be placed in three to five

broad categories based on the combined importance

of their ecological services and intrinsic values. In

about a dozen areas in the United States, wetlands

have been inventoried and broadly categorized in

this manner. One case, the Anchorage (Alaska)

Wetland Plan, places wetlands in four categories:

preservation, which precludes any development

activities; conservation, which allows limited conversions with measures to mitigate impacts; developable, which allows complete draining and filling without a permit; and special study, which requires collecting additional environmental data to
20 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

determine wetland status. Local authorities use this

plan to control the conversion of wetlands under

a general permit from the Corps,

Categorizing wetlands would involve weighing

and integrating the values of different ecological

services within a political rather than strictly scientific framework. Therefore, categorization could

best be accomplished by Federal policymakers from

an interagency working group in cooperation with

regional groups composed of State and local officials, wetland scientists, developers, and the general

public who would be familiar with wetland values

in their respective physiographic regions or river

basins. This process also would involve regional

public hearings.

Step 3: Tailor existing policies and programs. —After categorizing the wetlands in a certain region, Federal, State, or local wetland policies

and programs would then be selectively applied by

program administrators according to the relative

values of different wetlands, as well as the values

and impacts of potential development activities. For

example, wetlands covered by the 404 program, depending on their natural values, could be individually regulated, covered by general permits, or left

unregulated. For wetlands that are individually regulated, the procedures used to review permits and

mitigate impacts could reflect the relative values

of the wetlands, as well as the type, size, and benefits associated with development activities. Acquisition and leasing programs could be easily focused

on high-value wetlands identfied by the inventory.

The tailoring process would not be designed to

disallow all further wetland conversions. Instead,

the inventory and categorization of wetlands would

provide a management tool for program administrators, developers, and policymakers in making

decisions about the use of wetlands based on their

relative values. All wetlands in the United States

would not have to be mapped prior to the tailoring of policies; tailoring would be accomplished as

the different regions are mapped. The highest priority could be placed on those areas where many

important wetlands are located and/or where conversion pressures are greatest.

Step 4: Integrate wetland policies and programs. —Step four would first involve increasing

the scope of existing wetland policies and programs

to include the full range of natural wetland values.

For example, acquisition and leasing programs,

which now focus primarily on protecting habitats

with high wildlife values, could be given programmatic flexibility by Congress to consider all wetland

values. USDA’s Water Bank Program for leasing

waterfowl habitat in agricultural regions could be

broadened to allow leasing of inland wetlands with

a range of ecological values in both agricultural and

nonagricultural areas.

If Congress increased the scope of different

wetland programs, the interagency and regional

groups organized in step 2 could select the most

appropriate policies or programs for managing different wetland areas—whether through acquisition,

easements, or regulation. For example, undegraded, high-value wetlands could be given a higher

level of protection than they now have through direct acquisition or easements rather than regulation. Combinations of different policies might also

be used for some wetlands. For example, if certain

kinds of development activities on a privately owned

wetland were prohibited within the framework of

Federal or State regulations, the owner might be

given the option to sell the wetland or an easement

to the Federal or State Government.

If Congress wished to develop such an integrated

approach, the gaps in policy-related information

(discussed under issue 2) must be filled. Also, to

ensure that all ongoing activities are relevant both

to the missions of the involved Federal agencies and

to the policymaking process in general, an integrated and detailed work plan could be developed

by the interagency working group. In this way, the

Federal Government could take advantage of the

collective expertise and interests of the different

Federal agencies that deal with wetlands. This plan

should include a description of ongoing and planned

activities, agency responsibilities, coordination procedures, funding requirements, and opportunities

for congressional oversight. Above all, the plan

would describe in detail the processes that would

be used to tailor and integrate wetland policies and

programs. This plan, which could be developed

over a 2-year period at a cost this study estimates

to be about $1 million, could provide an overall

framework for wetland policymaking that would be

stable over several administrations. The development and implementation of such a plan would re-
Ch. l—Summary ● 2 1

quire a congressional mandate with accompanying

appropriations.

Option 2: No. The existing approach for managing

wetlands is adequate.

Some wetland scientists and many environmentalists have serious reservations about this integrated approach. While they agree that some wetlands are more valuable than others, they believe

that all wetlands should be stringently protected;

tailoring would only weaken the protection that wetlands now have. There is also concern about yet-tobe-developed procedures for implementing the concept. For example, wetlands can be ranked according to their relative importance for single ecological

services; however, it is not clear how the multiple

ecological services and intrinsic values of each wetland would be considered and weighed during the

categorization process. Important or yet-to-bediscovered services could be overlooked. Also, the

relative values of wetlands may change over time.

Therefore, some wetlands, especially those that fall

outside the framework of State and Federal regulations, might not receive an adequate level of protection. Other institutional concerns focus on the

uncertainties about the administration of the tailoring process, the potential for controversy and for

the use of political influence, and the possible high

costs associated with implementing such an

approach.

OTA recognizes that there are uncertainties

about developing an integrated approach for

managing wetlands. However, if the tailoring concept is politically acceptable, it should be possible

to establish acceptable procedures for implementing the tailoring process effectively. In light of existing uncertainties and concerns about tailoring,

it may be desirable first to test the viability of procedures in several regions of the country on a pilot

scale prior to making a decision about the desirability of full-scale implementation.
Chapter 2

Wetland Types

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Urban C Nelson
Contents

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Origins of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Glaciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Erosion and Sedimentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beaver Dams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Freezing and Thawing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Activities of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Miscellaneous Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hydrologic Characteristics of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland Vegetation ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Major Types of Wetlands and Closely Related Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inland Freshwater Marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inland Saline Marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tundra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shrub Swamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wooded Swamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bottom Lands and Other Riparian Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coastal Salt Marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mangrove Swamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tidal Freshwater Marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic Distribution of Wetland Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

25

25

25

26

26

27

27

28

28

29

29

30

30

30

30

30

30

31

31

32

32

33

TABLE

Table No. Page

3. Locations of Various Wetland Types in the United States.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

l. General Distribution of Wetlands of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2. Cross-Sectional Diagram of New England-Type Salt Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3. Physical Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Chapter 2

Wetland Types

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Wetlands, including marshes, swamps, bogs, covered by vegetation adapted to saturated soil conbottom lands, and tundra, occur along sloping areas ditions that emerges through any standing water.

between upland and deepwater environments, such Most wetlands have formed as a result of past glaas rivers, or form in basins that are isolated from ciation, erosion and sedimentation, beaver activilarger water bodies. Wetlands are either periodically ty, freezing and thawing in arctic areas, activities

or continually inundated by water and generally of man, and other processes.

ORIGINS OF WETLANDS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) used

the term ‘ ‘wetland’ in 1952 to describe a number

of diverse environments, typically of high productivity, that share characteristics of both aquatic and

terrestrial habitats—i. e., they are at least temporarily inundated and have “emergent” vegetation

adapted to saturated soil conditions. While a wide

range of environmental conditions exist within this

categorization —from salt marshes flooded and exposed daily to bottom land forests inundated only

during spring flooding—wetlands also share similar

hydrologic and habitat characteristics. These characteristics primarily stem from three interrelated

factors: the wetland’s origin, hydrology, and vegetation.

Six basic processes are responsible for wetland

formation: glaciation, erosion and sedimentation,

beaver dams, freezing and thawing, activities of

man, and miscellaneous processes (6).

Glaciation

A principal band of wetlands (fig. I) —lying along

the northern tier of the United States, including

Alaska, Maine, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin,

Minnesota, North Dakota, and Washington-was

formed in three ways as glaciers melted 9,000 to

12,000 years ago. First, the melting of large blocks

of ice left by receding glaciers created pits and depressions in glacial moraines, till, and outwash.

Lakes and wetlands formed where the depressions

intersected the ground water table or where fine

clay and organics sealed their bottoms and permitted the collection of runoff waters. The majority

of wetlands in the Northern United States were

formed in this manner. Second, glaciers dammed

rivers, often creating glacial lakes, sometimes

thousands of square miles in area. Once the ice

retreated, the lakes were drained partially, resulting

in extensive low-lying areas with peat deposits.

These areas form some of the large wetlands in the

once glaciated Northern States. Third, glaciers

scooped out and scoured river valleys and soft bedrock deposits, creating large and deep lakes such

as the Great Lakes, and shallow depressions and

wetland areas, such as the prairie potholes.

Erosion and Sedimentation

Another principal band of wetlands is found (fig.

1) along the gulf and Atlantic coasts, where sediment has been deposited in the still waters behind barrier islands or reefs and in bays and

estuaries. Wetland formation is favored by lowelevation topography along the Atlantic and gulf

coasts. The sediment deposited behind Georgia

coastal marshes, for instance, may be up to 10

meters in thickness and has formed extensive flat

or gently sloping topography conducive to growth

of wetland plants.

25-415 0 - 84 - 3 25
Figure 1 .—General Distribution of Wetlands of the United States

Note: Shaded portions incorporate general wetland areas. Each dot represents about 10,000 acres.

SOURCE: Adapted from Samuel p. ShaW and c. Gordon Fredlne, “wetlands of the united states: Their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl and Other Wildlife,”

Fish and Wildllfe Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Circular 39, 1956.

Major wetlands also are located along the flood

plains of low-gradient rivers such as the Mississippi. River flood plains are created by the deposition

of river alluvium on adjacent lands during floods.

Rivers may cut new channels, abandoning old

water courses, which may then become lakes or wetlands. Extensive wetland areas, such as the Mississippi Delta, are found where sediment is deposited at the mouths of rivers and streams. The

deposition of sand, gravel, or silt also can create

wetlands along the shores of, or adjacent to, lakes.

Vast marshes of this type form along the Great

Lakes.

Beaver Dams

At one time, beaver dams played a major role

in forming smaller inland wetlands in the forested

areas of the Nation. While beaver populations fluctuate due to variability in trapping pressure, their

presence can be a major factor in increasing wetland

acreage in some regions of the country. For example, in an analysis of wetland trends in 15 Massachusetts towns between 1951 and the 1970’s, beaver

activity was the third most important cause of increases in wetland acreage out of 11 identified factors (9).

Freezing and Thawing

In the Arctic, wetlands are created when the Sun

melts the surface of frozen organic soils while the

underlying soil remains permanently frozen. In addition, frost action segregates rock and soil particles

of various sizes and shifts them in such a way that

shallow, water-filled basins are formed.
lake created by a retreating glacier. The majority of wetlands in the Northern United States were created

by similar processes

Activities of Man Miscellaneous Processes

Wetlands may develop naturally adjacent to Wetlands may be formed by other special

reservoirs, farm ponds, irrigation canals, and in pits esses. In the Sandhills of Nebraska and in

and depressions created by mining. Poor drainage areas of the arid West, depressions have

due to construction of highways, levees, and build- formed by wind action. The Everglades

procother

been

exist

ings also can lead to the development of wetlands. because of a flow of ground water and surface water

Finally, manmade wetlands can be created inten- over bedrock at and directly below the surface. In

tionally by Federal, State, and local resource agen- Kentuckyj Indiana, and several other States, wetcies and by conservation groups in shallow, pro- lands are also found in sink holes and other areas

tected waters. where bedrock has been dissolved by percolating
28 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

water. Geologic movements have shaped still other from earthquakes. Similarly, San Francisco Bay

wetlands. Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee, for exam- was formed by movement along the San Andreas

pie, was formed by the sudden sinking of the earth Fault.

HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS

Wetlands may be located on the transitional sloping areas between upland and deepwater environments where the water is shallow and calm enough

for emergent vegetation to grow. Wetlands also

may form in basins that generally are isolated from

larger water bodies. These basins: 1) are either at

or below the ground water table, or 2) because of

poor drainage, retain much of the water that flows

into them. The interaction among the hydrologic

regime, the wetland topography, and its underlying substrata (e. g., soil) largely controls the general

characteristics of a wetland and most, if not all, of

the ecological services that it performs.

The two hydrologic characteristics that have the

greatest influence in ultimately determining the

habitat values of a wetland are the depth of the

water and the pattern of fluctuation of water depth

(8). The average depth of water varies greatly

among wetlands. Bogs, for instance, typically are

saturated to their surfaces, but rarely have standing water. In contrast, a wooded swamp or deep

marsh may have standing water several feet deep.

Annual fluctuations in water level also vary widely, ranging from those that are wet year-round, to

those inundated irregularly for only a fraction of

the year, to those flooded and exposed daily by tidal

action. One of the most important factors influencing average water depth and patterns of fluctuation is the source of water, whether from direct surface runoff of snowmelt, from a river during spring

flooding, or from tidal action in coastal areas.

Climate, in addition to influencing the source of

water—precipitation, snowmelt, and flooding—

also determines seasonal patterns of drying. In the

prairie-pothole region of the United States, for instance, shallow wetlands may dry out completely

in some years.

WETLAND VEGETATION

A diversity of plant forms is found in wetlands,

ranging from deciduous trees to rooted floating

plants, such as water lilies. Depending on the soil

type, water availability, water quality, and temperature patterns, the dominant plants in wetland areas

may be mosses, grasses, sedges, bulrushes, cattails,

shrubs, trees, or any combination of these. A common distinction among wetland types is the vegetation type: trees or shrubs dominate swamps;

grasses, sedges, cattails, and bulrushes dominate

marshes; and mosses and lichens dominate bogs.

With the exception of the severe, limiting effect

of high salinity on plant type, water depth and fluctuation are perhaps the dominant physical factors

influencing the type and distribution of plants.

Plants often have a narrowly defined tolerance for

hydrologic conditions. In a typical New England

salt marsh, for instance, Spartina alterniflora (salt

marsh cordgrass) dominates the water’s edge; as

the marsh gains elevation, Spartina patens (saltmeadow cordgrass), and then Juncus (rushes) dominate the marsh (see fig. 2). In a freshwater marsh,

a typical progression from deep to shallow water

would include hard-stemmed bulrush, narrowleaf

cattail, and broadleaf cattail. Bald cypress, black

willow, willow oak, and swamp chestnut oak are

representative species found in a bottom land hardwood forest, from the areas most regularly flooded

to those irregularly inundated.
Ch. 2—Wet/and Types ● 29

Figure 2.—Cross-Sectional Diagram of New England-Type Salt Marsh . ——-.

(from Miller and Egler, 1950)

Upland

Panicum

Virgatum

Upper

border

Exceptional

high tide

Juncus

upper slope Spartina Patens I

 lower slope I

Spartina Alterniflora

lower border

Normal

Diagrammatic cross-section of the upland-to-bay sequence, showing the characteristics of the major vegetational units. Vertical Scale much

exaggerated.

SOURCE: H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahan, Coastal Ecological Systems of the Un/ted States, vol. 2 (Washington, D. C.: Tha Conservation Foundation, 1974).

MAJOR TYPES OF WETLANDS AND

CLOSELY RELATED HABITATS

Although FWS has developed a comprehensive Inland Freshwater Marshes

system for classifying wetlands, for the purposes of Inland freshwater marshes may occur at any latithis general discussion, OTA has distinguished between very broad types of wetlands using more vertude but are not common at very high altitudes.

Their water depths generally range from 6 inches

nacular terms. The primary factors distinguishing to 3 feet. Marsh vegetation is characterized by softthese types of wetlands are:

.

stemmed plants, grasses, sedges, and rushes that

1.

2.

3.

emerge above the surface of the marsh. They invocation (coastal or inland), elude such common plants as water lilies, cattails,

salinity (freshwater or saltwater), and reeds, arrowheads, pickerel weed, smartweed, and

dominant vegetation (marsh, swamp, or bog). wild rice (3).
30 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Inland Saline Marshes

Inland saline wetlands occur primarily in shallow

lake basins in the Western United States. They are

usually saturated during the growing season and

often covered with as much as 2 or 3 feet of water.

Vegetation is mainly alkali or hard-stemmed bulrushes, often with widgeon grass or sago pondweed

in more open areas (13).

Bogs

Bogs occur mostly in shallow lake basins, on flat

uplands, and along sluggish streams. The soil, often

consisting of thick peat deposits, usually is saturated

and supports a spongy covering of mosses. Woody

or herbaceous vegetation, or both, also may grow

in bogs. In the North, leather-leaf, Labrador tea,

cranberries, and cotton grass often are present.

Cyrilla, persea, gordonia, sweetbay, pond pine,

Virginia chain fern, and pitcher plants grow in

southern bogs, which are found on the Southeastern Coatal Plain. These bogs are more commonly known as “pocosins” (13).

Tundra

Tundra is essentially a wet arctic grassland

dominated by lichens (reindeer moss), sphagnum

mosses, grasses, sedges, and dwarf woody plants.

It is characterized by a thick, spongy mat of living

and undecayed vegetation that often is saturated

with water. Its deeper soil layer or permafrost remains frozen throughout the year; the surface of

the tundra is dotted with ponds when not completely frozen. In Alaska, wet tundra occurs at lower

elevation, often in conjunction with standing water;

moist tundra occurs on slightly higher ground, An

alpine tundra or meadow, similar to the arctic

tundra, occurs in high mountains of the temperate

zone (10).

Shrub Swamp

Shrub swamps occur mostly along sluggish

streams and occasionally on flood plains (13). The

soil usually is saturated during the growing season

and often is covered with as much as 6 inches of

water. Vegetation includes alder, willows, button

bush, dogwoods, and swamp privet.

Wooded Swamps

Wooded swamps occur mostly along sluggish

streams, on flood plains, on flat uplands, and in

very shallow lake basins. The soil is saturated at

least to within a few inches of its surface during the

growing season and often is covered with as much

as 1 or 2 feet of water. In the North, trees include

tamarack, white cedar, black spruce, balsam, red

maple, and black ash. In the South, water oak,

overcup oak, tupelo gum, swamp black gum, and

cypress are dominant. In the Northwest, western

hemlock, red alder, and willows are common.

Northern evergreen swamps usually have a thick

ground covering of mosses. Deciduous swamps frequently support beds of duckweeds, smartweeds,

and other herbs (13).

Bottom Lands and Other

Riparian Habitats

Riparian habitats, those areas adjacent to rivers

and streams, are most commonly recognized as bottom land hardwood and flood plain forests in the

Eastern and Central United States and as streambank vegetation in the arid West. Riparian ecosystems are unique, owing to their high species diversity, high species densities, and high productivity

relative to adjacent areas (l).

Bottom lands occur throughout the riverine flood

plains of the Southeastern United States, where

over 100 woody species occur. Bottom lands vary

from being permanently saturated or inundated

throughout the growing season at the river’s edge

to being inundated for short periods at a frequency of only 1 to 10 years per 100 years at the uplands

edge (7). On the lowest sites that are flooded the

longest, most frequently, and to the greatest depths,

bald cypress, tupelo gum, button bush, water elm,

and swamp privet are most abundant, As elevation increases (and flooding frequency and depth

decrease), overcup oak, red maple, water locust,

and bitter pecan occur. Nuttall oak, pin oak, sweet

gum, and willow oak appear where flooding occurs

regularly during the dormant season but where

water rarely is present at midsummer. Sites nearest

the high-water mark, which are flooded only occasionally, have shagbark hickory, swamp chestnut

oak, and post oak (4).
Ch. 2—Wetland Types Ž 31

Photo credit: US. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bottom lands occur throughout the riverine flood plains of the Southeastern United States. They vary from being

permanently inundated at the river’s edge to being inundated for only short periods at a frequency of 1 to 10 years

per 100 years at higher elevations

Riparian habitats in the arid West are scattered

widely along ephemeral, intermittent, and permanent streams that commonly flow through arid or

semiarid terrain. Woody vegetation associated with

these wetlands includes willows and alders at higher

elevations; cottonwoods, willows, and salt cedar at

intermediate vegetations; and salt cedar, mesquite,

cottonwoods, and willows at lower elevations (5).

Coastal Salt Marshes

Salt marshes alternately are inundated and

drained by the rise and fall of the tide, Because the

plants and animals of the marsh must be able to

adjust to the rapid changes in water level, salinity,

and temperature caused by tides, only a relatively

small number of plants and animals are able to

tolerate these conditions. Thus, there is a high

degree of similarity in the kinds of species present.

Plants of the genus Spartina and the species Juncus and Salicornia are almost universal in their

occurrence in U.S. salt marshes (1 2).

Mangrove Swamps

Mangrove is a term denoting any salt-tolerant,

intertidal tree species. In the United States, mangroves are limited primarily to Florida coastal areas.

Large mangrove-swamp forests are found only in

south Florida and are especially extensive along the

protected southwestern coast (2). On the northwest

Florida coast, black mangrove occurs mostly as scat-
32 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

tered scrublands. On the eastern shore of Florida of the mid-Atlantic coast and along the coasts of

and along the Louisiana coast, mangroves are Louisiana and Texas. Dominant intertidal plants

found behind barrier islands and on the shores of include a mixture of grasses and broadleaf species,

protected coastlines. such as arrow arum, spatterdock, pickerel weed,

and arrowhead, which form rather complex multiTidal Freshwater Marshes layered plant zones. The upper marsh

from 20 to 50 species of grasses, shrubs,

Tidal freshwater marshes occur in virtually every herbaceous plants (11).

coastal State but are most abundant in the estuaries

may have

ferns, and

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF WETLAND TYPES

The various wetland types described in the pre- tified in table 3. The regions described are based

vious section are distributed unevenly across the on Hammond’s Physical Subdivisions (fig. 3),

United States. The regions of the United States with which are the same as those used in Chapter 5:

high concentrations of the various types are iden- Wetland Trends.

Table 3.—Locations of Various Wetland Types in the United States

Wetland type Primary regions States

Inland freshwater marsh. . . . . . . . . . Dakota-Minnesota drift and lake bed (8)

Upper Midwest (9); and Gulf Coastal

Flats (4)

Inland saline marshes. . . . . . . . . . . . Intermontane (12); Pacific Mountains (13)

Bogs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Midwest (9); Gulf-Atlantic Rolling

Plain (5); Gulf Coastal Flat (4); and

Atlantic Coastal Flats (3)

Tundra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Central Highland and Basin; Arctic

Lowland; and Pacific Mountains

Shrub swamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Midwest (9); Gulf Coastal Flats (4)

Wooded swamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Midwest (9); Gulf Coastal Flats (4);

Atlantic Coastal Flats (3); and Lower

Mississippi Alluvial Plain (6)

Bottom land hardwood . . . . . . . . . . . Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain (6);

Atlantic Coastal Flats (3); Gulf-Atlantic

Rolling Plain (5); and Gulf Coastal

Flats (4)

Coastal salt marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . Atlantic Coastal Zone (l); Gulf Coastal

Zone (2); Eastern Highlands (7); Pacific

Moutains (13)

Mangrove swamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf Coastal Zone (2)

Tidal freshwater wetlands . . . . . . . . Atlantic Coastal Zone (1) and Flats (3);

Gulf Coastal Zone (2) and Flats (4)

Georgia, South Carolina

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,

Minnesota, Florida

Oregon, Nevada, Utah, California

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Maine,

Florida, North Carolina

Alaska

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida,

Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,

Louisiana

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida,

Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,

Louisiana

Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas,

Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida,

Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,

Texas

All Coastal States, but particularly the

Mid- and South Atlantic and Gulf Coast

States

Florida and Louisiana

Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia,

Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey,

SOURCE: This table is based on maps from Samuel P. Shaw and C. Gordon Fredine, “Wetlands of the United States: Their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl and

Other Wildlife,” Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Circular 39, 1956.
Ch. 2—Wet/and Types Ž 33

Figure 3.— Physical Subdivisions

1.

2.

3.

4.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

Brown, Sandra, Brinson, Mark M., and Lugo,

Ariel E., ‘‘Structure and Function of Riparian Wetlands, Strategies for Protection and Management

of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems, proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the

U.S. Forest Service, in Callaway Gardens, N.J.,

Dec. 11-13, 1978.

Clark, J. R., “Coastal Ecosystem Management”

(New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970), pp.

660-665.

Council on Environmental Quality, “Our Nation’s

Wetlands, an Interagency Task Force Report,

1978, p. 70.

Fredrickson, L. H., ‘ ‘Lowland Hardwood Wetlands: Current Status and Habitat Values for Wildlife, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State of

5.

6.

7.

8,

Our Understanding, proceedings of the National

Symposium on Wetlands, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.), Nov. 7-10, 1978.

Johnson, Roy R., “The Lower Colorado River: A

Western System, ” Strategies for Protection and

Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other

Riparian Ecosystems, proceedings of a symposium

sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service, in Callaway

Gardens, N.J., Dec. 11-13, 1978.

Kusler, J., “Our Wetland Heritage: A Protection

Guidebook” (Washington, D. C.: Environmental

Law Institute, 1983).

National Wetlands Technical Council, Workshop

Report on Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands, held

at Lake Lanier, Ga., June 1-5, 1980.

National Wetlands Technical Council, “Scientists’
34 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

9

10<

11.

Report, ” National Symposium on Wetlands, Lake

Buena Vista, Fla., Nov. 6-9, 1978, p. 32.

New England/Massachusetts Case Study, OTA 12.

contractor: Water Resources Research Center,

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1983.

Odum, E. P., Fundamentals of EcoJogy, 3d ed.

(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1971), pp. 13,

380-383.

Odum, W. E., Dunn, M. L., and Smith, T. J., III,

“Habitat Value of Tidal Freshwater Wetlands, ”

Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our

Understanding, proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark,

and J. E. Clark (eds. ), Nov. 7-10, 1978.

Odum, H. T., Copeland, B. J., and McMahan,

E. A. (eds. ), Coastal Ecoloq”cd Systems of the

United States, vol. 2 (Washington, D. C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1974).

Shaw, Samuel P., and Fredine, C. Gordon, “Wetlands of the United States: Their Extent and Their

Value to Waterfowl and Other Wildlife, ” Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Circular 39, 1956.
Chapter 3

Wetland Values and the Importance

of Wetlands to Man
Contents

Page

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Attitudes Toward Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Intrinsic Values of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Wetlands as Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Wetlands for Recreation and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Other Intrinsic Values.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Ecological Services or Resource Values of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Floodpeak Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Shoreline Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Ground Water Recharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Water Quality Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Fish and Wildlife Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Climatic and Atmospheric Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

TABLES

Table No. Page

4. Summary of Input-Output Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5. Selected Commercial or Sport Fish and Shellfish Utilizing

Coastal Marshes as Nurseries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6. Endangered Wetland Species on the Federal

Endangered and Threatened Species List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7. Game and Fur Animals Identified by State Game Managers as Found in Wetlands . . 58

8. The 10 Most Recreationally Important Marine Fish in the United States

in 1979 Ranked by Number of Fish Landed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

9. The 15 Most Important Fish and Shellfish Harvested by U.S. Fisheries in 1980 . . . . . 59

10. Wetland Plant Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

4. Relationship Between Wetland Processes and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5. General Pattern of Duck Distribution in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Chapter 3

Wetland Values and the Importance

of Wetlands to Man

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Some people value wetlands for their intrinsic

qualities. They may wish to protect wetlands simply

out of a desire to preserve natural areas for future

generations or because they are often the last areas

to be developed. Others value the varied and abundant flora and fauna that may be found in wetlands,

and the opportunities for hunting, fishing, and

boating and other recreational activities. While

these recreational benefits can be quantified to some

extent, the other intrinsic values of wetlands are,

for the most part, intangible. For this reason, the

justification for protecting wetlands has often focused on the importance of the ecologicalservices

or resource values that wetlands provide, which are

more scientifically and economically demonstrable

than intrinsic qualities. These ecological services

include floodpeak reduction, ground water recharge, water quality improvement, food and habitat, food-chain support, and shoreline stabilization.

The intrinsic values and ecological services provided by wetlands can vary significantly from one

wetland to another and from one region of the country to another. Some wetlands provide benefits that

primarily are local or regional in nature; other benefits may be national or even international in scope.

Because of the wide variation among individual

wetlands, the significance of their ecological services and intrinsic values must be determined on an

individual or regional basis.

The dollar value of the ecological services that

wetlands provide sometimes can be quantified. The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, estimated that the loss of the entire 8,422 acres of wetlands within the Charles River Basin, Mass., would

produce average annual flood damage of over$17

million. However, because the many intrinsic qualities of wetlands cannot be quantified, it is difficult

to place generally accepted dollar values on wetlands.

ATTITUDES TOWARD WETLANDS

The use of wetlands has become a public policy

issue because of conflicts between those who wish

to develop them and those who wish to preserve

them. Developers, for instance, regard wetlands as

prime locations for development because of their

typical proximity to open water. Farmers drain or

clear wetlands to plant crops in their rich organic

soil. While there also are private gains involved,

the creation of new jobs or the production of food

that results from the development of wetlands directly benefits society.

On the other hand, undeveloped wetlands have

important intrinsic qualities that are esthetically

pleasing and provide numerous ecological services,

such as flood control, that benefit society. The conflict between developers and conservationists over

wetlands often is viewed as an issue that ‘‘involves

questions of public good as opposed to private gain’

(21). However, the issue is not simply a matter of

public versus private interests but of conflicting

public interests.

The values associated with wetlands were not

always widely recognized. For example, in the 19th

century when a national priority was placed on settling the country, wetlands were considered a menace, the cause of malaria, and a hindrance to land

development. Through the Swamp Land Acts of

1849, 1850, and 1860, Congress granted to States

37
38 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

all swamps and overflow lands for reclamation to

reduce the destruction caused by flooding and eliminate mosquito-breeding swamps. A total of 65 million acres of wetlands were granted to 15 States for

reclamation (81).

With increasing concerns about preserving different ecosystems, the public’s perception of and

attitude toward wetlands has changed gradually

over the last half century. An inventory of wetlands

conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) in the mid-1950’s perhaps did the most to

change attitudes about wetlands over the past three

decades (81). The introduction to the inventory

stated: “So long as this belief prevails (that wetlands

are wastelands), wetlands will continue to be

drained, filled, diked, impounded, or otherwise

altered, and thus will lose their identity as wetlands

and their value as wildlife habitat. The inventory

created the lasting perception that wetlands rapidly were disappearing-a perception that galvanized

certain groups to preserve wetlands.

Since the intrinsic values-recreation and a sense

of the need to preserve the unique flora and fauna

of scenic, natural areas—that motivated wetland

protection at the outset were not appreciated universally, proponents began to investigate more tangible, ecological services provided by wetlands. Initially, these other services were suggested in the

FWS wetland inventory report:

. . . the storage of ground water, the retention of

surface water for farm uses, the stabilization of runoff, the reduction or prevention of erosion, the production of timber, the creation of firebreaks, the

provision of an outdoor laboratory for students and

scientists, and the production of cash crops, such

as minnows (for bait), marsh hay, wild rice, blackberries, cranberries and peat moss (81).

In his 1977 environmental message, President

Carter conveyed an attitude about wetlands that

stood in sharp contrast to the attitude of the early

1900’s:

The Nation’s coastal and inland wetlands are vital natural resources of critical importance to the

people of this country. Wetlands are areas of great

natural productivity, hydrological utility, and environmental diversity, providing natural flood control, improved water quality, recharge of aquifers,

flow stabilization of streams and rivers, and habitat

for fish and wildlife resources. Wetlands contribute

to the production of agricultural products and timber and provide recreational, scientific, and esthetic

resources of national interest.1

Knowledge of the importance of the ecological

services provided by wetlands has increased steadily, especially over the past two decades. As wetlands

research continues, knowledge about the values of

individual and different types of wetlands will, in

all likelihood, improve. For example, some wetland

services, such as ground water recharge, have been

found to be less significant than once thought. On

the other hand, the ecological services of inland

freshwater wetlands with the exception of wildlife

habitat are not widely recognized by the general

public. It is quite possible that some wetlands may

provide ecological services that are as yet unknown

or poorly documented. In addition, the overall significance of continuing, incremental losses of wetlands is well known only in a few cases. Waterfowl

managers, for example, use the number of prairie

potholes in the Midwest to predict fall duck populations; without these wetlands, North American

duck populations would decrease by about half. On

the other hand, the importance of wetland-derived

detritus for estuarine fish and shellfish populations

relative to other sources of food, such as algae and

detritus from upland areas, is not well known. Future research may resolve many of these uncertainties.

1Statement by the President accompanying Executive Order 11990;

42 FR 26961 (1977).
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 3 9

INTRINSIC VALUES OF WETLANDS

In recent years, the case for preserving wetlands

has been based more and more on the ecological

services provided by wetlands2 and on the availability of scientific evidence documenting these services. For example, in a recent paper, William Reilly stated:

Every bit of evidence that does exist suggests that

our interior wetlands are vital elements of national

estate. But there are many challenging voices—

questioning voices. These will become stronger in

future years. They will demand to be shown the

scientific evidence behind wetland conservation

decisions (81).

This situation perhaps has obscured one fundamental motivation of some for preserving wetlands—the desire to preserve, intact and unspoiled,

unique natural ecosystems. For many personal reasons, whether ethical, religious, esthetic, or recreational in nature, people value wetlands for their intrinsic qualities. Because these intrinsic values are

intangible and thus difficult to express in quantitative and economic terms, they are often overlooked in a society where decisions are based on

numerical cost-benefit analyses. Although there

have been attempts to quantify these values, this

discussion simply identifies those characteristics of

wetlands that people value.

Wetlands as Natural Areas

Some people are attracted to an environment that

essentially is untouched by man’s presence,3 which

is an attraction akin to the lure of wilderness. One

scientist, for instance, writes in the preface to a wetland study:

The river swamps are, for many of us in the

Southeast, the last wilderness. True, they are narrow, even the mighty Altamaha swamp scarcely ex-

‘Massachusetts, for instance, the first State to enact a wetland law,

recognizes seven wetland values: flood control, prevention of pollution, prevention of storm damage, protection of the public and private

drinking water supply, protection of ground water supply, protection

of fisheries 1978-79; Act of Mar. 25, 1965; ch. 220, 1965;

Massachusetts Acts 116; Act of May 22, 1963; ch. 426, 1963;

Massachusetts Acts 240.

3

In the following discussion, examples illustrating these characteristics of wetlands are presented. Unless otherwise noted, these examples are taken from J, Perry and J. G. Perry, Guide to Natural Areas

of the Eastern United Stares (New York: Random House Publishers).

ceeds 5 miles in width; yet in length they are large

indeed, often stretching more than half the length

of the state. Narrow as they are, many provide a

true wilderness experience. Where else in this

mechanized, modern world can we so quickly lose

ourselves in wildness without evidence of the massive civilization that surrounds us? (97).

Part of the reason that marshes, swamps, bogs,

and other wetlands are associated with natural, undisturbed environments is that they are often the

last areas to be developed. The difficulty and expense of draining wetlands for development have

encouraged people to develop other areas first.

Various studies have found that wetlands rank

high in esthetic quality in comparison to other landscape types (82). One particular value of wetlands

is the attraction of the land-water interface. Many

people find the edge between land and sea, lake,

or stream scenically appealing, and such areas often

include wetlands as well as beaches and banks.

Small wetlands are capable of being surveyed in

a glance or traversed in a few minutes and offer

a contrast to the adjoining land or water. Seen from

a passing car or hiking trail, wetland edges buffer

commercially or agriculturally developed lands,

providing scenic variety. Small wetlands also contrast with other types of natural areas, such as

upland forests or open water.

Large wetlands have a similar “variety” value

along their edges but may have other esthetic attributes as well. Of all natural areas, the most mysterious and haunting in appearance are the large

cypress swamps draped with Spanish moss. Less

exotic are wooded swamps, which are full of different shapes, textures, plants, and animals. Access and visibility are important factors; for example, pleasing wooded swamps should not be choked

with underbrush that greatly impedes passage by

foot or canoe. A large, open, grassy marsh can present quite an esthetic contrast and a feeling of open

space.

In addition to the esthetic qualities of wetlands

themselves, wetland flora and fauna lend a special

esthetic attraction to wetlands. Waterbirds are a

good example: herons, egrets, storks, terns, pelicans, and cranes all are found commonly or pri-
40 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr,

Draped with Spanish moss, the haunting Santee-Cooper River Swamp in South Carolina provides

an uncommon wilderness experience

marily in wetland habitats. Other species are more

unusual. Five genera of insectivorous plants can

be found in a North Carolina pocosin, including

round-leaved sundew, butterworts, Venus fly traps,

bladderworts, and two species of pitcher plants. In

addition, wetlands, particularly those whose origins

were glacial, often provide habitat for ‘‘relict’

plants and animals, that is, those that were once,

but are no longer, endemic to an area. Cranesville

Swamp in West Virginia has a number of relict species, including Tamarack, Swainson’s, and hermit

thrushes; Nashville and mourning warblers; and

purple finch, that typically are found much farther

north.

Overall, wetlands are characterized by many different kinds of flora and fauna relative to other

ecosystems. For example, approximately 5,000 spe-
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man • 41

cies of plants, 190 species of amphibians, and approximately one-third of all bird species are thought

to occur in wetlands across the United States (18,

22,45). A single, freshwater tidal marsh may have

from 20 to 50 plant species. Over 100 woody plant

species may inhabit bottom lands. (19). This diversity of plant types creates, in turn, a diversity of

habitats for animals. Living in the Okefenokee

Swamp in Georgia are over 200 species of birds,

41 species of mammals, 54 species of amphibians

and reptiles, and all duck species found along the

Atlantic flyway. In the Bombay Hook National

Wildlife Refuge in Delaware, an area of 12,000

acres of brackish tidal marsh, over 300 bird species

have been recorded. Tinicum Marsh, a national

environmental education center outside of Philadelphia, has more than 300 plant species and over

250 bird species.

In addition to the many different kinds of flora

and fauna, abundant populations of wildlife, especially waterfowl and waterbirds, make wetlands

even more attractive as natural areas, The Merrit

Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, an area

with over 34,000 acres of freshwater and saltwater

marshes and swamps, has a wintering waterfowl

population of nearly 70,000 ducks and 120,000

coots. Hundreds of thousands of robins arrive at

the Okefenokee Swamp each year. Mass nestings

of wood storks—as many as 6,000 pairs—occur at

the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Florida.

Wetlands for Recreation and

Education

Wetlands provide direct enjoyment to inhabitants, visitors, and passers-by in many ways. Recreational activities in or around wetlands, including

hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, and the observation of wildlife are pursued by millions of people and amount to billions of dollars in expenditures each year. For example, 19 of the 25 most

visited National Wildlife Refuges (out of 309 refuge

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, Lawrence S. Smith

A Youth Conservation Corps group is instructed in marsh ecology at a National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental education

is a major theme in many parks and public areas established around wetland areas

25-415 0 - 84 - 4
42 •Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

units) have substantial wetland components (90).

These 19 refuges represent approximately 50 percent of the total visitation to all U.S. National

Wildlife Refuge units. Several of these refuges are

predominantly wetland environments: J. N. Ding

Darling Refuge in Florida, considered one of the

best birdwatching sites in the United States, had

671,000 visitors in 1981 (8th overall); Loxahatchee

Refuge in Florida had 333,329 visitors (19th); Okefenokee Refuge, one of the oldest, largest, and wildest swamps in the United States, had 257,927 visitors (21st); the Great Swamp Refuge, more than

half of which is wilderness within the New York

City Metropolitan Area, had 250,756 visitors (23d).

Recreational use of the Everglades National Park

in Florida averaged 675,000 from 1979 to 1981 (60).

Wetlands also may provide learning opportunities for the general public or sites for educational

and scientific purposes. Research on such subjects

as botany, ornithology, and anthropology frequently is carried out in wetland areas. Environmental

education is a major theme in many parks and public areas established around wetlands. For example, the environmental center at Tinicum Marsh

on the outskirts of Philadelphia coordinates numerous public education programs. In 1981 it had

32,730 visitors (60).

From a purely scientific standpoint, the concept

of the ecosystem has played an important role in

environmental research and in the formal teaching

of ecology. Because of the importance of water to

the biosphere, most ecosystem study areas are selected to include water bodies such as streams,

lakes, and wetlands. Wharton, (97) for instance,

describes the scientific opportunities available

through the Alcovy River Swamp:

The Alcovy River is ideally suited for educational

uses: it is essentially unpolluted, it is located within

easy driving distance of a large metropolitan area

but is unaffected by it; and it contains a unique

swamp ecosystem found nowhere else in the Georgia Piedmont.

The river swamp has a diversity of habitats and

a corresponding diversity of plants and animals.

It offers aquatic communities of all types of water,

both flowing and still. The periodically high biomass of certain plant and animal groups offers an

approach to community ecology and productivity.

The drying up of bodies of water imitates both Paleozoic and monsoonal climatic effects on life and

can illustrate the evolutionary transition from water

to land. The swamp shows rapid changes in physiochemical conditions.

The yearly import of decomposed mineral matter can involve both geological and cultural (agricultural) concepts. The processes of photosynthesis

and decomposition can be readily demonstrated.

Both the aquatic and the terrestrial segments of this

ecosystem are subject to an annual series of plant

and animal communities (succession), rapidly enforced by the regimen of the hydrocycle. Invertebrates such as clams, snails, leeches, adult aquatic

insects, and larvae of aerial forms are extremely

abundant—some of the species are ‘‘indicators’

of the degree of pollution present.

Much of the swamp fauna (invertebrates, fish,

salamanders, mammals, birds) are present in midwinter, when other habitats are barren, Many of

the vertebrate groups are yearly renewable by inundation (fish), are fossorial (salmanders), or are

extremely plentiful (frogs). Thus, the animal community is not easily damaged or overcollected.

There are few subsurface runways to crush, or

delicate layers of litter and humus to compress, as

in a terrestrial forest. Most of the mammals are

renewable by migration from the river corridor if

accidentally killed; the tracks, droppings, or other

evidence of most are readily observable on the bare

swamp floor (raccoon, otter, mink, wildcat, beaver,

rodents, shrews). The ecosystem is adjusted to what

might be called ‘‘annual catastrophism."Even the

forest floor is changed and renewed to some extent

annually.

Other Intrinsic Values

In addition to those values previously discussed,

there may be other less obvious but just as important reasons for preserving natural areas, including

wetlands (28). Many plants and animals may have

great potential resource value for food, chemicals,

drugs, and so forth, but are as yet undiscovered

or undeveloped. Some scientists believe that all

species are an integral part of the natural environment and contribute in some, perhaps unknown,

way to its natural order and stability. The conservative belief is that excessive manmade impact on

this natural system could cause irreversible changes

in the natural order of the environment that may
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man • 43

carry an unknown risk of serious damage to humans and their civilization. Natural systems can

provide baseline conditions that help determine the

extent to which the environment has been affected

by man’s activities and pollution. They may provide models for restoring or replacing habitats that

have been significantly affected or even models of

long-term survival for redesigning greatly modified,

man-dominated systems that typically have not

worked reliably over long periods of time.

Many people believe that unaltered natural

areas, including wetlands, are valuable in and of

themselves, regardless of any tangible benefits or

ecological services society may receive from them.

The reassurance that wetlands and other types of

natural areas exist for both present and future generations can be a strong motivation to preserve

wetlands in an undisturbed state. The Nature Conservancy, an organization whose goal is ‘‘the preservation of natural diversity by protecting lands

containing the best examples of all components of

the natural world, has devoted 50 percent of its

past preservation efforts to the protection of wetlands. In the future, it plans to expand this to approximately 75 percent (53). Similarly, the North

Carolina Natural Heritage Program gives top priority to protection of Carolina bays (bog swamps),

bottom land swamps, and peat bogs (80). Under

the South Carolina Heritage Trust Program, 60

percent of the areas preserved are shallow impoundments, marshes, flood plains, and wetland depressions (80). In the Wisconsin Scientific Areas Program, which inventories unique natural areas, approximately 50 percent of all inventoried areas are

wetlands (36).

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OR RESOURCE

VALUES OF WETLANDS

The interaction between the hydrologic regime

and the wetland topography, saturated soil, and

emergent vegetation largely controls the general

characteristics and the significance of the processes

that occur in wetlands. The processes are in turn

responsible for the ecological services the wetland

may perform (fig. 4).

Isolated wetlands may temporarily store runoff,

and flood plain wetlands may provide additional

conveyance capacity for flood waters, thereby reducing floodpeaks in downstream areas. During periods of inundation, water flows over and through

the wetland, depositing nutrient-rich organic and

inorganic material suspended in the water. This

suspended material is “trapped” along with any

toxic materials that may be bound onto this suspended material. The nutrients and their substances

thus become involved in many complex biochemical

cycles within the wetland system. These nutrients

help fuel the relatively high plant productivity

characteristic of most wetlands during the growing

season. The leaves of plants provide food and habitat for many forms of wildlife and endangered species during the growing season. At the end of the

growing season, when the vegetation dies back,

some of the leaf material remains in the wetland

to support future plant growth in the coming season. Other leaf material is flushed into adjacent

water bodies where it provides a nutrient-rich

source of food for many aquatic organisms in the

food chain. The plant roots anchor the wetland soils

and prevent their erosion in some flood plain and

coastal environments. The ecological services of

wetlands are described in more detail below.4

Floodpeak

The ability of wetlands

Reduction

to store and convey floodwater is primarily a function of their topography.

Many isolated freshwater and river wetlands are

‘Recent reviews of the scientific literature have been completed by:

1) P. R. Adamus and L. T. Stockwell, “A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration, Office of Research, Environmental Division, Washington, D. C., 1983, p. 176; and 2) J. H. Sather and

R. P. Smith, ‘ ‘An Overview of Major Wetland Functions, ” U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., 1983.
44 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Figure 4.—Relationship Between Wetland Processes and Values

Periodic inundation Wetland processes Ecological services

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

topographic depressions that retain runoff flowing

into them, at least until they are full. Also, during

flooding, the river overflows its banks and spreads

laterally across the flood plain, increasing its crosssectional area and conveyance capacity. By temporarily storing storm water and providing capacity

to convey floodwaters, wetlands can reduce floodpeaks and the frequency of flooding in downstream

areas. Vegetation in flood plain wetlands further

reduces the flow velocity of the river, thereby reducing potential floodpeaks in downstream areas and

riverbank erosion. If the soil in a wetland is unsaturated, the soil itself will provide some storage

capacity during periods of flooding. While the value

of some wetlands for flood storage and conveyance

is well known, analytical techniques for predicting

the magnitude of this service still are being developed, The value of inland wetlands to reduce flooding in downstream areas generally depends on the

area of the wetland, its location downstream, the

magnitude of flooding, and the degree of encroachment on the wetland (16,31 ,67,88).

Inflow-Outflow Measurements

Only two studies were found that actually determined the storage capacity of a wetland during flood

conditions. One study measured water levels of a

cypress-tupelo swamp adjacent to the Cache River

in southern Illinois before and after flooding to calculate the amount of flood water storage. The 90-

acre swamp, which is separated from the river by
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man . 45

a natural levee, stored 80,131 cubic meters (m3)

of water. If this amount of storage were extrapolated

to the entire area of swampland in the watershed,

total wetland storage would equal 8.4 percent of

the total flood runoff as measured at a downstream

gage (52).

Bernet found that flow was about 5,000 cubic

feet per second (ft3

/s) into the Thief Run Wildlife

Management Area and the Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, while outflow was approximately 1,400

ft3

/s. He calculated that the flood storage capacity

and losses due to the other factors of these two wetland areas reduced the floodpeak at Grand Forks,

by about 0.5 foot and at Crookston by about 1.5

feet (8).

Comparison of Floodpeaks From Wetland

and Nonwetland Watersheds

By studying floodpeaks in 15 watersheds, Novitzki found that floodpeaks may be as much as 80

percent lower in watersheds with large lake and

wetland areas than in similar basins with little or

none. Watersheds with 40-percent lake and wetland

area have floodpeaks only 20 percent as large as

those with little or no wetland area. While floodpeaks were found to be lower in watersheds with

a large percentage of wetlands, total streamflow in

the spring was higher in basins with large lake and

wetland areas (63).

Analysis of Flood Hydrographs

Flood hydrographs—graphs of the time distribution of runoff from a drainage basin—of perched

peat bogs and peatlands indicate that these wetlands

temporarily store and slowly release storm waters

(5,9). Long-term hydrography from the Passaic

River, N.J., and the Ipswich River, Mass., showed

that the wetlands adjacent to the rivers play an important role in delaying runoff (31). Synthetic hydrographs (not calculated on historical data) for

eight wetland areas also showed reductions in peak

flows (94).

Actual flood-storage capacity often will depend

on environmental conditions prior to flooding or

on the relationship of a particular wetland to the

regional hydrology. For example, when evapotranspiration rates are low and water is ponded in

wetlands, runoff during periods of heavy precipitation may be greater from wetlands than from upland areas (because the soil is saturated and the surface storage capacity quickly is exceeded) (51 ,77,

92). On the other hand, high rates of evapotranspiration and low water tables favor storage of floodwaters. In some cases, wetlands provide no storage capacity for floodwaters. For example, a hydrographic analysis of two Massachusetts swamps

indicated that both wetlands contributed significantly to floodpeaks because of their rapid discharge

of ground water (64).

The Role of Vegetation in Flooding

There have been a few attempts to isolate the effect of vegetation on flooding. The frictional drag

on runoff flowing through wetland vegetation is represented by a roughness coefficient called ‘‘Manning’s ‘n. ‘‘ The higher the value of “n,” the

greater the drag and the slower the flow velocity

of floodwaters. Values of n’ vary widely and are

highly dependent on the type and amount of vegetative cover. In general, the value of ‘n” for a river

wetlands in or adjacent to it can be approximately

twice the value of channels without associated wetlands (15).

Impact of Wetland Filling and

Development on Flooding

The Corps has used model-generated hydrographs to estimate the volume of storm water that

could be stored in the basin wetlands of the Charles

River, Mass., and to determine the reduction in

storage, assuming future encroachment (89). Following a storm in 1955, approximately 50,000 acreft of storm water flushed past the Charles River

Village gaging station with a peak flow of 3,220

ft3/s. This amount is equivalent to 5 inches of runoff

from the 184-square-mile drainage basin. On the

adjacent Blackstone River, which has few, if any,

wetlands, the storm discharge peaked at 16,900 ft3/s

and the bulk of the storm water was discharged in

a much shorter time period than on the Charles.

Based on this analysis, it was predicted that a 40-

percent reduction in wetland area along the river

would result in a 2- to 4-foot increase in floodpeaks

and would increase flood damages by at least $3

million annually.

Hydrographs of the Neponset River Basin,

Mass., were used to determine the impact of en-
46 Ž Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

croaching on the basin’s flood plains and wetlands

(l). The study predicted that the basinwide flood

level for the 100-year flood would increase 0.5 feet

if 10 percent of the flood plain/wetland storage

capacity were lost, and 3 feet if 50 percent of the

flood plain/wetland storage capacity were lost. Filling a wetland will reduce its storage capacity; if the

fill material rises above the level of the flood plain,

flood conveyance value also may be reduced.

The effects of drainage on floodflows are slightly

more complicated. One point of view is that drainage increases floodpeaks by synchronizing and

speeding the runoff of water and by eliminating the

potential storage of runoff in wetlands. A contrasting viewpoint is that drainage channels may reduce

floodpeaks by draining away heavy rains that otherwise would have left the soil saturated through the

winter, reducing the storage available during critical

spring rain and snowmelt. Research to date has not

yet resolved this controversy.5

Shoreline Erosion Control

Shoreline erosion is a natural process caused by

river currents during flooding, tidal currents in the

coastal areas, and wind-generated waves along the

shores of large lakes, broad estuaries, and oceanfacing barrier islands. Boat wakes also can cause

considerable shoreline damage.

Four characteristics of vegetated wetlands are

responsible for reducing erosion: 1) the low-gradient

shore that absorbs and dissipates wave energy (70);

2) the dampening and absorption of wave energy

by the plants themselves (44,95); 3) the root structure and peat development in wetlands that bind

and stabilize the shore (71, 76); and 4) the deposition of suspended sediment that is encouraged by

dense growth of wetland plants. s

5

See the following references for reviews of information pertaining

to the impacts of wetlands draining on flooding: 1) L. J. Brunn,

J. L. Richardson, J. W. Enz, and J. K. Larsen, “Streamflow Changes

in the Southern Red River Valley of North Dakota, North Dakota

Farm Research Bimonthly Bulletin, vol. 38, No. 5, 1981, pp. 11-14;

2) John M. Malcolm, “The Relationship of Wetland Drainage to

Flooding and Water Quality Problems and Its Impact on the J. Clark

Salyer National Wildlife Refuge, ” FWS, Upham, N. Dak., 1979; and

3)J. E. Miller and D. L. Frink, “Changes in Flood Response of the

Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota-Minnesota, ” U.S. Geological Survey, C)pen File Report 82-774, 1982.

bRecent reviews of the scientific literature have been completed by

P. R. Adamus and L. T. Stockwell, “A Method for Wetland FuncVegetated freshwater or saltwater wetlands located adjacent to open but usually sheltered bodies

of water significantly reduce shoreline erosion

caused by large waves generated by occasional

storms and boat traffic.7 Wetlands adjacent to rivers

also may reduce riverbank erosion from strong currents during major flooding. Although it generally is agreed that wetland vegetation does not naturally establish itself in high-energy environments

where the potential for erosion is greatest, wetland

plants, once established, do help to control erosion,

stabilize the soil, encourage deposition of sediments,

and dampen wave energy. Isolated wetlands not

associated with larger bodies of water will not have

significant value for erosion control.

Potential Economic Importance

Shoreline erosion is a major problem in many

coastal areas. In Virginia, for instance, it has been

estimated that 1,476 hectares of tidal shoreline

eroded away between 1850 and 1950. This amount

represents approximately 20 percent of the 5 million

metric tons of silt and clay that wash into Virginia’s

estuaries annually (39). The impacts of shoreline

erosion include: loss of public and private property and the subsequent loss of taxable income for

localities, filling of navigable waters with eroded

sediment, increased turbidity of waters, siltation

of fish and wildlife habitat, and loss of recreationally

valuable sand beaches. Millions of dollars are spent

each year to reduce shoreline erosion and maintain the navigability of channels.

Ability of Wetlands to Control Shoreline Erosion

Wetlands not only resist erosion themselves, but

also protect the more easily eroded upland areas

shoreward of the wetland. Three studies have comtional Assessment, ’ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration, OffIce of Research, Environmental Division, Washington, D. C., 1983, p. 176.

‘Most of the existing literature on this f“unction has been reviewed

in the following: 1) H. H. Allen, “Role of Wetland Plants in Erosion

Control of Riparian Shorelines, ” Wetlands Functions and Values:

The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and

J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American Water Resources

Association, 1979), pp. 403-414; 2) Carter, et al. (15); 3) R. G. Dean,

‘‘Effects of Vegetation on Shoreline Erosional Processes, Wedand

Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, P. E.

Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 415-426; and 4)

Institute for Water Resources (88).
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 4 7

pared the rate of erosion of uplands buffered by

wetlands to that of unbuffered uplands.

In a study of two similar sites on the Hackensack River in New Jersey, the marsh vegetation at

one site was cut; at the other site, the marsh was

left in its natural condition (26). Both sites were

subjected to waves generated by heavy boat traffic. While the uncut site exhibited only a negligible retreat of the bank over the year of monitoring, the bank at the second site retreated nearly 2

meters, with most of the change occurring immediately after the marsh was cut.

In a second study, the rate of erosion of upland

areas at three sites on the Chesapeake Bay over a

20-year period was measured with aerial photographs. Wetlands eroded as fast as adjacent uplands; however, erosion of uplands buffered by the

wetlands was negligible (70).

In a third study the retreat/advance of the shorelines of an artificially planted marsh (Juncus roemerianus, Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia,

and Spartina alterniflora) and of an adjacent unplanted area were measured over a period of 8 years

(7). Initial erosion of the planted area was followed

by a period when the shoreline actively expanded

before it appeared to reach equilibrium. In general,

the volume of sediment eroded from the unplanted

shore averaged 2.3 m3 per lineal meter-year (m3/

lineal m-yr. ), nearly four times the average rate

observed in the planted marsh. In addition, the unplanted shore retreated at a rate that was more than

twice that observed for the marsh-fringed shore,

Limitations of Wetlands to Control Erosion

Natural wetlands are typically found in low-energy environments, sheltered from extensive wave

action (4, 17). Artificial wetlands, however, often are

constructed in higher wave-energy environments

where natural wetlands would not typically occur.

Young rooted plants are used rather than allowing the shoreline to seed itself naturally. In addition, with many artificial plantings, a ‘‘toe’ or low

ridge is constructed below the marsh to contain the

marsh soil and to reduce the impact of incoming

waves until the plants are established firmly. Most

of the literature citing the erosion-control functions

of wetlands is based on observations of marshes specifically planted to control erosion. For example,

in a 1981 survey of 86 marshes planted to control

shoreline erosion in 12 coastal States, 33 plantings

were found successful, 25 were partially successful,

and 28 failed (43). Even planted marshes, however,

were more frequently successful under less severe

wave environments.

Ground Water Recharge

Ground water recharge is the ability of a wetland

to supplement ground water through infiltration/

percolation of surface water to the saturated zone

(88). Some wetlands that are connected hydrologically to a ground water system do recharge ground

water supplies and assume an important local or

regional role in maintaining ground water levels.

However, owing to the low permeability of organic

soils or the relatively impermeable layers of clay

typically found in wetlands, adjacent upland areas

often have a greater potential to recharge ground

water ( 16). In addition, wetlands may often serve

as discharge rather than recharge areas. 8

Ground water recharge can occur in isolated

(basin) wetlands, such as cypress swamps, prairie

potholes, Midwestern and Northeastern glaciated

wetlands, and flood plain wetlands. Cedarburg

Bog, adjacent to Milwaukee, Wis., is an example

of a high-value recharge area (58). Much of the

precipitation falling on this basin percolates downward through the soil and enters openings in a dolomite aquifer. Since the bog occupies the basin of

a former postglacial lake on a high point in the surrounding topography, the water percolates radially away from the bog, influencing ground water

supply over an area of 165 mi2

.

While some wetlands may recharge ground

water, their recharge value relative to upland areas

may be low. In three watersheds in Minnesota, for

instance, the greatest amount of ground water recharge was found to occur on upland sands, and

the least in wetland peats (93). In addition, the

quantity of water recharged may vary widely. For

example, in one wetland studied only 39 gallons

per day (gal/d), or 0.05 percent of the annual water

budget, infiltrated the wetland (12). On the other

hand, the average yearly natural recharge calculated for Lawrence Swamp in Massachusetts was

‘Adamus and Stockwell, op. cit.
48 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

8 million gal/d (assuming 44 inches of precipitation/yr) (56).

The quality of the ground water resource also

determines the value of a particular recharge area.

While Lawrence Swamp recharges large quantities

of water to the shallow aquifer directly underneath

it, this aquifer has a high content of fine sands, iron,

and manganese and cannot be used as a water supply (56). -

Water Quality Improvement

By temporarily retaining pollutants, such as suspended material, excess nutrients, toxic chemicals,

and disease-causing micro-organisms, it is generally

believed that wetlands improve, to varying degrees,

the quality of the water* that flows over and

through them. Dissolved nutrients (i. e., nitrogen

and phosphorous) may be taken up directly by

plants during the growing season and by chemical

absorption and precipitation at the wetland soil surface. Organic and inorganic suspended material

also tends to settle out and is trapped in the wetland.

Some pollutants associated with this trapped material may be converted by biochemical processes

to less harmful forms; some may remain buried.

Others may be taken up by the plants growing in

the wetland and either recycled or transported from

it.

The accumulation of toxic chemicals, such as

heavy metals and petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons by wetlands may be only temporary (from

days to years). On the other hand, some toxic

chemicals have accumulated in many wetlands over

a much longer time. With some toxic chemicals,

like degradable pesticides, the fact that these

pollutants are secured in the wetland long enough

to degrade is important. Other toxics either remain

buried or are taken up by the wetland plants.

While wetlands may, under natural circumstances, retain nutrients on a net annual basis, the

value of a particular wetland for water quality improvement depends on the effect of the nutrient

storage on an adjacent or connected body of water.

However, even if a wetland does not retain large

amounts of nutrients on a net annual basis, it may

influence the timing of nutrient inputs into adjacent waters. By retaining nutrients during the growing season, for instance, and exporting them after

the growing season, wetlands may have a positive

influence on water quality. Freshwater wetlands

have been used successfully for secondary treatment

of sewage effluents.

Trapping Suspended Sediment

Excessively high levels of suspended material in

the water column can be detrimental. By increasing turbidity, suspended sediment can interfere with

fishing, swimming, and the esthetic appeal of water.

Reduction in light penetration due to increased turbidity can kill aquatic plants, and settling of the

suspended sediment can smother bottom-dwelling

invertebrates and impair fish spawning. If suspended sediment has a high organic content, the

dissolved oxygen level in the water column may decrease to levels that may adversely affect many organisms.

One of the major water quality functions of wetlands is the removal of suspended sediment. By reducing wave energy and the velocity of water flowing through the wetland, wetland plants encourage

the deposition of suspended sediment. In fact, sedimentation rates are related directly to the density

of marsh vegetation (7). Measurements of sediment

accretion, most of which are for marine or estuarine

environments, range from 0.04 centimeters (cm)

to 1,100 cm/yr.9

The ability of vegetated wetlands to trap suspended sediment more effectively than similar unvegetated areas was shown clearly in an 8-year

study on Currituck Sound in North Carolina. During the first 5 years, planted marsh lost an average

of 1.4 m3/linear m of beach/yr, while an adjacent

unplanted area lost 3.3 m3

/yr. Between 1978 and

1979 the planted areas, however, captured an average of 1.5 m3 of sediment/yr; the unplanted area

lost an additional 1.3 m3. From 1979 to 1980, the

planted area gained 0.6 m3 and the unplanted area

lost 0.4 m3. During the last year of the study, the

planted area appeared relatively stable, while the

unplanted area lost 1.0 m3 (7).

*The term “water quality” is defined here as the chemical, physical,

and biological condition of the water itself and not more broadly as

the condition of the wetland and its associated habitat. 9Adamus and Stockwell, op. cit.
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 4 9

As the elevation of wetlands increases, accretion

of sediment will slow. In one study, for instance,

a Spartina marsh near the mean high-water level

annually accreted from 2.0 to 4.25 millimeters

(mm) of sediment. An area of colonizing Spartina

at a lower elevation, however, accreted sediment

at the rate of 9.5 to 37.0 mm/yr (10). Marshes tend

to trap sediment as long as they are inundated by

sediment-laden waters.

Suspended organic and nonorganic material has

a strong tendency to adsorb other pollutants, including nutrients, pathogens, and toxics, such as

heavy metals and chlorinated and petroleum hydrocarbons, that then are deposited with the sediment

in wetlands (10). The ability of wetlands to ‘‘trap’

suspended material greatly influences the fate of

pollutants associated with the suspended material

and the potential ability of a particular wetland to

improve water quality.

Removing Toxic Substances

Heavy metals, chlorinated and petroleum hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and other potentially harmful toxic substances may persist for many years.

Because they tend to adsorb onto suspended material, toxics can be trapped in wetlands, either temporarily or permanently. At the sediment surface,

these metals remain immobilized. Once buried and

exposed to the anaerobic conditions that typically

prevail in sediment, metals again can become mobile; however, they will be trapped within the sediment by the oxygenated zone at the sediment surface (54,55). Heavy-metal-removal efficiencies of

wetlands vary from 20 to 100 percent, depending

on the metals involved and the physical and biological variations that exist in wetland habitats (85).

For compounds such as heptachlor, lindane, or

enderin, which degrade readily in soils, the trapping of the sediment results in a very efficient and

permanent process for removing these contaminants from the water. (Natural or manmade alterations of the wetland caused by lowering the water

table, dredging, and the like, however, could mobilize large quantities of toxic materials. ) However,

in general, it is not known yet to what extent wetlands processes are capable of removing toxic materials over the long term.

Some toxics may be taken up from the sediment

by wetland plants and transferred through the food

chain to higher trophic levels when the plant material is consumed, either directly by herbivores or

as detritus. Food chain transfer will depend on the

toxic chemical and its form as well as the characteristics of the plant species and the chemical’s location in the plant. For example, food chain transfer

is known to occur with some metals, such as mercury or cadmium, but may not occur with others,

such as lead. Synthetic materials, including chlorinated hydrocarbons, are taken up by wetland

plants, but food chain effects are not known. There

probably is some selectivity of uptake of toxics by

particular wetland plant species, but the available

data are insufficient to indicate any universal

trends. In summary, though wetlands may remove

toxics from water, it is possible that such removal

of heavy metals eventually may lead to contamination of higher trophic levels by passage up the food

chain (42).

Influencing Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Nitrogen and phosphorus are two nutrients that

are necessary for the growth of algae. In excess,

however, they can cause “blooms” of algal growth

that can impart an unpleasant taste to drinking

water and can interfere with recreational uses of

water. In addition, the decomposition of algae can

reduce levels of dissolved oxygen in the water column to levels that may be harmful to other organisms that need oxygen for survival.

Nutrients are retained in wetland by similar

mechanisms as other pollutants (85). Both nitrogen

and phosphorus readily adsorb to sediment and

thereby tend to become trapped in the anaerobic

sediment of wetlands. As with other toxics, however, nutrients are not necessarily permanently

trapped; they may, for instance, be rapidly assimilated by rooted wetland plants. In fact, the bulk

of the nitrogen and phosphorus for plant growth

apparently comes from the sediment. At the end

of the growing season, much of the assimilated nutrients may be leached from the plants. Boyd, for

instance found that about 50 percent of the phosphorus in dead cattail tissue was leached over a
50 Ž Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

20-day period. * Another fraction of the nutrients

in the plant is exported from the wetland as detritus;

this fraction is probably highly variable, depending

largely on the hydrology of the wetland. The dead

plant tissue remaining in the wetland is rapidly colonized by bacteria and the byproducts of the decomposition process, including inorganic nutrients,

are released into the water column. Nitrogen stored

in the plant, for example, is converted by these decomposes to ammonia. Plant material remaining

in the wetland is eventually reincorporated into the

sediment. It has been hypothesized that a significant amount of the nitrogen and phosphorus available from the sediment for plant uptake is recycled

from the plant growth of the previous year (42).

Water Quality Considerations

Aggregate Effect. —Present understanding of the

processes described above is not sophisticated

enough to predict their aggregate effect on water

quality. Nitrogen fixation, for instance, the opposite

process of denitrification (atmospheric nitrogen is

fixed by certain bacteria and algae), can contribute

significant amounts of nitrogen to the wetland nitrogen budget and therefore cancel the effects of

denitrification, Some wetland studies have

measured the quantity of all pollutants entering the

wetland from all sources—ground water, surface

water, precipitation, and so forth-and the amount

leaving the wetland. The aggregate effect of all

wetland processes on water quality is reflected by

the difference between the amount of pollutant

entering and leaving the wetland. In this manner,

it can be determined whether wetlands act as a sink

or a source of pollutants.

Thirty-nine input-output studies, focusing for the

most part on nitrogen and phosphorus, were reviewed. These studies were screened carefully to

meet a number of stringent criteria. First, since the

behavior of the wetland varies greatly during dif-

● The fate of nitrogen is more complicated than that of other pollutants thus far discussed. Nitrogen occurs in several forms in natural

water: nitrite, nitrate ammonia, and organic nitrogen (proteins and

other large molecules). In addition, the air contains over 78 percent

nitrogen gas, which is exchanged continuously through the surface

waters. Relatively large populations of micro-organisms in wetlands,

under the right circumstances, can convert nitrogen from one form

to another. Thus, nitrogen can be removed ultimately from water by

microbial conversion to gas through the process of denitrification, or

conversely, fixed from the atmosphere and converted to inorganic nitrogen.

ferent seasons, only those studies sampling monthly for at least a year were selected. Second, all chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorus had to be

measured: measurement of both organic and inorganic forms is necessary since the various forms

are interconvertible. For nitrogen, total nitrogen

(Kjeldahl) must have been measured in unfiltered

samples and in nitrate and nitrite. For phosphorus,

measurement of total phosphorus from unfiltered

samples was required. Third, for studies of undisturbed wetlands, all reasonable input and output

sources had to be measured, including intermittent

or temporary sources of surface runoff, ground

water, and precipitation. In the case of an artificial

pollution source, such as a sewage outfall, the

failure to measure natural sources of nutrients was

overlooked on the assumption that such sources

were comparatively trivial. Measurement of all significant sources and sinks of water, however, was

required, even if the quantity of naturally occurring nutrients was overlooked.

Freshwater Systems. —Of 30 freshwater inputoutput studies reviewed, only seven (12,23,27,52,

62,98,99), met all the criteria listed above. A major drawback of these studies is that large quantities of pollutants doubtlessly flow into and out of

wetlands during storms or floods. The chance of

getting a good sample of nutrients flowing into a

wetland during a major flood is small if outflow is

sampled only monthly. One study (52), for instance, found that 99 percent of the nutrient flow

into a flood plain swamp occurred during a single

flood. The swamp floods approximately once every

1.13 years.

Although Crisp (23) found a net export of nitrogen and phosphorus in an eroding British peatland,

all other authors found net reductions of nutrients

in freshwater wetlands. Large percentage reductions generally were observed where sewage was

applied (12,27,98) and small percentage reductions

were observed where nutrient sources were natural

(52,62). One study (99) was unusual in that sewage

and natural water were applied to artificially enclosed marsh plants so that surface outflow was prevented. Water that had filtered through the marsh

sediments was sampled in outside wells. Since the

natural hydrology of the marshes had been altered,

the large percentage reductions in both the natural

and sewage-treated marshes may not be representative of activity of natural marshes.
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man • 51

Estuarine Systems. —Input-output studies are

more difficult to conduct in estuarine or marine environments owing to tidal fluctuations. Nine estuarine studies were screened using the same criteria

used for the freshwater studies. Findings from a

single acceptable study (91) are reported in table

4. These results suggest that nitrogen was exported

from a Massachusetts salt marsh.

Evaluating Wetlands for Water Quality.—

To evaluate the value of a wetland for improving

water quality, a number of factors must be considered. First is the condition of water in the water

body adjacent to the wetlands. In many lakes,

estuaries, and rivers, excessive nutrient concentrations cause undesirable algal blooms. In other

bodies of water, however, desirable levels of

primary productivity may be limited by a lack of

these nutrients. If these waters have phytoplanktonbased food chains, low nutrient concentrations can

result in low productivity at all levels of the food

chain. In this case, nutrients would be considered

beneficial and not pollutants.

The reduction of excess nutrients necessary to

bring about an improvement in water quality is

another consideration. For instance, an evaluation

of a proposal to reconstruct wetlands along the Kissimmee River in Florida and thereby reduce nutrient loadings to Lake Okeechobee, concluded that

a 50-percent reduction in phosphorous loadings

would improve water quality, but a 10-percent reduction would have little effect (41). In another

study, lake-edge wetlands in Wisconsin did retain

nitrogen and phosphorus; however, the levels of nutrients flowing out of the wetland still were high

enough to cause excessive algal growth (47).

The timing of nutrient inputs and outputs also

is important. A study of phosphorus inputs and outputs from a forested riverine wetland in Illinois

found that while the swamp took in 11 times more

phosphorus than was discharged, nearly all of it was

retained during flood periods (52).

Disease-Causing Micro-Organisms

Viruses and bacteria from sewage effluent or runoff from pastureland may contaminate drinking water, recreational water, and commercial fisheries.

Because these micro-organisms are adsorbed onto

particles suspended in the water column, they may

be trapped along with the suspended material by

wetlands. Pathogens can remain for many months

in the soil matrix where they may be exposed to

ultraviolet radiation or attacked by chemicals and

other organisms, or they may naturally die off.

Table 4.—Summary of Input-Output Studies

Artificial/ Input output Percent

Reference Wetland type Location natural Sampling frequency/duration Pollutant (kg/ha/yr) change

Crisp (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peat bog Britain N Weekly/l year N 745 4,864 + 552

P 38-57 71 + 25 - -87

Mitsch, et al. (1977) . . . . . . . . . . Flood plain Illinois N Monthly and bimonthly P 8,127 7,694 - 5

swam D

Boyt, et al. (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . Riverine Florida A Monthly/l year P 90.0 11.5 -87

swamp

Dierberg and Brezonik (1978) . . Cypress Florida A Monthly/2 years N 144 12 -91

swamp P 113 4 -96

Novitzki (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fresh marsh Wisconsin N Monthly (stream, wells); N 233 183 -21

periodically (runoff)/3 years P 5.0 4.6 -8

Sediment 3,909 735 -81

Yonika and Lowry (1979) . . . . . . Fresh marsh Massa- A Monthly and bimonthly/ N 4,782 1,817 - 6 2

shrub swamp chusetts 1 year P 859 205 - 7 6

Zoltek and Bayley (1979) . . . . . . Fresh marsh Florida A/N Monthly/2 years N 3,565 2,28 4

a

- 3 6

P(art.) 4,575 343a

-93

N(art.) 645 315a

-51

P(nat.) 46 16a

-65

Valiela, et al. (1975) ., . . . . . . . . Salt marsh Massa- N Monthly/l year N(nat.) 26,252 31,604 + 20

chusetts

alncluding ground water dilution calculated W chloride budget.

SOURCE: References cited in column 1.
52 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

There is little published information on the fate of

pathogens in wetland systems (3).

Fish and Wildlife Values

Wetlands are important to many species of fish

and wildlife for food, habitat, and support of the

food chain. The importance of plant productivity

is reflected in the relatively high carrying capacity

of wetlands for certain species. Bottom land hardwood forests, for instance, have been found to support nearly twice as many whitetail deer per unit

area as do upland forests, owing, it is thought, to

the abundance of food. Wetland vegetation also

provides nesting material and sites for numerous

birds and mammals; some freshwater fish rely on

clumps of vegetation for depositing their eggs.

Finally, emergent wetland plants provide the cover

necessary for protection from predators or for stalking prey for species of birds as well as fish and

shellfish. Some species spend their entire life within

a particular wetland; others are residents only during a particular lifecycle or time of year.

Because of their value for food and habitat, wetlands often become a focal point for varied wildlife

populations within a particular region. The importance of wetlands is reflected by the relatively large

proportion of wetland in the National Wildlife Refuge System. While only 5 percent of the Nation’s

area (excluding Alaska) is wetland, nearly 40 percent of the area protected under the refuge system

is wetland. In turn, these areas attract hunters,

birdwatchers, and many other wildlife enthusiasts.

Of the top 25 wildlife refuges most visited, 19 have

a significant wetland component. Refuges containing wetlands attracted nearly 14 million visitors in

1981, approximately 50 percent of the number visiting all of the national wildlife refuges (90).

Because of their numbers, it is impossible to describe adequately all the different species that use

wetlands. This section focuses on recreational and

commercial species of prime importance to man and

on endangered species that depend to varying degrees on the food and habitat found uniquely in

wetlands. Some species, termed ‘‘wetland specialists, are heavily dependent on wetlands. They include migratory waterfowl, mammals, the alligator,

freshwater game fish, crayfish, and 35 endangered

species. Because of the direct link between wetlands

and these species, wetland losses will cause significant and adverse impacts on these indigenous populations.

This section also identifies other wildlife that

heavily use wetlands as well as other nonwetland

areas. Deer, for instance, browse in bottom land

hardwoods, but they are not limited to these areas.

Wetland resources may, however, be a critical or

limiting factor in their survival. Because these

animals are not linked as strongly to wetlands as

are wetland specialists, wetland losses would adversely affect populations of nonspecialists to a lesser

extent.

Finally, this section discusses the food chain values of wetlands. Many commercially and recreationally important species that do not directly use

wetlands for feeding, nesting, or protection may

feed on animals lower in the food chain that do rely

directly either on wetlands or on detritus that floats

from the wetland into adjacent bodies of water. The

most important example of this food chain effect

in terms of commercial and recreational value is

the link between coastal wetlands and estuarinedependent fish.

Food and Habitat

Migratory Waterfowl.—Wetlands are vital to

many species of the duck, geese, and swan family

of North America for nesting, food, and cover.

These birds primarily nest in Northern freshwater

wetlands in the spring and summer, but use wetlands for feeding and cover in all parts of the country during migration and overwintering. The survival, return, and successful breeding of many

species, therefore, depend on a wide variety of wetland types distributed over a large geographic area

of the country (fig. 5). The major migratory routes,

breeding and nesting areas, and overwintering

areas roughly correspond with regions of greatest

wetland concentration (see fig. 1).

The most important areas for ducks and geese

are the breeding areas of the North, like the prairiepothole region, Canada, and Alaska. For overwintering, the Chesapeake Bay, the gulf coast, the

central valley of California, and the Mississippi

River stand out (fig. 5). Also essential, but not in-
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 5 3

Figure 5.— General Pattern of Duck Distribution in North America
54 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

The mallard, for instance, the most commonly

hunted waterfowl in the United States, is a dabbling duck and feeds on plants and food just under

the surface of the water. Bulrush, smartweed, and

wildrice are the emergent wetland plants, and pondweed and wild celery are submerged plants favored

by the mallard. In contrast, the canvasbacks, a diving duck, typically feeds in deeper water. They prefer submerged plants, such as pondweed, wild celery, and widgeon grass to emergent vegetation but

still may feed on emergents when preferred foods

are not available. Geese and swans, on the other

hand, favor emergent wetland vegetation to submerged plants. Canadian and snow geese, in particular, feed on the rootstock of salt marsh cordgrass as well as on cultivated crops (81).

Waterfowl also depend on wetlands for nesting

sites. Inland freshwater and saltwater marshes and

coastal tundra are the most important wetland types

for waterfowl breeding (96). In general, waterfowl

prefer wetlands where open water and vegetation

are interspersed. Temporarily flooded wetlands

have been known to have high breeding-pair densities, probably because of plentiful invertebrates,

which breeding waterfowl require for egg production (96). Northern freshwater tidal marshes are

used to a more limited extent for breeding, and

wooded swamps and bottom land hardwoods are

used by wood ducks for nesting (66,78).

Of the 44 species of waterfowl that use North

American wetlands, 4 species of geese and 10 to

15 species of ducks are hunted in sizable numbers

(6,59). In the 1980-81 season, for instance, 1.9

million people killed 12.9 million ducks and 1.7

million geese (13). FWS estimated that 50 percent

of all hunters 16 years and older, or 5.3 million

hunters, hunted migratory birds (includes nonwaterfowl) in 1980, spending $638 million, or 11

percent of all hunting expenditures (32). In addition, FWS estimated that of 100 million Americans

16 years and older who participated in outdoor activities related to fish and wildlife, 83.2 million participants spent $14.8 billion on observing and

photographing fish and wildlife. Sixty-six percent

of these participants were involved directly with

observing or photographing waterfowl.

Other Birds. —There are several other types of

birds that are found commonly in wetlands (48).

The American coot is physically and ecologically

similar to the duck and is shot in considerable

numbers. Coots have diets similar to those of ducks

but build floating nests in emergent vegetation.

Snipe also inhabit freshwater marshes and wet

meadows and are strictly carnivores, feeding on

aquatic invertebrates they pull from mud with their

long bills. The four rail species and the gallinules,

which have special adaptations to wetlands, are

commonly found there and are hunted to some extent. Herons, egrets, cranes, storks, and ibises nest

colonially in wetlands. Herons and egrets feed on

fish, frog, and invertebrates in shallow marsh

waters. Ibises and storks nest over water in protected sites of deep marshes but feed in wet meadows and uplands.

Mammals. —A number of mammals live in wetlands. For example, muskrats may live in bank burrows or “houses” constructed of wetland vegetation along the banks of freshwater and saltwater

marshes, rivers, and streams. 10 In freshwater their

diets may consist of cattail, bulrushes, waterlilies,

10The fo]]owing discussion is based on four sources of in fOrrnatiOn:

1 ) Schamberger, et al. (80); 2) W. H. Burt and R. P. Grossenheider,

A Field Guide to the Mammals, 3d ed. (Boston: Houghton-Mif?lin,

1976); 3) F. C. Daibner, Animals of the Tidaf Marsh (New York:

Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982); 4) Odum, et al. (68).

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jim Leupold

A white-faced bis ends its young in a marsh at Bear

River National Wildlife Refuge. Many water birds

depend on marsh vegetation for nesting sites
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 5 5

wildrice, and pondweed. In salt marshes, they feed

heavily on cordgrasses. They occasionally eat insects, clams, and crayfish. In coastal areas, muskrats reach their highest densities in brackish marshes

dominated by bulrushes and cordgrasses.

Another mammal, the nutria, is a related rodent

that first was introduced from South America into

Louisiana in 1938 for its fur. It is twice the size

of the muskrat but is ecologically similar. Nutria

prefer freshwater marshes, though they also may

be found in low- to high-salinity marshes.

Mink that inhabit wetlands usually rely on crayfish and frogs in the North-Central States and prey

heavily on muskrats during droughts and periods

of muskrat overpopulation. However, fish are the

most important food for a North Carolina population of mink, and crayfish are most important for

mink in Louisiana. Mink appear to use the different

coastal wetlands with equal success. In general,

however, densities of these mammals are higher in

freshwater rather than saltwater marshes,

Nutria are harvested for their fur in Louisiana,

Maryland, the Carolinas, Texas, Oregon, and

Washington. Mink and muskrat are taken in almost

all States, though the majority are trapped in the

wetland-rich States of the upper Midwest, the

Dakotas, and Louisiana (68). In 1979-80, for instance, these species represented 32 percent of the

total mammal-harvest value of approximately $295

million (for unfinished pelts). 11 This is a significant

i 11~fO~~~tion on the economic value of wetland furbearers comes

from two sources: 1 ) Fur Resources Committee, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, fur harvest chart for the United

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

A nutria wading in a marsh at Belle Isle, La. These

furbearers reach their greatest density in freshwater

marshes, though they may also be found in low-to-high

salinity marshes

contribution to the fur industry, which recorded

sales of almost $1 billion in 1980.

Numbe r Average Total value

harvested* pelt price (rounded)

Muskrat 8,634,753 $8.6 3 $74,526,548

Nutria . . 1,344,652 7.25 9,748,727

Mink . . . 394,214 22.42 8,838,277

“ 1979-1980 season

While mammals are harvested primarily for their

pelts, they also are valuable for meat and various

byproducts. During the 1979-80 season in Louisiana alone, 582,000 lbs of nutria and 18,000

lbs of muskrat, both valued at $0.04/lb, were

harvested for meat; their combined value was

$24,000.

Alligators. —Alligators are found in the wetlands

of the Southeast, from North Carolina to Texas,

preying on a variety of vertebrates, including mammals, birds, fish, and other reptiles. Alligators need

shallow waters and banks for rest and warming in

the sun. They use wetland vegetation for cover,

protection, and nest construction. Controlled harvest of wild alligators for their hides and meat is

permitted in some areas of Louisiana. In 1979, over

16,000 alligators worth about $1.7 million were harvested in the Louisiana coastal region (40).

States and Canada (27 species), 1979-80. Figures in text for the United

States alone; and 2) Eugene F. Deems, Jr., and Duane Pursely, “North

American Furbearers, A Contemporary Reference, International

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 1982,

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alligators need shallow water and banks for rest and

warming in the Sun. They use wetland vegetation for

cover and nest construction
56 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Crayfish.— Crayfish require the fluctuating

water levels found in wetlands for mating and egg

laying. Crayfish also feed primarily on wetland

vegetation (46). Although there are commercial

crayfish fisheries in Wisconsin and the Pacific

Northwest, the most valuable crop comes from the

Lower Mississippi River Basin, particularly Louisiana. Approximately 25 million lbs, representing

revenues of $11 million, are harvested annually. *

Fish and Shellfish. —Many freshwater and saltwater fish require wetlands at some stage of their

lifecycle. l2 Pike, pickerel, and muskellunge seem

to prefer vegetated shallow water for broadcasting

their eggs and may even spawn on land that is only

temporarily flooded in the spring.13 Large mouth

bass spawn in the temporarily flooded zones of bottom land hardwoods. An abundant supply of invertebrates in these areas supply necessary food

during a critical period after the fish eggs hatch (38).

The alewife and the blueback herring spawn in

freshwater tidal marshes and flood plain forests

along the east coast (18).

Members of the perch family (including walleyes), the sunfish family (including bluegill, bass,

and crappie), and the pike family (including pickerel and muskellunge) commonly are found in vegetated wetlands, owing to the protection from predators afforded by the vegetation, strong currents,

sunlight, and the fact that the prey of all these fish

often take refuge in the wetland. Grey snapper,

sheepshead, spotted sea trout, and red drum move

into mangroves after spending their first few weeks

in submerged seagrass beds. These fish feed heavily

on either small fishes or amphipods (86).

Juvenile marine fish and shellfish also use coastal

marshes, particularly marshes of intermediate salinity, because this salinity excludes both marine

and freshwater predators (2). (See table 5 for a list

of species. ) Pacific coast wetlands probably do not

serve the same nursery function as do the Atlantic

coast and gulf coast wetlands (68).

● Calculation of the crayfish catch ($11 million, 25 million lbs), based

on data supplied by Larry Delabreteonne.

IZAdamus and Stockwell, op. cit.

‘Information comes from two sources: 1) C. L. Hubbs and K. F.

Lagler, ‘ ‘Fishes of the Great Lakes Region, Cranbrook Institute of

Science, Bulletin No. 26, Bloomfield Hills, Mich,, 1958; 2) M. B.

Trautman, ‘ ‘The Fishes of Ohio, ” Ohio State University Press, Columbus, 1957,

Table 5.—Selected Commercial or Sport Fish and

Shellfish Utilizing Coastal Marshes as Nurseries

Sand seatrout

Weakfish

Croaker

spot

Menhaden

Striped mullet

Bay anchovy

Striped bass

White perch

Silver perch

Summer flounder

Brown and white shrimp

SOURCE: Odum, at. al., 1979, op. cit., note 68.

Endangered Species. —Approximately 20 percent of all plant and animal species found on the

Federal Government’s list of endangered or

threatened species heavily depend on wetlands for

food and/or habitat (table 6). Many other plant and

animal species not included on the Federal list are

found on State lists. A number of endangered

species not listed in table 6 also may use wetland

resources to a greater or lesser extent. 14

Other Wildlife. —While relatively few animals

depend entirely on resources found only in

wetlands, many animals heavily exploit wetland

resources. Foxes and raccoons, for instance, may

prefer den sites in wetlands, owing to their close

proximity to the water (72). In fact, the availability of wetland resources may determine the health

and survival of many animals during critical times.

Wetlands, for instance, are preferred by deer,

pheasants, and other animals as winter cover because of the presence and availability of food. Cedar

swamps, for example, are the only feeding grounds

that can sustain white-tailed deer through northern

Michigan winters. In Minnesota, white-tailed deer

spend 80 percent of their time in wetlands between

December and April (79).

During droughts and dry years, wetlands serve

as reservoirs that are extremely important to regional wildlife stability. Southeastern swamps provide food resources when upland resources are unavailable (57). In a survey conducted by FWS, State

14 For a more Comp]ete review of the species that use Wdands, See

John Kusler, “Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guidebook, ” Environmental Institute, Washington, D. C,, 1978. The table

was prepared by the OffIce of Endangered Species and subjected to

approximately 30 reviews.
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 57

Table 6.—Endangered Wetland Species on the Federal

Endangered and Threatened Species List

Species (including subspecies,

Range groups of similar species, and genera)

Alaska, Northwest California . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California, Arizona

Carolinas to Texas,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rocky Mountains east to Carolinas. . . . . . . .

lowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carolinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appalachians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Guam, Marianas Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aleutian Canada goose

Saltmarsh harvest mouse

California clapper rail

Light-footed clapper rail

San Francisco garter snake

Desert slender salamander

Santa Cruz long-toed salamander

Delta green ground beetle

Truckee barberry

San Diego mesa mint

Crampton’s Orcutt grass

Saltmarsh bird’s beak (a snapdragon)

Yuma clapper rail

Brown pelican

Whooping crane

lowa Pleistocene snail

American alligator

Houston toad

Pine barrens tree frog

Bunched arrowhead

Everglades kite

Cape Sable seaside sparrow

Dusky seaside sparrow

American crocodile

Atlantic saltmarsh snake

Chittenango ovate amber snail

Plymouth red-bellied turtle

Furbish Iousewort

Hawaiian coot

Hawaiian duck

Laysan duck

Hawaiian gallinule

Hawaiian stilt

Marianas mallard

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

game managers identified the game and fur animals

that use wetlands in their States (table 7). A large

number of nongame species were found to use wetlands.

Food Chain Support

The infusion of nutrients that comes with spring

flooding, combined with the nutrients already

stored in wetland soils, results in wetland plant productivity that often is significantly higher than the

productivity of adjacent open-water or upland

areas. For instance, the fertility of flood plains,

resulting from the annual deposits of enriched sediment carried by spring floods, is widely recognized.

Similarly, coastal salt marshes and certain types of

inland freshwater wetlands that receive a regular

supply of nutrients achieve some of the highest rates

of plant productivity of any natural ecosystem,
58 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Table 7.—Game and Fur Animals Identified by State

Game Managers as Found in Wetlands

Small game:

Grouse, ruffed

Grouse, sage

Grouse, sharp-tailed

Hungarian partridge

Mourning dove

Pheasant

Quail, bobwhite

Quail, Gambel’s

Quail, valley

Rabbit, cottontail

Rabbit, swamp

Snowshoe hare

Snipe

Squirrels (gray and fox)

Woodcock

Big game:

Antelope

Black bear

Black-tailed deer

Elk

Mouse

Mule deer

White-tailed deer

Fur animals:

Beaver

Bobcat

Fox (red and gray)

Opossum

Otter

Raccoons

Skunk

Weasel

SOURCE: S. T. Shaw and G. C. Fredina, wetlands of the United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1971

Plant material produced by wetlands may be an

important link in the food chain. In bottom land

hardwood areas, decomposing leaves serve as the

base for springtime explosions in populations of invertebrates, which are an important source of protein for egg-laying waterfowl. Many researchers

also have examined the importance of detritus from

estuarine marshes as food for commercially and recreationally valuable estuarine fish. Wetlands generally produce a great deal of plant material, some

of which is flushed into the estuary in the form of

detritus. In some estuaries, such as those found

along the Georgia and Louisiana coasts, where the

ratio of marsh to open water is high, detritus is a

major component of the diet of estuarine fish.

Potential Importance of Estuarine Fish and

Shellfish From Wetlands.—Table 8 shows the 10

most recreationally important species of marine

fish, judging by estimated number of fish landed.

Table 8.—The 10 Most Recreationally Important

Marine Fish in the United States in 1979

Ranked by Number of Fish Landed

Thousands of fish

Estuarine Nonestuarine

Flounders (summer and winter) 38,649

Bluefish a 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,332

Seatrout (3 species) . . . . . . . . 22,440

Sea catfishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,727

spot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,480

Atlantic croaker . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,505

Pinfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,811

Perch (4 species) . . . . . . . . . . . 9,556

Snappers (Several). . . . . . . . . . 9,363

Grunts (several) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,606

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,630 (57%) 78,839 (43%)

aDi5agreementOwr estuarine dependence

SOURCE: National Marine Fisheries Service, “Fisherfes of the United States,

1980,” Current Fishery Statistics No. 8100, 1981.

Out of an estimated 2.98 million marine fish caught

by recreational fishermen in the United States in

1979, 5 out of the top 10 species, or 57 percent by

number, were estuarine-dependent. By weight,

they comprised about 62 percent of the total catch

of 438.6 million lbs.

The percentage of estuarine-related fish and

shellfish out of the total U.S. fisheries harvest is

high. * Table 9 shows the 15 most important species

or groups of species commercially harvested by

U.S. fishermen in 1980, ranked by their dockside

value. 15 Eight of these fifteen species commonly are

found in estuaries at least sometime during their

lifecycles. They represent 61 percent of the dockside value and 77 percent of the total weight of the

catch of the 15 groups listed. Commercial landings

by U.S. fishermen for fish and shellfish in U.S.

ports totaled 6.48 billion lb in 1980, with a dockside value of $2.23 billion. Approximately 4.08 bil-

*It should be noted that there is disagreement on which fish should

be considered ‘‘estuarine. ” This rises partially from different definitions of the term and partially from lack of knowledge regarding many

of the details of marine fish life histories. For this discussion, we have

used Stroud’s ( 1971) survey of 15 fisheries biologists on the estuarine

dependence of nearly 100 fishes.

1 JEstimated tot~ catch, al] regions, from National Marine Fisheries

Service, 1981. Estuarine dependence based on McHugh (1966) and

Stroud (1971). 1 ) National Marine Fisheries Service, ‘‘Fisheries of

the United States, 1980, ” Current Fishery Statistics No. 8100, 1981;

2) J. L. McHugh, ‘ ‘Management of Estuarine Fisheries, A Symposium on Estuarine Fisheries, American Fisheries, Soc. Spec. Pub].

No. 3, 1966, pp. 133-154; 3) R. H. Stroud, “Introduction to Symposium, A Symposium on the Biological Significance of Estuaries,

P. A. Douglas and R, H. Stroud (eds. ) (Washington, D. C.: Sport

Fishing Institute, 1971).
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 59

Table 9.—The 15 Most Important Fish and Shellfish Harvested by U.S. Fisheries in 1980

Thousands of dollars Thousands of pounds

Nonestuarine Estuarine Nonestuarine Estuarine

Shrimp (several species, all coasts) . . . — $ 402,697 — 339,707

Salmon (5 species) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532,277 —

$233,125

613,811

Tuna (6 species) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 399,432

King crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

168,694 — 185,624

Menhaden (Atlantic and Gulf) . . . . . . . . .

—

— 112,012 — 2,496,649

Sea scallops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,429 28,752 —

Flounders (several species, all coasts) . — 82,4& — 216,920

American lobster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,233 — 36,952

Oyster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

— 70,075 — 49,081

Snow, or tanner crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,161 — 121,674

Sea herring (Atlantic and Pacific) . . . . .

—

44,955 — 291,069

Hard clam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

— 44,068 — 13,370

Blue crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,167 — 163,206

Atlantic cod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,883 — 118,245 —

Dungeness crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 21,613 — 38,025

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $719,480 $1,120,397 1,181,748 3,930,769

Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390/0 61 0/0 230/o 77 ”/0

SOURCE: National Marine Fisheries Service, “Fisheries of the United States, 1980,” Current Fishery Statistics No, 8100, 1981,

lion lbs of estuarine fish and shellfish species were

landed by U.S. commercial fishermen in 1980. This

represented 63 percent of total U.S. commercial

landings at U.S. ports, with a dockside value of

$1.15 billion, 51.5 percent of the value of the total

catch. The retail value of the estuarine-related catch

is more speculative.

Factors Affecting Production of Plant Material. —The production of plant material in wetlands

generally is high relative to other upland ecosystems, such as grasslands (table 10), largely because

of the flux of nutrients and water through wetlands

(75), In general, production of plant material will

be greatest in wetlands of flowing or regularly fluctuating water and lowest in stillwater wetlands (unless enriched by nutrients) (14), Approximately 15

percent or less of the annual plant growth of coastal

marshes* is harvested by direct feeding by macroinvertebrates such as fiddler crabs, snails, amphipods, and polychaete worms (49). After the growing season, most standing plant material on

marshes dies.

Up to 70 percent of the net primary productivity of coastal wetlands may be exported from the

wetland to open-water areas (49). The amount exported will vary—in the ‘‘high marsh, only 10

*’I’his discussion pertains to coastal marshes, Limited research indicates that dlssol~.ed organic compounds and decaying plant material

arc exported from inland wetlands at a greater rate than from uplands

of equivalent area.

percent may be exported, while areas adjacent to

the water’s edge may export much more. In some

cases, there may be no net export. Any detrital particles exported from the marsh rapidly are colonized

by bacteria, fungi, and other micro-organisms

which increase the concentration of protein and fatty acid content, enhancing caloric value. These microbes also adsorb dissolved organic compounds

from the surrounding water. As a result, the original plant material is transformed into a nutritious

food source for filter feeders. 16

16 Sather and Smith, OP. cit.

Table 10.—Wetland Plant Productivity

(metric tons per hectare per year)

Range

Coastal:

Salt marshes (aboveground only):

Louisiana and Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

North Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 4-7

Pacific coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

Freshwater tidal wetlands

(above and below ground). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-16

Inland:

Freshwater marshes (above and below ground):

Sedge-dominated marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12

Cattail marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-34

Reed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-27

Bogs (above and below ground) . . . . . . . . . 4-14

Wooded swamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14

SOURCE: Wet/and Functiorrs and V#ues The State of Our Understanding, P, E,

Greeson, J. R. Clark and J. E. Clark (eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn. American

Water Resources Association, 1979), pp 146-161
60 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Analysis of the stomach contents of estuarine fish

and shellfish shows a wide variety of foods. For instance, the stomach contents of menhaden include

primarily algae, but also detritus, small crustaceans,

and even small fish and fish eggs (50). Commercial shrimp seem to have an even broader diet, consisting of single-celled algae, algal filaments, detritus, bacteria, protozoa, and easily captured animals, including very small worms and crustaceans

(25). Analysis of the stomach contents of oysters

and hard clams often shows both detritus from vascular plants and phytoplankton, probably from the

open estuary. However, there is evidence that most

of the food value comes from the phytoplankton

(37,69,84).

While commercially and recreationally important fish may not directly consume detritus as their

major food source, they may feed on invertebrates

that use detritus as a major food source. Newly

hatched Atlantic croaker, for instance, eat the small

crustaceans found in the water column, particularly

various copepods commonly found in the tidal

creeks dissecting grassy salt marshes (2). As they

grow, they add larger items to their diets, such as

amphipod crustaceans, mysid shrimp, small crabs,

worms of all sorts, mollusks, and smaller fish (69,

84). Also, opposum shrimp, a common marsh invertebrate, is a major component of the diet of

striped bass on both the east and west coasts. Chironomid midge larvae were found to account for

over 80 percent of the diet of juvenile chum and

chinook salmon (24).

Most coastal marshes export detritus to adjacent

coastal waters. While estuarine fish and shellfish

may directly and indirectly use detritus when available, the quantitative significance of wetlandsderived detritus to the food supply of the estuary

relative to contributions of detritus from other terrestrial or open-water food sources generally is not

known, but probably varies widely with both species

and estuary, If the estuary has very few marshes

and much open water, such as in the North and

Middle Atlantic States and most areas in the Pacific, the likelihood is increased that the ultimate

source of organic matter for fish is not the marsh

grass, but the phytoplankton. For example, Chesapeake Bay is the source of a great deal of commercially valuable seafood, but its ratio of marsh to

open water is only 0.04; the ratio at Sapelo Island,

Ga., is nearly 2.0. Given what is known about the

phytoplankton production in the Chesapeake Bay,

the annual contribution of salt marshes to total

available energy is only around 2 to 5 percent (61).

In fact, the scientific literature lacks convincing

evidence, at least for Atlantic and Pacific coasts,

supporting the belief that coastal marshes play a

significant role in supporting fish and shellfish productivity through the export of detritus (68).

Climatic and Atmospheric Functions

Although there has been little research related

to these functions, some wetland scientists have

hypothesized that large wetlands help to maintain

lower air temperatures in the summer and prevent

extremely low temperatures in the winter. They also

are a source of water to the atmosphere, leading

to the formation of cumulus clouds, thunderstorms,

and precipitation. Finally, wetlands, through processes of microbial decomposition, either may store

or emit gaseous byproducts important to global

atmospheric stability.

Moderation of Local Temperatures

Water warms and cools slowly in comparison

with land areas; thus, wetlands will have a moderating influence on daily atmospheric temperatures.

Drained agricultural areas in Florida, for instance,

were found to be 50 F colder in the winter than

were surrounding, undrained areas (35). It has been

suggested that wetland drainage of the Everglades

may have increased frost act ion (87). Because

deeper water bodies contain more water than wetlands with the same area, lakes will have a more

moderating influence on atmospheric temperature

than will wetlands (35).

Maintaining Regional Precipitation

Wetlands contribute to rainfall through processes

of evaporation and the release of water vapor from

plants (evapotranspiration). In a study of Florida

cumulus clouds, for instance, lakes larger than 1

mile in diameter exerted a noticeable effect on

clouds in the area (35), It has been hypothesized

that wetland drainage could reduce summer thunderstorm activity in Florida by reducing evapotransporation, leading in turn to regional rainfall

deficits (22).
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man . 61

Maintain Global Atmospheric Stability

There is increasing concern now that increases

in atmospheric nitrous oxide from man’s activities

may adversely affect the stratosphere and may

influence the radiative budget of the troposphere.

Studies on tidal salt marshes have shown that

microbial decomposition in wetland soils under

anaerobic conditions can convert nitrous oxide to

other chemical forms. The importance of this process on a global scale remains unclear (36).

Terrestrial detritus may form one of the largest

but least accurately known pools of carbon in the

biosphere. It generally is agreed that the world pool

of detrital carbon is several times larger than the

total carbon content of the atmosphere or of the

world biota. A significant fraction of detritus is

found as peat or in the highly organic soils of wetlands (34). If left undisturbed, the carbon in these

organic soils remains as reduced organic carbon.

Since the mid-19th century, the conversion of wetlands has resulted in the oxidation of organic matter in the soil and the release of carbon dioxide to

the atmosphere (65). Many scientists feel that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

will lead to global warming.

Methane, a byproduct of microbial decomposition of organic material in wetlands, also is thought

to function as a sort of homeostatic regulator for

the ozone layer that protects modern aerobic life

from the deleterious effects of ultraviolet radiation (65).

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc., ‘‘Neponset River

Basin Flood Plain and Wetland Encroachment

Study, ’ ‘ Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, 1971, p. 61.

Arnoldi, D. C., Herke, W. H., and Glairain, E.

J., Jr., ‘ ‘Estimates of Growth Rate and Length of

Stay in a Marsh Nursery of Juvenile Atlantic

Croaker, Micropogon udulatus (1 .), ‘Sandblasted’

With Fluorescent Pigments, Gulf Caribb. Fish.

Inst. Pmc., vol. 26, 1979, pp. 158-172.

Association of Bay Area Governments, ‘ ‘The Use

of Wetlands for Water Pollution Control, contract report to the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory , Environmental Protection

Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981 .

Athearn, W. D., Anderson, G. L., Byrne, R. J.,

Hobbs, D. H., 111, and Ziegler, J. M., “Shoreline

Situation Report: Northampton County, Virgini a , Chesapeake Research Consortium Report,

No. 9, 1974.

Bay, R. R., ‘‘Runoff From Small Peatland Watersheds, ” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 9, 1969, pp.

90-102.

Bellrose, F. C. , “Ducks, Geese, and Swans of

North America, Wildlife Management Institute,

Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa., 1976, p. 544.

Benner, C. S., Knutson, P. L., Brochu, R. A. ,

and Hurme, A. K. , “Vegetative Erosion Control in an Oligohaline Environment, Currituc k

Sound, North Carolina, ” Third Annual Meeting

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Wrightsville

Beach, N. C., May 16-19, 1982.

Bernet, C., “Water Bank: Keeping Wetlands

Wet, ’ The Minnesota Volunteer, vol. 42, No.

246, SeptemberlOctober 1979, p. 4.

Boelter, D. H., and Verry, E. S., “Peatland and

Water in the Northern Lake States, ” USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-3 1,

North-Central Forest Experiment Station, St.

Paul, Minn., 1977.

Boto, K. G., and Patrick, W. H., Jr., “Role of

Wetlands in the Removal of Suspended Sedimerits, ” WetZand Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 479-489.

Boyd, C. E., ‘ ‘Losses of Mineral Nutrients During Decomposition of Typha latifolia, ‘‘ Arch.

Hydrobiol., vol. 66, No. 4, 1970, pp. 511-517.

Boyt, F. L., Bayley, S. E., and Zoltek, J., “Removal of Nutrients From Treated Municipal

Wastewater by Wetland Vegetation, Journal of

the Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 49,

1977, Pp. 789-799.

Brackhage, G., OffIce of Migratory Bird Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication with OTA, May 3, 1982.

Brinson, M. M., Lugo, A. E., and Brown, S.,

“Primary Productivity, Decomposition and Con-
62 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

15,

16.

17

18.

19.

204

21.

22.

23.

24.

sumer Activity in Freshwater Wetlands, Annual

Review ofEco]ogy and Systematic, vol. 12, 1981,

pp. 123-161.

Carter, V., Bedinger, M. S., Novitzki, R. P., and

Wilen, W. O., ‘‘Water Resources and Wetlands, ”

Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our

Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and

J. E. Clark (eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American Water Resources Association, 1979), pp.

334-376.

Cernohous, L., ‘‘The Value of Wetlands as Flood

Control, unpublished manuscript compiled for

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck Area

Office, Bismarck, N. Dak., 1979,

Clairain, E. J., Cole, R. A,, Diaz, R. J., Ford,

A. W,, Huffman, R. I., and Wells, B. R., “Habitat Development Field Investigations, Miller Sands

Marsh and Upland Habitat Development Site, Columbia River, Oregon, ” Summary Report, Technical Report D-77-38, U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.,

1978.

Clark, J., “Freshwater Wetlands: Habitats for

Aquatic Invertebrates, Amphibians, Reptiles, and

Fish, Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 330-343.

Clark, J. R., and Benforado, J., “Report on a Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands Workshop, Lake

Lanier, Ga., June 1-5, 1980.

Coordinating Council on Restoration of the

Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin, “Symposium Summary, Regional Influence of Drainage of the Hydrologic Cycle in Florida, ” July 1982.

Council on Environmental Quality, “Our Nation’s Wetlands, ” An Interagency Task Force Report, 1978, p, 70.

Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and

LaRoe, E. T., “Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States, ” U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979, p. 103.

Crisp, D. T., ‘‘Input and Output of Minerals for

an Area of Pennine Moorland: The Importance

of Precipitation, Drainage, Peat Erosion, and Anima.ls, ’’~ourn~ of Applied Ecology, VO1. 3, 1966,

pp. 327-348.

Crow, J. H., and MacDonald, K. B., “Wetland

Value: Secondary Production, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark

(eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 146-161.

25

26

27.

28.

29.

30.

31

32.

33.

34!

35.

36,

Dan, W., ‘‘Food and Feeding of Some Australian

Penaeid Shrimp, ” Proc. World Su. Conf Biol,

and Culture of Shrimps and Prawns, Fish. Rep,

F. A. D., vol. 57, 1968, pp. 251-258.

Dibner, P. C., “Response of a Salt Marsh to Oil

Spill and Cleanup: Biotic and Erosional Effects in

the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey, ”

NTIS Report No. PB-285-211, 1978.

Dierberg, F. E., and Brezonik, P. L., ‘‘The Effect of Secondary Sewage Effluent on the Surface

Water and Groundwater Quality of Cypress

Domes , Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling, and Conservation, 4th Annual

Report to the National Science Foundation, H. T.

Odum and K. C. Ewel (eds. ) (Gainesville, Fla.:

University of Florida, 1978), pp. 789-799.

Ehrenfeld, D. W., “The Conservation of Non-Resources, ” American Scientist, vol. 64, 1976, pp.

648-656.

Elder, J. F., and Cairns, J., “Production and Decomposition of Forest Litter Fall on the Appalachicola River Floodplain, Florida, U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2196, 1983.

Elkins, J. W,, Wofsy, S. C., McElroy, M. B.,

Kolb, C. E., and Kaplan, W. A., “Aquatic

Sources and Sinks for Nitrous Oxide, ” Nature,

vol. 275, 1978, pp. 602-606.

Fagan, G. L., Jr., “Analysis of Flood Hydrography From Wetland Areas, ” Ph. D. dissertation,

available from University Microfilms, No. 81-

18860, 1981.

Fish and Wildlife Service, “The 1980 National

Survey of Fish, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation, Portland, Oreg., 1982.

Flake, L. D., “Wetland Diversity and Waterfowl, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 312-319.

Friedman, R. M., and DeWitt, C. B., “Wetlands

as Carbon and Nutrient Reservoirs: A Spatial,

Historical, and Societal Perspective, ” Wedand

Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E.

Clark (eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American

Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 175-185.

Gannon, P. T., Barthdic, J. F., and Bill, R. G.,

“Climatic and Meteorological Effects on Wetlands, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, andJ, E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 576-588.

Gerrnain, C., Wisconsin Scientific Areas Program,
Ch. 3—Wetland Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 6 3

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42

43

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

personal communication with Joan Ham, OTA,

Dec. 14, 1981.

Haines, E. B., and Montague, C. L., “Food

Sources of Estuarine Invertebrates Analyzed Using

1 sC/1 ZC Ratios, Ecology, V O1. 60, 1979, Pp.

48-56.

Hall, D. H., ‘‘A Synopsis of the Values of Overflow in Bottomland Hardwoods to Fish and Wildlife , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological

Services, 1979.

Hobbs, C. H., Byrne, R. J., Kerns, W. R., and

Barber, N. J., ‘ ‘Shoreline Erosion: A Problem in

Environmental Management, ” CoastaJ Zone i’t4anagernentjournaJ, vol. 9, No. 1, 1981, pp. 89-105.

Jantzen, R., Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, testimony before House Subcommittee on

Fisheries, Wildlife Conservation, and the Environment, Nov. 20, 1981.

Jones, R. A., and Lee, G. F., ‘‘An Approach for

the Evaluation of Efilcacy of Wetlands-Based Phosphorus Control Programs for Eutrophication-Related Water Quality: Improvement in Downstream

Waterbodies, ” VVater, Air and Sod Pollution, vol.

14, 1980, pp. 359-378.

Kadlec, R. H., and Kadlec, J. A., “Wetlands and

Water Quality, Wetland Functions and VaJues:

The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson,

J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis,

Minn.: American Water Resources Association,

1979), pp. 436-456.

Knutson, P. L., Ford, J. C., Inskeep, M. R., and

Oyler, J., “National Survey of Planted Salt

Marshes, Wetlands, September 1981.

Knutson, P. L., and Selig, W. N., “Wave Damping in Spartina AJterniflora Marshes, Third AnnuaJ Meeting of the Society of WetJand Scientists,

Wrightsville Beach, N. C., May 16-19, 1982.

Kroodsma, D. E., (

‘Habitat Values for Non game

Wetland Birds, ” Wetland Functions and VaJues:

The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson,

J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.) (Minneapolis,

Minn.: American Water Resources Association,

1979), pp. 320-329.

LaCraze, C., “Crawfish Farming, ” Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge,

La., Fisheries Bulletin No. 7, 1981.

Lee, C. R., Bentley, E., and Amundson, R., “Effects of Marshes on Water Quality, ” Coupling

Land and Water Systems, A. D. Hader (cd.) (New

York: Springer-Verlag, 1975), pp. 105-127.

Leopold, A. S., Gutierrez, R. J., and Bronson,

M. T., North American Game Birds and MammaJs (New York: Scribner, 1981).

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

McCormick, J., and Somes, H. A., Jr., “The

Coastal Wetlands of Maryland, ” Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1982.

McHugh, J. L., “Estuarine Nekton, ” Estuaries,

G. Lauff (cd.), publication 82 (Washington, D. C.:

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1967), pp. 581-620.

Miller, E. G., “Effect of Great Swamp, New Jersey on Streamflow During Baseflow Periods,

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 525-B,

1965, pp. B-177-179.

Mitsch, W. J., Dorge, C. L., and Weimhoff, J.

R., “Forested Wetlands for Water Resource Management in Southern Illinois, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Water Resources Center, Research Report No. 132, NTIS No. PS 276

659, 1977.

Morine, D., Vice President for Land Acquisition,

the Nature Conservancy, and Lowe, G., Executive

Vice President, the Nature Conservancy, personal

communication with OTA, Apr. 19, 1983.

Mortimer, C. H., ‘ ‘The Exchange of Dissolved

Substances Between Mud and Water in Lakes,

Parts I and II,” J. Ecol., vol. 29, 1941, p p .

280-329.

Mortimer, C. H., “The Exchange of Dissolved

Substances Between Mud and Water and Lakes,

Parts III and IV, ” J. EcoJ., vol. 30, 1942, pp.

147-201.

Motts, W. S., and O’Brien, A. L., “Geology and

Hydrology of Wetlands in Massachusetts, Water

Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Publication No. 123, 1981.

Mulholland, L. D., “Importance of Southeastern

Swamps to North American Birds and Mammals, presented at the Third Annual Meeting of

the Society of Wetland Scientists, 1982.

Mulica, W. S., and Lasca, N. P., “A Bog-Controlled Groundwater Recharge System in an Area

of Urban Expansion, Proceedings of Second

World Congress, International Water Resources

Association, vol. 111, New Delhi, December 1974,

pp. 175-194,

National Academy of Sciences, Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife

Habitat (Washington, D. C.: National Academy

Press, 1982).

National Park Service, “National Park Statistical

Abstract, available from the Statistical Office,

Denver Service Center, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 1981.

Nixon, S. W., “Between Coastal Marshes and

Coastal Rivers—A Review of Twenty Years of
64 Ž Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

62.

63

64

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

Speculation and Research on the Role of Salt

Marshes in Estuarine Productivity and Water

Chemistry, Estuarine and Wetland Processes

With Emphasis on ModeJing, Hamilton and MacDonald (eds. ) (New York: Plenum Press, 1979),

pp. 437-511.

Novitzki, R. P., “Hydrology of the Nevin Wetland Near Madison, Wisconsin, ” U.S. Geological

Survey, Water Resources Investigation 78-48,

NTIS No. PB-284 118, 1973.

Notitzki, R. P., ‘‘The Hydrologic Characteristics

of Wisconsin’s Wetlands and Their Influence on

Flood, Streamflow, and Sediment, ” Wetland

Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E.

Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 377-388.

O’Brien, A. L., “Hydrology of Two Small Wetland Basins in Eastern Massachusetts, ” Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 13, No. 2, 1977, pp. 325-340.

Odum, E. P., ‘ ‘The Value of Wetlands: A Hierarchical Approach, Wetland Functions and Values:

The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson,

J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.) (Minneapolis,

Minn.: American Water Resources Association,

1979), pp. 16-25.

Odum, W. E., Dunn, M. L., and Smith, T. J.,

III, “Habitat Value of Tidal Freshwater Wetlands, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, andJ. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 248-255.

Ogawa, H., “Evaluation Methodologies for the

Flood Mitigation Potential of Inland Wetlands, ”

Ph. D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst, 1982.

Onuf, C. P., Quammen, M. L., Shaffer, G. P.,

Peterson, C. H., Chapman, J. W., Cermak, J.,

and Holmes, R. W., ‘‘An Analysis of the Values

of Central and Southern California Coastal Wetlands, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 186-199.

Overstreet, R. M., and Heard, R. W., “Food of

the Atlantic Croker, Micropogonias undulatus,

From Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of Mexico, ”

Gulf Res. Rept. 6, 1978, pp. 145-152.

Owens, R. E., III, “The Economic Value of the

Use of Virginia’s Coastal Wetlands as an Erosion

Control Strategy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

and State University, M. S. thesis, Blacksburg,

Va., 1980.

Pestrong, R., ‘ ‘The Shear Strength of Tidal Marsh

Sediments, NTIS No. AD-765 273, 1973.

Porter, B. W., ‘ ‘The Wetland Edge as a Community and Its Value to Wildlife, Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland

Values and Management, B. Richardson (cd.),

1981.

Reilly, W., “Can Science Help Save Interior Wetlands?” Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 26-30.

Richardson, C. J., “Pocosin Wetlands” (Stroudsburg, Pa.: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.,

1981).

Richardon, C. J., ‘ ‘Primary Productivity Values

in Freshwater Wetlands, ” Wetland Functions and

Values: The State of Our Understanding, P. E.

Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 131-145.

Ryan, J. D., and Everitt, T., “Investigations of

the Plant Community-Soil-Soil Strength Micromorphology Relationships in Coastal Marshes,

NTIS No. AD-768 801, 1973.

Sander, J. E., ‘ ‘Electric Analog Approach to Bog

Hydrology, “ Groundwater, vol. 14, No. 1, 1976,

pp. 30-35.

Schamberger, M. L., Short, C., and Farmer, A.,

“Evaluating Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our

Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and

J. E, Clark (eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American

Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 74-83.

Schitoskey, F., Jr., and Linder, R. L., “Use of

Wetlands by Upland Wildlife, ” Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark

(eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: American Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 307-322.

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,

“Wetlands Trends and Policies in North and

South Carolina, ” Duke University, OTA contract

study, August 1982.

Shaw, S. P,, and Fredine, C. G., “Wetlands of

the United States: Their Extent and Their Value

to Waterfowl and Other Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Circular 38, 1956, p. 67.

Smardon, R. C., “Visual-Cultural Values of Wet-
Ch. 3—Wet/and Values and the Importance of Wetlands to Man ● 65

83.

84

85

86

87.

88.

89,

90

lands, Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 535-544.

Snyder, B. D., and Snyder, J. L., ‘ ‘Feasibility of

Using Oil Shale Wastewater for Waterfowl Wetlands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of

Biological Service, contract No. FWS 14-16-009-

82-002, Fort Collins, Colo., 1982.

Stickney, R. R., Taylor, G, L., and White, D.

B., “Food Habits of Five Young Southeastern

United States Estuarine Sciaenidae, Chesapeake

Sci., vol. 16, 1975, pp. 104-114.

Tchobanoglous, G., and Culp, G. L., “Wetland

Systems of Wastewater Treatment: An Engineering Assessment, University of California, Davis,

1980.

Thayer, G. W., Stuart, H. H., Kenworthy, W.

J., Ustach, J. F., and Hall, A. B., “Habitat Values of Salt Marshes, Mangroves, and Seagrasses

for Aquatic Organisms, Wetland Functions and

Values: The State of Our Understanding, P. E.

Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn .: American Water Resources Association, 1979), pp. 186-199.

Thomas, T., “A Detailed Analysis of Climatological and Hydrological Records of South Florida

With Reference to Man’s Influence Upon Ecosystem Evolution, report to U.S. National Park

Service, 1970, p. 82.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water

Resources, ‘ ‘Analysis of Selected Wetlands Functions and Values, unpublished draft report 81 D01, 1981.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers, ‘ ‘Charles River

Watershed, Massachusetts Natural Valley Storage

Project, Design Memorandum No. 1, Hydrologic

Analysis, New England Division, Waltham,

Mass., 1976.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘ ‘Refuge Visitation Figures, available from Division of Refuge

Management, Branch of Resource Management,

1981.

91.

92.

93.

94,

95.

96.

97<

98<

99.

Valiela, I., Teal, J. M., and Sass, W. J., “Production and Dynamics of Salt Marsh Vegetation

and the Effects of Experimental Treatment With

Sewage Sludge, ’’Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.

12, No. 3, 1975.

Vecchiolo, J., Gill, H. E., and Land, S. M.,

“Hydrologic Role of the Great Swamp and Other

Marshland in the Upper Passaic River Basin, ”

Jour-nalofthe American Water WorksAssociation,

vol. 54, No. 6, 1962, Pp. 695-701.

Verry, E. S., and Boelter, D., “Peat and Hydrology, ’ Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R.

Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds. ) (Minneapolis, Minn.:

American Water Resources Association, 1979),

pp. 389-402.

Wadleigh, R. S., ‘‘Effects of Swamp Storage Upon

Storm Peak Flows, ’ M.S. thesis, Department of

Agricultural Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1965.

Wayne, C. J., ‘ ‘Sea and Marshgrasses: Their Effect on Wave Energy and Nearshore Transport,

M.S. thesis, Florida State University, College of

Arts and Sciences, Tallahassee, Fla., 1975.

Weller, M., “Freshwater Marshes: Ecology and

Wildlife Management” (Minneapolis, Minn.:

University of Minnesota Press, 1981.

Wharton, C. H., ‘ ‘The Southern River Swamp—

A Multiple Use Environment, ” Bureau of Business and Economic Research, School of Business

Administration, Georgia State University, Atlanta,

Ga., 1970.

Yonika, D., and Lowry, D., “Feasibility Study

of Wetland Disposal of Wastewater Treatment

Plant Effluent, ” final report, Commonwealth of

Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Research Project 78-104, 1979.

Zoltek, J., and Bayley, S. E., “Removal of Nutrients From Treated Municipal Wastewater by

Freshwater Marshes, ” University of Florida

Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Fla., 1979.
Wetland

Chapter 4

Programs That Affect

the Use of Wetlands

●

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Contents

Page

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regulatory Permitting Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acquisition and Incentive Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Environmental Programs and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assistance to States and Localities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland Research Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Programs That Affect Agricultural Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incentives to Landowners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Influence on Federal Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

69

69

72

74

75

76

77

81

81

82

82

82

82

83

84

84
Chapter 4

Wetland Programs That Affect

the Use of Wetlands

CHAPTER SUMMARY

At this time, Federal policies do not deal consistently with wetland use. In fact, they affect

wetland use in opposing ways. On the one hand,

some Federal policies encourage wetland conversion by reducing the cost of converting wetlands

to other uses, especially agriculture. On the other

hand, some wetland use is controlled or managed

through acquisition, easements, leases, regulation,

and policy guidance. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ program to implement section 404 of the

Clean Water Act (CWA) provides the major avenue for Federal involvement in controlling the use

of wetlands through regulation. However, the 404

program regulates only the discharge of dredged

or fill material; excavation, drainage, clearing, and

flooding of wetlands are not covered explicitly. State

and local programs as well as private initiatives also

directly or indirectly affect the use of wetlands in

a variety of ways.

The present administration’s goals with respect

to wetlands are unclear. On the one hand, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) has revised

its administrative procedures to reduce the regulatory burden on industry and to increase the role

of the States. Some of these changes may have

reduced the level of Federal control over wetlands

use, although there will never be quantitative data

to support this or any other statement made about

the effects of these programmatic changes on wetlands. Administration support for State coastal

management programs also has been reduced significantly, and no funds have been requested in the

past 3 years for wetland acquisition. On the other

hand, the Department of the Interior proposed a

bill, Protect Our Wetlands and Duck Resources Act

(POWDR). This bill proposed eliminating some

Federal expenditures for some wetland activities,

increasing funding to States for wetland conservation, extending the Wetlands Loan Act (due to expire in September 1984) for 10 years, and increasing revenues for the Migratory Bird Conservation

Fund through additional fees for duck stamps and

wildlife refuge visitation permits.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

The use of wetlands in the United States is affected either directly or indirectly by a large number

of Federal, State, local, and private programs, This

section briefly describes these programs, with emphasis on the more important Federal programs.

Regulatory Permitting Programs

Section 404

Section 404 of CWA, as amended in 1977 from

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),

is the primary means of Federal involvement in controlling the use of wetlands. In brief, persons seeking to conduct activities that would result in the

discharge of dredged and fill material into ‘ ‘waters

of the United States’ first must apply for and obtain a permit from the local district office of the

Corps. Some activities are specifically exempted;

others are covered by general permits that require

no applications for individual permits.

There are fundamental differences in the way

Federal agencies and various special interest groups

interpret the intent of section 404, which as stated

in the preface to CWA, is to ‘ ‘restore and main69
70 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

tain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. The Corps views its

primary function in carrying out the law as protecting the quality of water; habitat and other wetland

values, although considered in Corps decisions

about projects, are usually of secondary concern.

In contrast, Federal resource agencies, such as the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and environmental groups feel that the mandate of CWA

obliges the Corps to protect the integrity of wetlands, including their habitat values.

The Corps uses three general criteria for evaluating permit applications in a ‘‘public interest

review:

● the relative extent of the public and private

need for the proposed structure or work;

. the desirability of using appropriate alternative

locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proposed structure or work; and

. the extent and permanence of the beneficial or

detrimental effects that the proposed structure

or work may have on the public and private

uses to which the area is suited.

It is unclear what consideration would be given

to cumulative impacts under new regulations promulgated in 1982, which still include language

recognizing that such impacts often result in major impairments of wetland resources.2

Until the 1982 changes, regulations stated that

no permit would be granted for activities that involved the alteration of wetlands identified as important “unless the benefits of the proposed alteration outweigh the damage to the wetlands resource

and the proposed alteration is necessary to realize

those benefits. The district engineer’s determination of the necessity of the alteration must be based

on whether the activity is ‘‘primarily dependent on

being located in, or in close proximity to, the aquatic environment or whether practicable alternative

sites’ are available. Permit applicants must supply sufficient information on the need to locate the

project in the wetland and on the availability of

alternate sites.3 The 1982 revisions to the Corps

IClean Water Act, sec. IOl(a).

‘Clean Water Act, sec. 320.4(b)(3).

‘Clean Water Act, sec. 320.4(b)(4).

regulations eliminate the clause that the proposed

alteration be necessary to realize benefits.

The assertion of regulatory jurisdiction of the

Corps under the 404 program has changed over

time, and further changes presently are being debated. Originally, jurisdiction was restricted to navigable waters, narrowly defined, and covered relatively few wetlands. A series of court decisions, especially the 1975 decision in Natural Resources

Defense Council v. Callaway, expanded the scope

of coverage to include virtually all waters of the

United States, including most if not all wetlands. *

However, congressional amendments to CWA and

Corps regulations implementing the act have set

limits to the jurisdiction of the 404 program.

The 404 program currently covers activities resulting in dredged and fill material discharges, with

the following exemptions specified in the 1977

amendments to CWA:

●

●

●

●

normal farming, silviculture, * * and ranching

activities, such as plowing, seeding, and cultivating; minor drainage; harvesting for the

production of food, fiber, and forest products;

or upland soil- and water-conservation practices;

maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts of currently

serviceable structures such as dikes, dams,

levees, groins, riprap, * * * breakwaters, causeways, bridge abutments or approaches, and

transportation structures;

construction or maintenance of farm or stock

ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance

of drainage ditches;

construction of temporary sedimentation basins

on a construction site, but excluding placement

of fill material into navigable waters;

● On July 25, 1975, the Corps of Engineers published revised regulations redefining ‘‘navigable waters’ to include: ‘‘coastal waters, wetlands, mudflats, swamps, and similar areas; freshwater lakes, rivers,

and streams that are used, were used in the past, or are susceptible

to use to transport interstate commerce, including all tributaries to

these waters; interstate waters; certain specified intrastate waters, the

pollution of which would affect interstate commerce; and freshwater

wetlands, including marshes, shallows, swamps and similar areas that

are contiguous or adjacent to the above described lakes, rivers and

streams, and that are periodically inundated and normally characterized by the prevalence of vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

● *Tree farming.

● **Shoreline protection usually composed of broken stones.
Ch. 4—Wetland Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands . 71

● construction or maintence of farm or forest

roads, or temporary roads for moving mining

equipment, where such roads are constructed

and maintained in accordance with best management practices to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological

characteristics of the navigable waters are not

impaired, that the reach of the navigable waters

is not reduced, and that any adverse effect on

the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized; 4 and

• congressionally approved projects that have

filed an environmental impact statement

(EIS).5

In addition to these exemptions, a large number

of activities fall under general permits. General permits are promulgated to increase the manageability of the 404 program at nationwide, regional, and

State levels for activities deemed by the Corps to

have minor impacts on waters of the United States.

Persons conducting such activities need not apply

for individual permits; however, in many cases,

they are expected to follow specified practices to

minimize further the impacts of their actions. As

of late 1981, the Corps had issued 374 general permits, which has reduced the number of permit

applications by an estimated 60,000 to 90,000

annually.

The 404 program also regulates certain geographic areas with less stringency than other areas.

Prior to the 1982 regulatory changes, activities in

wetlands that are not linked to a tributary system,

above the headwaters of tributary streams (above

a point where the mean annual streamflow is less

than 5 cubic feet per second (ft3/s)), or less than

10 acres in surface area did not require individual

permits as long as certain environmental safeguards

were complied with. The 1982 regulations expanded these exempted areas to include any isolated

wetland regardless of size. Subsequent proposals

published on May 12, 1983, reinstated this limitation.

Several Federal agencies besides the Corps have

roles in the implementation of the 404 program.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

NMFS, and FWS review permit applications and

4Clean Water Act, sec.404(~(l )(A)-(D),

5Clean Water Act, sec.404(r).

provide comments and recommendations on whether permits should be issued by the Corps. EPA has

the authority to veto any application or overrule

any disposal site designated on a permit reviewed

by the Corps if it finds project impacts unacceptable. It also develops criteria for discharges and

State assumption of the 404 program.

Under memoranda of agreement (MOA) formerly in effect between the Corps, FWS, and

NMFS, either NMFS or FWS representatives could

request ‘‘elevation’ of a permit for review at upper levels in the agency if there is disagreement

about whether or not a permit should be granted

by a district engineer. Though only infrequently

carried out, elevation could greatly lengthen the

permitting process, and resource agencies could use

the threat of elevation to gain concessions from permit applicants. New MOAs signed in mid-1982

greatly restrict the power of FWS and NMFS to

elevate permits, in particular by making elevation

subject to concurrence by the Assistant Secretary

of the Army (Civil Works), the head of the Corps.

As discussed below, States also have a role in the

404 program. States veto permit applications by

denying certification through section 401 of CWA

and may administer portions of the 404 program

if they meet criteria established by EPA. Twelve

States are evaluating this possibility of assuming

404 responsibilities and four have assumed partial

responsibility for the program on a trial basis. In

general, most States neither have the capability nor

the desire to assume sole responsibility for regulating

wetland use without additional resources from the

Federal Government; some States would be reluctant to do so even with resources.

In line with administration objectives to reduce

the regulatory burden on industry and to increase

the role of the States, the Corps revised many of

its administrative procedures in 1982. Among other

changes already mentioned, the normal permitprocessing time was limited to 60 days for typical

projects, 90 days for controversial projects. The use

of general permits was expanded to include all (and

not some) isolated waters and headwater areas.

Statewide general permits are being used to transfer

additional permitting responsibility to States. Sixteen environmental organizations sued the Corps

in December 1982 on the basis of many of these
72 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

changes. Most issues of concern to environmentalists were settled out of court in February 1984.

On May 12, 1983, the Corps proposed additional

changes to its 404 regulatory program. Many proposals simply formalize many of the administrative

changes that already have been made to streamline

the permitting process. Other provisions involve

fairly major changes. Two provisions appear to increase the level of wetlands regulation. First, a

limitation of the use of nationwide permits to

isolated waters to water bodies smaller than 10 acres

in size, which was removed on July 22, 1982, was

reinstated. Second, the Corps’ authority to condition permits using either onsite or offsite mitigation measures was expanded. Three provisions appear to decrease the level of wetlands regulation by

using “letters of permission, ” rather than permits,

for minor discharges; by explicitly shifting the

“burden of proof” to the Federal Government by

presuming that an applicant’s proposal is acceptable unless demonstrated by the Government not

to be; and by expanding the use of nationwide permits in lieu of a case-by-case project 404 review to

all Federal projects and private projects that are adjacent to Corps civil works projects.

Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act

Under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, permits from the Corps are required for dredge, fill,

and other activities that could obstruct navigable

waterways, defined as those waters below the ordinary or mean high-water level or tide level. Prior

to 1968, the Corps considered only potential impacts of such activities on navigation. In 1968, permit criteria were broadened to include evaluation

of fish and wildlife, conservation, pollution, esthetics, ecology, and the general public interest, as well

as navigation. These criteria have been broadened

further to include additional factors, including economics, historical values, flood damage prevention,

recreation, water supply, water quality, energy

needs, and food production. Some of these criteria

favor wetland protection, while others support development.

Often, section 10 and section 404 permitted activities are processed concurrently. Although wetlands covered by section 10 also are covered by section 404, and although wetland protection is not

a stated goal of section 10 permitting, section 10

has served to protect wetlands against some impacts

that are not dealt with by section 404 permitting.

Unlike section 404, section 10 does not exempt any

activities from coverage.

Acquisition and Incentive Programs

As of September 30, 1981, FWS administered,

through ownership, lease, or easement arrangements, close to 89 million acres of land in the National Wildlife Refuge System, Waterfowl Production Areas, and coordination areas. Of this total,

FWS estimates that approximately 33.4 million

acres are wetlands, 28.7 million acres of which are

in Alaska. The National Forest Service is responsible for managing about 190 million acres of land

in the National Forest System, a small percentage

of which is wetland. Aside from some special appropriations, primary funding for the Nation’s acquisition and incentive programs comes from four

sources.

Migratory Bird Hunting and

Conservation Stamps

Since 1934, FWS has sold Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly known

as “duck stamps, ” which must be purchased by

waterfowl hunters aged 16 and older. Nonhunters

may also purchase stamps, Since 1979, stamps have

cost $7.50 per year; about 2 million are sold annually. Proceeds are used to acquire habitat for migratory birds. From the inception of the program

to June 1982, more than 83 million stamps were

sold, worth over $240 million and accounting for

the purchase of more than 2.5 million acres of

waterfowl habitat, a large portion of which is wetland.

Wetlands Loan Act

A related source of funding is the Wetlands Loan

Act of 1961, which provides for interest-free loan

advances toward wetland acquisition and easements. A total of $200 million has been authorized

by this program, out of which approximately $147

million has been appropriated through fiscal year

1983. This program is due to expire September 30,

1984, after which appropriations from the loan fund
Ch. 4—Wetland Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands Ž 73

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, David B. Marshall

Over $240 million worth of “duck stamps” have been

soId to hunters since the program’s inception in 1934,

financing the purchase of more than 2.5 million acres

of waterfowl habitat

are to be repaid with duck stamp receipts. Bills

pending in Congress seek to extend this act.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

(LWCF) of 1965 funds the purchase of natural

areas, including wetlands. FWS has used this source

of funding to protect endangered species and important natural resource areas and to extend the

National Wildlife Refuge System. From fiscal years

1967 through 1982, FWS used approximately $182

million of LWCF money to acquire some 221,000

acres of land, an unknown portion of which are wetlands. The National Park Service also has used this

source of funding for land purchases: from fiscal

years 1965 through 1982, a total of $1.7 billion in

outlays for 1.4 million acres were made. As with

FWS outlays, information is not available on what

proportions of these outlays and acreage pertain to

wetlands.

Water Bank Program

The Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation

Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) administers the Water Bank Program.

Authorized by the Water Bank Act of 1970, the objectives of the program are:

To preserve, restore, and improve the wetlands

of the Nation, and thereby ( 1 ) conserve surface

waters, (2) preserve and improve habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife resources, (3)

reduce runoff, soil, and wind erosion, (4) contribute

to flood control, (5) contribute to improved water

quality and reduce stream sedimentation, (6) contribute to improved subsurface moisture, (7) reduce

acres of new land coming into production and to

retire lands now in agricultural production, (8)

enhance the natural beauty of the landscape, and

(9) promote comprehensive and total water management planning.

While agreements have been in effect in 15

States, the program is concentrated in the prairiepothole region of Minnesota, North Dakota, and

South Dakota. Through the Water Bank Program,

private landowners or operators receive annual

payments in exchange for agreeing not to drain,

fill, level, burn, or otherwise destroy wetlands and

to maintain grassy cover on adjacent upland.

With technical assistance from USDA’s Soil

Conservation Service (SCS) landowners and operators enter into 10-year agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture specifying requirements placed

on land use and rates of compensation. Compensation varies with geographic area. Payments for

wetlands usually range from $5 to $10/acre; such

payments in California can range up to $22/acre.

Payments for adjacent cropland generally range

from $14 to $55/acre.

Payment rates are subject to review after 4 years

and at the time agreements are renewed. For the

first group of contracts coming up for renewal, the

rate of renewal has been 50 to 60 percent. Agreements are transferable when land is sold and may

25-415 0 - 84 - 6
74 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

be canceled by returning all previous payments. To

be eligible for the program, land must be privately owned inland-wetland areas of a certain type and

size that ‘‘in the absence of inclusion in the program, a change in use could reasonably be expected

which would destroy its wetland character. Other

eligible land includes privately owned land, adjacent to eligible wetlands, which is essential for the

nesting, breeding, or feeding of migratory waterfowl. Normally, in order to be eligible for participation, landowners must agree to designate a total

of at least 10 acres in a conservation plan developed

in cooperation with the soil and water conservation district in which the farm is located. Acreage

can be less than 10 acres upon recommendation

from SCS. The designated acreage must contain

sufficient adjacent land for protecting the wetland

and must provide essential habitat for the nesting,

breeding, or feeding of migratory waterfowl.

From program inception in 1972 through 1982,

congressional appropriations totaled over $100 million, with a little over 185,000 acres of wetlands

and 480,000 acres of adjacent lands being covered

by the 6,000 plus agreements that have been signed.

Appropriations in 1982 were $8.8 million.

Other Environmental Programs

and Policies

Executive Order 11990

Promulgated in May 1977, Executive Order

11990, Protection of Wetlands, mandates that each

Federal agency in carrying out its individual responsibilities take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values

of wetlands. This order specifically requires that

agencies avoid undertaking or assisting new construction in wetlands unless no practicable alternative exists, that all practical measures to minimize

harm to wetlands are included in the action, and

that agencies consider a proposal’s effect on the survival and quality of wetlands. The examples that

follow, while not directed at wetlands per se, have

had some effect in protecting wetlands.

Executive Order 11988

Promulgated in May 1977, Executive Order

11988, Flood Plain Management, requires each

Federal agency to avoid direct or indirect support

of flood plain development wherever there is a practical alternative. Agencies are charged with the

responsibility of providing leadership in restoring

and preserving the beneficial values of flood plains

and in reducing the risk of flood loss and the impact of floods on human welfare. Insofar as many

wetlands are located in flood plains, this order could

influence much wetland development.

Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 apply to such

Federal activities as construction projects, acquisition and disposal of lands, and grants in aid and

technical assistance to States and localities for such

activities as land and water planning and the building of roads, sewers, and water supply systems.

They do not apply to federally permitted or licensed

activities on private property. Most Federal agencies have issued regulations to implement the orders

in interim or final form; however, several sources

believe that they have had little impact on wetland

losses. However, by helping to educate people to

the values of wetlands, these Executive orders may

indirectly have influenced Federal Government decisions about wetlands use.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as

amended in 1958, requires that wildlife conservation be given consideration equal to the concern

for other aspects of the water resource development

projects of the Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, and

other Federal agencies. This act has empowered

FWS and the NMFS to evaluate the impact on fish

and wildlife of all new Federal projects and federally

permitted projects, including projects permitted

under section 404. FWS and NMFS have used their

authority under this act to attempt to limit adverse

impacts of projects on wetlands.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1972 prohibits

any Federal agency from undertaking or funding

a project that will threaten a rare or endangered
Ch. 4—Wet/and Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands . 75

species. As many such species depend on various

wetlands, some wetland development is restricted

de facto by this statute.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

of 1969 provides that EISs be prepared for Federal

activities and federally permitted activities that

would have significant environmental impacts. EISs

must address such things as the environmental impact of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the action

is implemented, and alternatives to the proposed

action. While NEPA does not prohibit or otherwise constrain Federal actions once an EIS has been

prepared, the process of EIS preparation makes it

more likely that project impacts and ways of lessening impacts will be considered. NEPA reviews have

been applied to many projects suspected of posing

substantial impacts to wetlands.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES)

Section 402 of CWA authorizes a national system

for the regulation of point sources of pollutants into

the waters of the United States, with regulation by

either EPA or through approved State programs.

Some discharges into wetlands have been controlled

through NPDES permitting.

Assistance to States and Localities

Development and Operation of

Regulatory Programs

Several sources of Federal funding have been

available to assist States, and in some cases localities, to develop and administer regulatory programs

that may include wetland protection features.

The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program

is an example of a program not directed primarily

at wetlands in which the Federal Government and

the States mutually influence one another’s wetland-related activities. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972, the Federal Office of

Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) sets guidelines and provides funding for States to prepare

CZM programs. Approval of a State CZM program after review by OCZM enables a State to receive further funding for program implementation.

States have used such funding to hire personnel,

monitor and enforce CZM regulations, and provide technical assistance to localities, among other

purposes. Federal guidelines for State programs include provisions that impacts on wetlands be considered. Annual reviews of State programs are carried out by OCZM and include review of how wetlands are being treated in programs. Federal influence is exercised through the granting or withholding of program approval and the concomitant disbursement of funds. States, of course, may forego

Federal guidelines, review, and funding and design

and/or implement their own CZM programs. State

influence through CZM programs over Federal activities, such as the granting of 404 permits, is discussed later in this section.

Technical Assistance and Grants in Aid

Federal funding and technical assistance to States

and localities may be used for purposes directly protecting wetlands. Conditions attached to Federal

aid used for other purposes may indirectly support

wetlands protection. For example, through the

Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937

(Pittman-Robertson Act), FWS provides grants to

States for up to 75 percent of the cost of projects

for the acquisition, restoration, and maintenance

of wildlife areas, including wetlands. Grants are

drawn from an 1 l-percent Federal excise tax on the

sale of firearms and ammunition. Close to $1 billion

has been given to States, which have acquired over

3.5 million acres, over 1.5 million of which are

waterfowl areas.

The Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act ( 1950)

commonly known as the Dingell-Johnson Act, provides Federal assistance to States for projects pertaining to fish. The provisions of the Dingell-Johnson Act are parallel to those of the Pittman-Robertson Act. Funds derived from the Federal excise tax

on fishing equipment and bait are apportioned annually among the States—40 percent on the basis

of geographical area and 60 percent on the basis

of the number of persons holding paid licenses to

fish for sport or recreation. Funds so apportioned

to the States are available for use by them for ‘‘fish

restoration and management projects’ or, since

1970, “comprehensive fish and wildlife resource

management plans. The Federal share in the cost

of such projects or plans is not to exceed 75 percent.
76 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Through the Land and Water Conservation

Fund, matching grants are given to States, counties, and localities for outdoor recreation purchases.

From 1965 through the end of 1982, 137 projects

involving 61,585 acres of wetlands were given $40.7

million from this funding source.

Other Federal Assistance

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

has indirectly encouraged the destruction or degradation of wetlands, especially in the past, by partially underwriting the risks of building in floodprone areas, some of which may also be wetlands.

However, this program now has rules in force that

discourage building in areas of known flood risk

and that lessen the impacts of development that does

take place. For example, communities with mangroves that act as coastal flood-protective barriers

must adopt regulations protecting the mangroves

in order to qualify for insurance under the program.

Fills are prohibited in some settings, and the use

of piles or columns where the elevation of structures is necessary is encouraged. Although the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not itself

regulate flood plain use, localities wishing to qualify

for federally subsidized flood insurance must agree

to adopt regulations meeting Federal standards.

More than 17,000 communities have adopted or

have indicated an intent to adopt flood plain regulations, and more than $35 billion in policies have

been issued. Many communities now regulating

wetland development do so through flood plain regulations designed not only to reduce flood problems

but also to protect wetland functions. The NFIP

very recently has begun acquiring areas that frequently are flooded.

Wetland Research Programs*

While NMFS, EPA, FWS, the National Science

Foundation (NSF), and other Federal agencies con-

*Information for this section of the report was collected through

personal communication with:

1. Ted Laroe—FWS Office of Biological Services (Mar. 23, 1983);

2. Herb Quinn—EPA’s Office of Research and Development (Mar.

23, 1983);

3. Dr. Dean Parsons—National Marine Fisheries Service (Mar. 23,

1983);

4. Dr. Gary Barret—NSF’s Biotic Systems Program (Mar. 25,

1983); and

5. Bill Kleshe—COE (Mar. 28, 1983).

duct wetlands research that is related directly to

their respective missions, the Corps is the only Federal agency that has a program set up specifically

for wetlands research. The Corps’ wetland-research

program is carried out primarily by the Waterways

Experiment Station (WES).

A 5-year wetland research program was set up

by the Corps to begin in 1982. Three research priorities are established for this program: 1) to develop improved and standardized techniques to assist Corps personnel in the field identification and

delineation of wetlands, 2) to assess and quantify

wetland values for use in evaluating permit activities, and 3) to develop techniques for wetland restoration in permafrost, freshwater interior, and

coastal environment. Little research has been focused on evaluating the impacts of wetland loss.

Research on the field identification and delineation (mapping) of wetlands presently is being conducted, and the Corps expects to complete this

phase of its research by 1985. The next focus for

the research program is the quantification of the

functional values of wetlands. Part of this research

is underway. WES, for instance, already has completed an evaluation of techniques for assessment

of wetland values, and they are currently in the

process of assembling a data base of regional literature on wetland values. This data base will be combined with a similar base developed by FWS and

then computerized to provide easy access to field

personnel, In November 1983, the Corps conducted

a workshop to discuss the future direction for research to quantify wetland values. The workshop

was attended by Corps personnel at the district level

as well as those at the Washington level. For fiscal

year 1983, $620,000 was allocated to the Corps’

wetland-research program.

While research that may pertain to wetlands may

be conducted under FWS programs on endangered

species, fisheries, and wildlife, the central research

program at FWS—the Office of Biological Services (OBS)—allocates $400,000, or approximately

5 to 7 percent of its total funding, for wetland research. These funds are allocated to four research

projects: 1) a computerized bibliography of literature on wetland values; 2) a list of wetland plants

and soils (to aid in delineation); 3) a nearly completed assessment of the ecological impacts of dis-
Ch. 4–Wet/and Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands • 77

posing of wastewater on wetlands; and 4) an evaluation of mapping-display technology.

At NMFS, approximately $6 million is slated

now for ‘‘habitat research. About one-half of that

amount is devoted to estuarine habitats, which

would include all the NMFS research on wetlands.

Half of the estuarine-related research is spent on

ecological studies; the other half is spent on pollution-related studies. The research findings from

both types of studies have a bearing on wetlands.

Such research is carried out by regional centers,

whose focus on wetland research depends on the

priority of wetlands in the region. The Southeast

Center probably conducts the most research on wetlands and at present is investigating the importance

of wetland detrital flow into estuarine waters.

At EPA, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) is responsible for wetland research.

ORD has a separate work unit setup for wetlands,

but it is not funded at present. The approximately

$300,000 allocated for water research by ORD includes wetland research.

NSF conducts basic research on wetlands through

four different NSF programs, though primarily by

the Biotic Systems Program, which conducts community-level studies (e. g., population studies), and

the Ecosystem Studies Program, which is responsible for large ecosystem studies (e. g., an integrated

analysis of the Okeefenokee Swamp). It is not possible to identify the funds spent on wetlands as opposed to other research areas. In 1978, NSF sponsored a workshop on research priorities for wetland-ecosystem analysis; the proceedings of this

workshop were published and are available through

the Environmental Law Institute.

The foregoing agencies all appear to have some

more or less formal means of establishing intraagency research priorities. NMFS, for instance, develops a strategic plan; FWS programs go through

what they call a ‘‘research-needs identification process . However, there is no formal mechanism to

provide for interagency coordination of research.

All the agency representatives contacted said that

there is a great deal of informal communication between agencies. In addition, in 1981, the agencies

met in Kearneysville, W. Va., to discuss their respective plans for wetland research. Proceedings of

this symposium were not published. Though coordination of research plans between the agencies

is informal, research projects have been sponsored

jointly. Current joint studies are being conducted

between NMFS and the Corps, between FWS and

EPA, and between the Corps and FWS.

Federal Programs That Affect

Agricultural Conversions *

In the past, Federal programs encouraged the

direct conversion of wetlands to agricultural use.

Although funding of this type has been eliminated

and policies to prevent alteration of wetlands have

been established in some agencies, implementation

of such policies has not been entirely effective. The

other programs that still reduce the costs and risks

associated with conversion include: income tax provisions, and to a limited extent, cost-sharing and

technical-assistance programs for conservation practices sponsored by USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and SCS,

loan programs of the Farmers Home Administration, disaster payments, and crop insurance and

commodity programs, In some regions, these policies add to the clear profitability of wetland conversion only if crop prices are sufficiently high. In

other regions, wetland conversions may be unprofitable even with direct or indirect Federal assistance.

Past Policies Encouraging Wetland Drainage

Between 1940 and 1977, USDA was authorized

to assist landowners in draining their wetlands by

providing both technical information and cost-sharing under the Agricultural Conservation Program

(ACP). Between 1942 and 1980 nearly 57 million

acres of wet farmland, including some wetlands,

were drained under this program; most of this

drainage occurred in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Minnesota had more land drained than any other State

(over 5 million acres).

In 1962, Congress enacted Public Law 87-732

forbidding USDA from providing financial or technical assistance for wetland drainage in Minnesota,

North Dakota, and South Dakota if the Secretary

of the Interior found that wildlife preservation

*Discussion based on information gathered in OTA case studies

and an OTA working paper on agricultural policies prepared by Ken

Cook.
78 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

would be materially harmed by the drainage. G

These findings were to be made on a farm-by-farm

basis and to continue for 1 year unless a Government agency offered to purchase or lease the wetland. If such an offer was made but rejected by the

landowner, the prohibition was to terminate 5 years

after the Secretary of the Interior’s finding.

In 1977 President Carter issued Executive Order

11990 requiring all Federal agencies to minimize

loss of all types of wetlands. As a result, ASCS costsharing for draining wetlands was eliminated in

1978. Also, SCS employees were limited officially

in the technical information they could provide

about wetland drainage .

7 More recent regulatory

changes have been made that give SCS ‘‘additional

flexibility in providing technical assistance to alter

wetlands when denial of assistance could lead to detrimental consequences on soil and water resources

or on human welfare and safety. The rules

strengthen the requirements to utilize all practicable

measures to minimize impacts on wetlands resulting

from SCS-assisted projects. 9

When private drainage occurs, information by

SCS may improve the efficiency of drainage. In addition, if SCS designs the drain, there is an opportunity that the constructed drain will affect only part

of the wetlands while preserving the remainder.

Technical information could aid in protecting wetlands in this way. Regardless of stated policy, however, it will continue to be difficult to control effectively the distribution of technical information

about drainage.

Comments about the impacts of USDA costsharing on drainage varied. Those feeling that the

impact was substantial cited the subsidy, stating

that its elimination has to have an impact. Others

feel that Federal and State governments still support drainage only in attitude. Information collected

from OTA case studies suggests that Executive

Order 11990 has probably not had a significant affect on drainage (2).

6

16 U.S. C. S.590, p. 1.

7

7 CFR, pt. 650.26.

8

7 CFR, pt. 650-Summary.

‘Federal Register, vol. 44, No. 147, July 30, 1979—650.26(c) (2)

(i) (B) and (C).

Present Policies That Reduce Costs of

Wetland Conversion

Federal Income Tax. —Numerous studies have

pointed to Federal income tax writeoffs for all types

of development activities as an important incentive

to farmers to clear and drain wetlands for agricultural use. These provisions enable farmers to shift

a portion of the investment costs of wetlands conversion to the general taxpayer. The incentives

include:

● tax deductions from taxable income for landclearing costs of up to $5,000 or 25 percent

of taxable income (whichever is less);

● tax deductions of up to 25 percent of gross

farm income for drainage expenses (expenses

in excess of this allowable limit may be deducted in subsequent years);

. investment tax credit equal to 10 percent of

the installation cost for drainage tile. This is

a direct reduction of tax liability;

● tax deductions for depreciation on all capital

investments necessary for any type of farming, including draining and clearing for bottom land farming, up to 5.5¢ per dollar invested if the investments have an expected life

of 7 years of more; and

● deductions for interest payments.

Several researchers have provided examples of

how these tax provisions can lower the cost of wetland conversion to farmers. Using 1978 cost estimates developed by Shulstad and May (5), Shabman (4) has calculated that the application of tax

provisions could lower the cost of bottom land clearing in east Arkansas by about 30 percent (e. g., from

$311.67 to $218. 17/acre). Shabman further calculated in a hypothetical example that a farmer in a

30-percent tax bracket, who financed this conversion with a 20-year loan at a 10-percent interest rate

effectively could reduce that interest rate to 7 percent and his annual loan payments from $36.60 to

$20.59 over the period of the loan, “a significant

(44 percent) reduction in cash-flow needs. ”

Barrows, et al. (l), performed a similar analysis

of the effects of some tax policies on drainage costs

in Wisconsin and came to similar conclusions.

Without the tax incentives—the soil- and water-
Ch. 4— Wetland Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands . 79

conservation deduction for drainage costs, the depreciation for drainage tile, and the investment tax

credit for the tile-the increment to income for each

drained acre would be considerably lower for farms

with taxable household incomes in the $12,000 to

$20,000 range. The value of the tax incentives increases as income rises, up to a certain level that

easily is exceeded by large farming enterprises.

Partial budgets were used in a detailed study of

drainage costs in Minnesota (6). The budgets included gross returns, production costs, and amortized drainage costs. Drainage costs ranged from

$35 to $260/acre, depending on the size of the wetland and topography. Annual net returns in the

prairie-pothole region varied considerably, with a

high of $29 to a loss of $10/drained acre. Inclusion

of property-tax effects (including Minnesota’s tax

credit) and State and Federal income taxes were

occasionally large enough to offset a before-tax loss

on the drainage investment. In the prairie-pothole

region, net returns per year after taxes generally

ranged from $0 to $20/acre. Income tax generally

had the effect of reducing losses where before-tax

returns were negative, and decreasing gains in areas

where before-tax returns were positive. Deductions

for drainage costs are taken prior to the returns

from future commodities grown on the drained

area, thereby resulting in a positive effect in early

years (2).

Cost-Sharing and Technical Assistance.—The

USDA ACP provides payments to farmers of up

to 80 percent of the cost of construction of a wide

variety of conservation practices. Practices for

which cost-sharing is offered are developed by farmer-elected committees at the county level in consultation with county program development groups

and are subject to the approval of a State committee. Other Federal programs such as the Great

Plains Program provide similar assistance on a regional basis. Many States also have programs that

may cover a portion of the non-Federal costs for

projects supported by Federal cost-sharing programs.

Although direct drainage of wetlands is not

funded under ACP, eligible practices for funding

by these programs include actions that can lead to

wetland drainage and filling. For example, in Nebraska, eligible practices for irrigation water conservation include dugouts, reuse pits, land leveling, irrigation ditch lining, and underground piping, Restrictions on the use of these Federal funds

for wetland conversion include prohibitions on

funding activities with the primary purpose of

bringing new lands under irrigation, such as changing the surface area or depth of some types of wetlands and installing systems where the bottom of

the pit is below the ground water surface. However,

implementation of these provisions is difficult.

Administering agencies and their local agents

have considerable discretion in interpreting and applying these restrictions. Program restrictions are

particularly difficult to implement in areas such as

the Rainwater Basin where the condition of wetlands varies from year to year, depending on seasonal and annual precipitation. Decisionmakers

may be under considerable pressure from their

neighbors to approve a project and to determine

that an area is not a wetland. Available evidence

and discussions with many people indicate that

some cost-sharing still is used for wetland drainage.

However, it generally is agreed that the implementation of the cost-sharing programs are increasingly

responsive to policies to protect remaining wetlands

(3). In fact, many thousands of acres of wetlands

have been created or improved with technical

assistance from SGS.

The importance of cost-sharing assistance in a

farmer’s decision to convert wetlands was analyzed

in OTA’s Nebraska case study (3). It provided an

analysis of the profitability of the different conversion activities in Nebraska and concluded that most

conversions have questionable profitability. Government cost-sharing of $19.86/acre/yr for producing irrigated corn on wetlands drained with the installation of a reuse-pit system resulted in a 16-year

average annual net revenue per acre of $30.32, versus $10.46 without Government cost-sharing. Production of irrigated corn on smaller, shallower wetlands that could be filled by leveling was the most

profitable at $57.24 for the same period of time with

Government cost-sharing assistance of $5.88/acre/

yr. These returns were considered to be modest.

However, even with the Government cost-sharing,

a farmer would have lost money in 2 of the 16 years

investigated, and profits would have been less than

$10/acre in 3 additional years. Without Govern-
80 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ment assistance, the farmer would have lost money

in 5 of the 16 years investigated, and profits would

have been less than $10/acre in 4 additional years.

Using economic multiplier analysis, the Nebraska study then estimated the impact on the State

economy of investment expenditures made to drain

and convert wetlands for expanded agricultural use

and of new crop production resulting from this conversion. Based on estimates of the annual wetland

acreage lost each year and on the types of profitable

conversions that occurred in the Rainwater Basin,

the study concluded that the income resulting from

converting wetlands in the Rainwater Basin to irrigated corn is less than 0.000072 percent of State

personal income and around 0.000056 percent of

the personal income in the 17-county Rainwater

Basin area.

Other examples of converting Rainwater Basin

wetlands to irrigated alfalfa with reuse systems and

to dryland wheat farming resulted in losses in net

annual revenue per acre over the 16-year average,

regardless of Federal cost-sharing assistance.

Farmers Home Administration Loans.—Programs administered by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) have been noted as having a potentially adverse effect on wetlands. For example,

FmHA personnel stated in interviews with an OTA

contractor that FmHA operating loans have been

used for wetland conversion even in the recent past.

FmHA agrees that wetland conversions should not

be financed through FmHA, but there are practical problems in implementing such a policy. FmHA

published draft regulations to comply with Executive Order 11990 and other environmental laws in

1982. These regulations, when finalized, will disallow approval or funding of any proposals that

would directly or indirectly result in conversions

of wetlands. Implementation is expected to vary between States and counties, since decisionmakers at

the State and local levels have broad discretion in

making a loan decision. Although loan applicants

may be required to have SC S farm-conservation

plans that would provide for the protection of wetlands, it is not clear to what extent the farm plans

will have to be implemented to receive FmHA assistance.

Federal Disaster Payments and Crop insurance. —Recent congressional and USDA policy

changes exclude high-risk areas from disaster

payments and subsidized crop insurance. Specific

areas that are excluded from coverage are being

mapped in each county. Although wetlands are not

specifically excluded from coverage under the program (the Federal Crop Insurance Agency that administers the program hasn’t issued regulations for

complying with Executive Order 11990), areas such

as wetlands that are subject to unacceptably high

risks from flooding or excess moisture generally are

excluded. If an area is subject to flooding as frequently as every 4 to 5 years, it is unlikely to receive

either disaster payments or subsidized crop insurance. In some areas of the country, for instance,

especially the Missouri and Mississippi River Basins, certain flood plain and wetland areas are excluded from coverage because of the high risk of

crop loss to flooding. Also, some wetlands in Minnesota are excluded because of the high risk of summer flooding.

Commodity Programs.—While the actual impact of price supports and target prices have probably not been significant in encouraging wetland

conversions, they have been criticized for the following four reasons.

1. Commodity programs have the potential to

increase crop prices above the level that would

prevail without the programs. These artificially high prices might encourage farmers to increase their amount of land in crops by converting wetlands. However, these artificially

high prices still are relatively low and only go

into effect when market prices drop to the

average cost of production. Even with the artificially higher price, a farmer with average

production costs is unlikely to be in a financial position to undertake costly conversions.

However, because larger farmers may have

production costs lower than the national average and are more likely to participate in the

commodity programs, commodity programs

may aid some larger farmers in their conversion efforts.
Ch. 4—Wetland Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands • 81

2.

3.

Commodity programs reduce the risk associated with growing certain crops. Guaranteed

floor prices may improve the long-term financial feasibility of converting wetlands and

make agricultural lenders more willing to finance conversion operations. In the case of

soybeans, which have only a floor price and

not the other features of commodity programs

for other crops, market prices have until very

recently remained well above the floor price,

and the program hardly has been used.

Commodity programs for most crops (not soybeans) set restrictions on the acreage that a

participating farmer can plant in a particular

crop each year. Usually the farmer must not

plant about 10 percent of his ‘ ‘normal crop

acreage’ (NCA). However, NCA can be increased by draining wetlands, allowing the

farmer to plant more acreage in the future.

Although a farmer who planted more than the

allowable acreage in a particular year would

not be eligible for commodity payments that

year (e. g., by converting wetlands), his NCA

4.

would be increased in subsequent years, However, for the 1983 farm program the Congress

mandated that commodity payments would

generally be based on the acreage planted in

the preceding year. Therefore, no lands that

were added to production in 1982 are included

in NCA this year. It is expected that farmers

will be able to increase their acreages sometime in the future.

Commodity programs (at least in the past) encouraged land management practices that

may have adverse impacts on wetlands. For

example, summer fallow for wheat can result

in erosion that fills in surrounding wetlands.

In 1977, Congress required proper soil conservation measures on summer-fallow acreage

eligible for the wheat program. However, as

with other commodity programs, few farmers

participated until recently, when crop prices

dropped. Thus, many farmers may not be following conservation practices on summer

fallow.

STATE PROGRAMS

States vary greatly in their approaches and

attitudes toward wetland protection. Even within

States, different agencies may take different positions on wetland protection and development—e. g.,

as with Federal entities, State environmental agencies and State transportation and water-resource

agencies often find themselves in disagreement. The

direction of State programs is open to change by

reason of changes in political leadership and

changes in State fiscal health, among others. Despite these caveats, a number of observations may

be made about State wetland protection efforts.

Wetland Regulation

More than a dozen States have permitting programs specifically directed at controlling the use of

wetlands. Most of these programs are administered

directly by State agencies, although local governments may be given the authority to veto approval

of some projects. A few States have State standardsetting for regulation. Local governments formulate, administer, and enforce regulations meeting

or exceeding wetland protection set by the State.

In States where local programs dominate, the States

may retain the authority to review local decisions

or to intervene only where localities fail to create

adequate controls. States also may provide technical assistance to local program administrators.

A few States have established innovative regulatory programs for wetland protection that differ

from the more typical permit or zoning approaches.

For example, in Massachusetts, the Coastal and Inland Wetland Restriction Acts place deed restrictions on wetland property to limit use to waterrelated uses such as docks, recreation, farming, and

driveways into unrestricted land. Thus far, over

40,000 of the estimated 60,000 acres of coastal wetlands have been subjected to the law and only 5,000

acres of inland wetlands have been restricted. Another example of an innovative program is the Minnesota Protected Waters Program and its relation-
82 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ship with the Minnesota Water Bank Program. Permits for drainage are required but automatically

are denied for wetlands identified as protected

waters (i. e., wetland types 3, 4, and 5, greater than

10 acres and 2.5 acres in unincorporated and incorporated areas, respectively). The landowner will

be able to drain legally if within 60 days the State

fails to offer some type of compensation. Without

this offer, Minnesota case law would declare the

rejection an illegal taking because the owner was

not justly compensated. Acceptable offers, according to the statute, include State Water Bank payments, purchase, or indemnification by other

means such as conservation restrictions, easements,

leases, or any applicable Federal program. As discussed in more detail in chapter 9, State regulation of coastal wetlands is far more common than

that of inland wetlands.

Acquisition

Several States have programs that give priority

to the acquisition of wetlands.

Incentives to Landowners

Some States authorize tax relief for landowners

to preserve wetland and other open-space areas. At

least one State has a program resembling the Federal Water Bank Program. Under the Minnesota

Water Bank Program, requirements for participation are more stringent than those for the Federal

program (i. e., wetlands must be of such a nature

that drainage would be lawful, feasible, and practical, that drainage would provide high-quality

cropland, and that cropland is its projected use).

Payment rates also are much higher under this State

program than under the Federal program. In 1981,

annual payments ranged from $85 to $125/acre.

Other Programs

Many States control wetlands use through programs whose primary purpose is not wetlands protection. Types of programs include:

● coastal zone management,

● flood plain management,

● shoreline zoning,

. scenic and wild rivers protection,

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

critical or natural areas protection,

dredge and fill acts,

wildlife and waterfowl protection,

public lands management,

public education,

stream alteration requirements, and

site location of developments.

State Influence on Federal Activities

The Corps seeks good relations with State governments and usually will defer to strongly expressed State wishes concerning particular projects.

In several Corps districts, the Corps will not act

on a permit prior to a State decision about a project. In addition to these informal mechanisms, several legal requirements establish State influence in

Federal wetland-permitting decisions.

The Clean Water Act and Corps Regulations

Section 404(t) of CWA requires that each Federal agency comply with State requirements to control the discharge of dredged or fill material as long

as such requirements do not affect or impair the

authority of the Secretary of the Army (i. e., the

Corps) to maintain navigation.

Section 320.4(j)(l) of the Corps regulations implementing section 404 states that the processing

of applications for Corps permits normally will proceed concurrently with the processing of other required Federal, State, or local authorizations or certifications, If any of these other authorizations are

denied, the permit application to the Corps also will

be denied. * Even if such certification or authorization is not required by the governmental units concerned, the Corps will give due consideration to the

comments and views of the State, regional, or local

agency having jurisdiction or interest over the particular activity in question.10 Similarly, the officially

adopted State, regional, or local land use classifications, determinations, or policies that are applicable

to the areas under consideration shall be considered

by the Corps as part of the public interest review. 11

● Prior to the July 1982 changes, this was stated directly at a different point: “Permits will not be issued where certification or authorization of the proposed work is required by Federal, State, and/or local

law and that certification or authorization has been denied. ”

(j320.4fi][5]). This section was eliminated by the 1982 revisions.

Ioc]ean Water Act, sec. 320.4(j)(l).

Ilc]ean water Act, sec. 325(j)(2).
Ch. 4—Wetland Programs That Affect the Use of Wetlands . 83

In cases where several agencies within a State comment on an application and conflict, and no agency has been designated to provide a single State position, the Corps will ask the State’s Governor to

designate such an agency to provide his/her views

directly .12 Finally, division engineers will refer permit applications to the Chief of Engineers in cases

where the recommended decision is contrary to the

stated (1982 revisions: written) position of the Governor of the State in which the work is to be performed .13 The Corps generally will issue a permit

following receipt of a favorable State determination unless it finds ‘‘overriding national factors of

the public interest’ that cause it to overrule the

State permit decision. 14

Section 401 of CWA provides that no Federal

license or permit for an activity that may result in

a discharge into navigable waters shall be issued

unless the State in which the discharge originates

certifies that such a discharge will comply with the

provisions of CWA, The main application of this

section is to 404-permit requests. Generally, the

State agency responsible for water quality decides

on certification. A few States use this

chief means of regulating wetland

Coastal Zone Management Act

section as their

development.

Section 307(c) of the Coastal

Act (CZMA) of 1972 requires

Zone Management

that all Federal activities significantly affecting the coastal zones of

States with CZM plans approved by the Secretary

of Commerce be conducted in a manner consistent

with such State CZM plans. In States with approved CZM programs, applicants for 404 permits

must include in their application to the Corps a certification that the proposed activity complies with

the State’s program. If within a 6-month period the

State agency responsible for coastal zone management informs the Corps that it does not concur in

the applicant’s certification of consistency, the

Corps may not issue the permit, unless the Secretary of Commerce overrides that State’s objection

on grounds that the activity is consistent with the

purposes of CZMA or is necessary in the interests

of national security.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

and the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, any

Federal agency that proposes to control or modify

any body of water must first consult with FWS,

NMFS, and the head of the appropriate State agency administering the wildlife resources of the State

concerned. While the Act does not give State agencies a concrete power to veto or modify Federal proposals, it does mandate a certain level of State involvement in the consideration of many projects

potentially affecting wetlands.

IzC]ean water Act, sec. 320.4Q)(3).

Isc]ean water Act, sec. 325.8(b)(2)

I+ Clean water Act, sec. 320.4(j)(4).

LOCAL PROGRAMS

In some areas of the country, the principal means and other protected areas. In addition, some proof wetland protection outside of the 404 program tection is afforded by local implementation of State

come from local programs. Some localities have ac- or Federal regulations. For instance, State shorequired wetlands directly or have included wetland land zoning administered by localities in several

parcels along with other land acquisitions for parks States (e. g., Wisconsin) has provisions that protect
84 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

wetlands. The National Flood Insurance Program, ground structures, and such uses may be prohibited

implemented in localities, has several features that by local codes. Several States have State standardhave the effect of protecting wetlands. setting for local regulation (e. g., Virginia, MassaMoreover, local building, sanitary, and other chusetts, and Connecticut). Local zoning power

also has been used to protect wetlands by providing types of codes have had the effect of protecting wet- for adequate open space and recreational areas. lands in many localities. For example, wetlands are

often poor locations for siting septic tanks or abovePRIVATE INITIATIVES

Many private organizations are involved in wetland protection. Private efforts such as those of the

Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and the

Audubon Society, which have protected many

thousands of acres of wetlands along with other

types of natural areas through direct acquisition,

partial interest, and other means. For example, the

Richard King Mellon Foundation recently gave the

Nature Conservancy a $25 million grant towards

its efforts to conserve wetland ecosystems in the

United States. Ducks Unlimited is another private

organization interested in preserving wetlands for

duck habitat. Many other national environmental

organizations, while not directly managing wetland

areas, carry out various activities (e. g., education)

that help protect wetlands. Hundreds of other organizations on a local or regional level have been

active in wetland protection, including fish and

CHAPTER

1. Barrows, R., Henneberry, D., and Schwartz,

2

3

wildlife clubs, hunting organizations, and general

or special purpose environmental organizations.

Recognizing that Federal acquisition of land

or easements to meet FWS goals exceeds the Federal Government’s fiscal capability at this time,

POWDR group was formed by the Department of

the Interior’s former Secretary James Watt. It is

composed of representatives from sportsmen’s organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited and Bass

Angler’s Sportsmen’s Society, and from corporations such as DuPont and Olin. The aim of the

group is to advise public and private officials on

wetlands protection and to encourage owners of

wetlands, duck hunting clubs, and others to make

gifts of their land or development rights on their

land to private conservation groups, State agencies,

or FWS.

“Individual Economic Incentives, The Tax System

4 REFERENCES

s .? 4. Shabman, L., “Economic Incentives for Bottomland

and Wetland Protection Policy: A Study of Returns

to Wetlands Drainage in Southeastern Wisconsin,

American Society of Agricultura.1 Engineers, summer 5

meeting, 1982, p. 26.

Department of Agricultural Economics, “Wetlands

in the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota, North

Dakota, and South Dakota—Trends and Issues, ”

North Dakota State University, contract study for 6

OTA, August 1982, pp. 56-60.

Great Plains Office of Policy Studies, “Wetland

Trends and Protection Programs in Nebraska, ” University of Nebraska, contract study for OTA, September 1982, pp. 49-55.

Conversion: The Role of Public Policy and Programs, ” Proceedings of Forty-Fifih North American

Wildlife Conference, 1980, pp. 402-12.

Shulstad, R. N., and May, R. D., “Cropland Conversion Study for the Mississippi Delta Region,

report to Resources for the Future, Department of

Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 1979, p. 181.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers, “The Economics of

Wetlands Drainage in Agricultural Minnesota, ” St.

Paul District, St. Paul, Minn., 1981.

Contents

Page

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

National Trends—Net Loss and Gain..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Factors Affecting Wetland Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Trend Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Vegetated Wetland Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Freshwater Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Saltwater Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Regional Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Agricultural Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

National Trends in Agricultural Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

TABLES

Table No. Page

11. Relationship Between Wetland Types Used for This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

12. Probable Causes of Freshwater Vegetated Wetland Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

13. Probable Causes of Saltwater Vegetated Wetland Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

14. Physiographic Regions Used for Regional Analysis of

National Wetland Trends Study Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

15. Pattern of Wetland Loss by Physiographic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

16. Percentage of Vegetated Wetland Loss to Different Uses

by Physiographic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

17. Wetland Case Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

18. Agricultural Conversions of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

19. Conversions of Wetlands to Open-Water and Deep-Water Environments . . . . . . . . . . . 102

20. Wetland Losses From Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

21. Wetland Losses From Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

22. Surface and Subsurface Drainage of Farmland, 1900-1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

6. Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

7. Freshwater Wetland Trends ........, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

8, Saltwater Wetland Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

9. Physical Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Chapter 5

Wetland Trends

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Within the last 200 years, 30 to 50 percent of the

wetlands in the lower 48 States have been converted

by activities such as agriculture, mining, forestry,

oil and gas extraction, and urbanization. About 90

million acres are covered now by wetlands, According to the most recent Federal survey, approximately 11 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 States

were converted to other uses between the mid1950’s and mid-1970’s. This amount was equivalent to a net loss each year of about 550,000 acres,

or about 0.5 percent, of remaining wetlands. Present nationwide rates of wetland conversion are

about half of those measured in the 1950’s and

1960’s. This reduction is due primarily to declining rates of agricultural drainage and secondarily

to government programs that regulate wetlands use.

While coastal wetlands are protected reasonably

well through a combination of Federal and State

regulatory programs, inland, freshwater wetlands,

which comprise 95 percent of the Nation’s wetlands,

generally are not well protected.

Wetland conversion rates and activities vary significantly throughout the country. On the one

hand, conversions in the Lower Mississippi River

Valley occurred between the mid- 1950’s and mid1970’s at rates that were nearly three times the national average; on the other hand, rates in the Atlantic coast (exclusive of Florida) were only 30 percent of the national average. Overall, wetland conversions occurred in coastal areas at rates that were

about 25 percent less than inland conversion rates.

Ninety-seven percent of actual wetland losses occurred in inland, freshwater areas during this 20-

year period. Agricultural conversions involving

drainage, clearing, land leveling, ground water

pumping, and surface water diversion were responsible for 80 percent of the conversions. Of the remainder, 8 percent resulted from the construction of impoundments and large reservoirs, 6 percent from urbanization, and 6 percent from other

causes, such as mining, forestry, and road construction. Fifty-three percent of inland wetland conversions occurred in forested acres, such as bottom

lands. Of the actual losses of coastal wetlands, approximately 56 percent resulted from dredging for

marinas, canals, port development, and to a lesser

extent from erosion; 22 percent resulted from urbanization; 14 percent were due to dredged-material disposal or beach creation; 6 percent from natural

or man-induced transition of saltwater wetlands to

freshwater wetlands; and 2 percent were from agriculture.

NATIONAL TRENDS—NET LOSS AND GAIN

According to the National Wetland Trends Study

(NWTS) (8), conducted recently by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS), there were in the mid1970’s approximately 99 million acres of vegetated

and unvegetated wetlands in the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. * Saltwater (or estua-

● Alaska and Hawaii were not included in NWTS. However, the

Alaska District of the Corps of Engineers estimates that there may

be as many as 223 million acres of wetlands in Alaska, nearly 60 percent of the State, Almost half of this potential wetland acreage (98

million acres) is some type of tundra. overall, the loss of wetlands

in Alaska has not been great, although it has been concentrated in

a few locations. Figures for Hawaii were not obtained but are expected

to be quite low in relation to the data for the lower 48 states.

rine) wetlands comprise 5 percent of the wetlands;

the rest are freshwater wetlands. (See table 11 for

the relationship between the wetland types described in this chapter and those discussed in ch.

1,) About 93 million acres are vegetated types, including areas dominated by emergent plants (emergent wetlands), large trees (forested wetlands), and

shrubs and small trees (scrub/shrub wetlands). Between the mid- 1950’s and mid- 1970’s, there was

a net loss of these vegetated wetlands of approximately 11 million acres (fig. 6). Ninety-seven percent of this net loss was attributed to freshwater wetlands.

87
88 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Table Il.—Relationship Between Wetland Types Used for This Reporta

NWTS wetland classification National Wetland

types discussed in this chapter Trends Study code Wetland types discussed in chapter 2

Estuarine (saltwater:

● Intertidal vegetated:

Emergents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Salt and brackish marsh (coastal)

Forested/scrub/shrub . . . . . . 4 Mangrove (coastal)

● Intertidal nonvegetated:

Unconsolidated shore . . . . . . 5 Mudflats (coastal)

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Submerged beds (coastal)

● Deep water:

Subtidal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Submerged beds (coastal)

Palustrine (freshwater):

● Vegetated:

Forested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Wooded swamp, bottom land hardwood, bog, pocosin (inland)

Scrub/shrub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Bog, pocosin (inland)

Emergent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Freshwater marsh, saline marsh, freshwater tidal marsh (inland)

Tundra b 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — Tundra

● Nonvegetated:

Unconsolidated shore . . . . . . 11 —

Open water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 —

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 —

Lacustrine (lakes):

● Deepwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......14 —

a

terminology for wetlands used in this chapter Includes the classification used by NWTS (the recently adopted USFWS Classification System, with minor modifications

to distinguish vegetated and nonvegetated types, and large or deepwater areas from small or shallow-water areas); the old USFWS Circular 39 Classification System,

and lay language. Since strict correlations cannot be made between these three categories and information obtained by OTA, all three categories are used in this

chapter. The use of this variety of terminology is intended to clarify, rather than confuse, the discussion.

b Tundra not included in NWTS data. Under the recent USFWS classification system it is a palustrinelmosslichen wetland.

SOURCE: W. E. Frayer, T. J. Monahan, D. C. Bowden, and F. A. Grayhill, “Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Coterminous United States,

1950’s to 1970’ s,” Department of Forest and Wood Services, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., 1983, p, 31.

Figure 6.—Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950’s

(thousands of acres) Factors Affecting Wetland Loss

Wetland lost

15,132

SOURCE: Original data from FWS’s National Wetland Trends Study, 1982.

lands, and other uses (such as forestry, rangeland,

and mining). Major development activities associated with these losses of wetlands included dredging and excavation, filling, draining and clearing,

and flooding. These same activities were responsible for wetland losses in Alaska, although fill activities are probably the major source of Alaskan

losses.

Wetland characteristics may change and acreages

increase or decrease in response to natural factors

apart from, or in addition to, the development activities listed above. For example, variations in

climate have a major influence on the size and vegetation of wetlands in the prairie-pothole region and

in Nebraska, as well as on the ease with which they

can be altered for agricultural use (6,9). Natural

succession and activity of increased beaver popula-
Ch. 5—Wetland Trends . 89

tions were the greatest factors associated with wetland alteration in Massachusetts between 1951 and

1977; however, development activities were responsible for far more actual losses of wetlands.

Also, changes in sea level, sedimentation, erosion, subsidence, and overgrazing by birds or mammals all have played a role in the loss of wetlands

in coastal Louisiana (2). Because of the many factors involved, it is difficult to determine the significance of losses from natural processes relative to

those from man’s activities. However, there is evidence that until artificial hydrologic changes were

made, such as containment of the Mississippi River

and canal dredging, there was a slow, long-term

net gain of land (including wetlands) in the region

(2). The dramatic reverse of these gains implies that

much of the loss is man-induced, resulting from a

combination of sediment starvation; canal construction; saltwater intrusion from navigation channels;

and freshwater pumping for rice irrigation, marsh

impoundment, and cattle grazing (2). Losses reported by NWTS are discussed in more detail below, followed by a discussion of wetland trends

reported in regional case studies.

The average annual net-loss rate for the Nation’s

vegetated wetlands in the lower 48 States during

the 20-year period of NWTS was about 550,000

acres/yr, or about 0.5 percent of the Nation’s wetlands each year. It must be recognized, however,

that the rate of loss is not uniform throughout the

country. For example, the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain lost nearly 190,000 acres/yr, or about

1.6 percent of the region’s wetlands each year. The

Pacific mountains lost 19,000 acres/yr, but this also

represented about 1.6 percent of the region’s wetlands lost each year. These two regions had loss

Photo credit: OTA Staff, Joan Harn

A combination of levee and canal construction, saltwater intrusion from navigation channels, freshwater pumping for

rice irrigation, marsh impoundments, and cattle grazing have led to major wetland losses in coastal Louisiana

25-4 I 5 0 - 84 - 7
90 Ž Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

rates that were three times the national average.

The Atlantic and gulf coastal zones lost about

17,000 acres/yr, or about 0.35 percent of the combined regions’ wetlands, a little more than half of

the national rate.

Nonvegetated wetlands include about 6 million

acres of estuarine and palustrine unconsolidated

shore and other types of freshwater open water

(areas less than 20 acres in size or less than 2 meters

deep). Most of the net gain of about 2 million acres

in these nonvegetated wetland types between the

mid- 1950’s and mid- 1970’s involved the net increase of 1.7 million acres in freshwater, open water

from the ‘‘other use’ category (i. e., land that

formerly was neither wetland, agricultural, or

urban).

Trend Information

Information from NWTS is the most reliable information available and is used here to identify major sources of loss. The data has strong statistical

validity for nationwide figures on wetland gains and

losses and represents what happened to wetlands

prior to the implementation of the 404 program.

Recent information on how these trends may have

changed since the implementation of the 404 program in the mid-1970’s and the initiation of other

efforts to control wetland use is available on a

qualitative basis only for some regions of the country. Regional information from NWTS and case

studies provide less statistically precise trend information in specific areas of the country. The regional

case studies also examine other information sources,

including comparative studies and inventories, permit data, and personal interviews.

The recent availability of statistically reliable national estimates of wetlands in the mid-1950’s and

mid- 1970’s necessitates a reevaluation of previous

estimates of the loss of ‘original’ wetland acreage

in the lower 48 States since the time of European

settlement. All estimates of ‘original’ acreage are

limited by the lack of good data on the amount of

land that has been drained or otherwise reclaimed

and the relationship between wetlands and wetsoils.

The following OTA analysis relies on a comparison

of wetlands reported for the mid-1950’s by NWTS

(8) and the estimates of reclaimed lands for 1950

reported by Wooten (19). To develop an estimate

of the maximum percentage of reclaimed lands that

were wetlands, NWTS data were compared with

the difference between improved lands reported by

Wooten and agricultural lands on wetsoils in 1977

reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) (16).

The most commonly accepted estimate of 30- to

40-percent loss of original wetlands is based in part

on estimates of wetland acreage both originally and

in the 1950’s reported in Circular 39 (3, 15). In Circular 39, FWS estimated that a minimum of 45 million acres of wetlands had been reclaimed by the

mid-1950’s. If this estimate is valid and is added

to the 104 million acres of wetlands that NWTS

reported for the mid- 1950’s, then there would have

been a minimum of 149 million acres of ‘original’

wetlands, not the 127 million estimated by USDA’s

Soil Conservation Service (SCS). NWTS data,

therefore, indicate that FWS Circular 39 estimates

were about 20 percent too low.

The minimum value of 45 million acres of reclaimed wetlands by the mid-1950’s was developed

from data prepared by USDA; however, according

to Wooten, a total of 135 million acres had been

reclaimed by 1950. Many of these lands were probably just wetsoils, and not wetlands. The relationship between wetsoils and wetlands cannot be determined with existing information. Recent USDA information on wetsoils is correlated with Circular

39 wetland types 3-20 on non-Federal rural lands.

NWTS information on wetlands uses the new FWS

classification that doesn’t correspond directly to Circular 39 wetland types 3-20, but instead to types

1-20. Also, NWTS doesn’t distinguish Federal from

non-Federal lands.

Sixty percent of the increase in agricultural land

on wetsoils between the mid-1950’s and mid-1970’s

appears to have come from wetlands if we compare

the difference between improved lands reported by

Wooten in the 1950’s and agricultural lands on wetsoils in 1977 reported by USDA with NWTS estimates of wetlands in the mid- 1950’s and mid1970’s. This estimated 60 percent compares favorably with the estimate discussed later in this

chapter, that 65 percent of the lands drained between 1955 and 1975 were wetlands. Assuming that

the proportion of wetlands to wetsoils that are being converted to agricultural use probably has been

increasing over time (since it’s probably easier to

.
Ch. 5—Wetland Trends ● 9 1

convert wetsoils to other uses than wetlands), then

the percentage of wetsoils that were reclaimed wetlands prior to the mid-1950’s was 60 percent at

most. If we then assume that at most 60 percent

of the 135 million acres of reclaimed lands reported

by Wooten were wetlands and add NWTS’sestimate of 104 million acres of wetlands in the mid1950’s, we can derive a maximum value for “original’ wetlands of 185 million acres.

Thus, previous estimates of loss of original wetlands probably were low. If the SCS estimate of

127 million acres of original wetlands is accepted,

then losses may have been as low as 30 percent.

If only one-third of the reclaimed lands were wetlands, as was assumed for the purposes of Circular

39, then there was an original acreage of 149 million

acres for a loss of nearly 40 percent. If at most 60

percent of the reclaimed lands were wetlands (as

a means of developing a maximum estimate of 185

million acres of original wetlands), then as much

as 50 percent of the original wetlands may have

been converted. All of these estimates are limited

by the lack of good data on the amount of land that

has been drained or otherwise reclaimed and the

relationship between wetlands and wetsoils.

VEGETATED WETLAND TRENDS

Freshwater Wetlands

Since freshwater areas comprise 95 percent of the

Nation’s vegetated wetlands, freshwater wetland

losses are similar to overall national trends (see fig.

7). There was a net loss of 11 million acres of

freshwater vegetated wetlands between the mid1950’s and mid-1970’s, representing a reduction

of 11 percent. Forested wetlands accounted for 54

percent of the net loss of freshwater vegetated wetlands, emergent marshes accounted for 42 percent,

and scrub-shrub wetlands accounted for 4 percent.

Information on actual losses and gains are presented

below and summarized in table 12.

Actual losses of freshwater vegetated wetlands

totaled 14.6 million acres. Agricultural land use was

responsible for 80 percent of these losses. The remaining 20 percent was comprised of urban use (6

percent), other use (4 percent), nonvegetated habitat (open water, 4 percent; unconsolidated shore,

1 percent; and other nonvegetated habitat, less than

1 percent), deepwater types (4 percent), and saltwater vegetated wetlands (less than 1 percent).

These losses to nonvegetated open water and deep

water are most likely associated with impoundments

(e. g., farm ponds, water supply, flood control and

recreational reservoirs, and waterfowl-management

impoundments). They also could be associated with

drainage practices that concentrate water in the

lowest lying wetland to allow drainage of other wetlands in the watershed. Factors associated with the

loss to unconsolidated shore might also be associated

with impoundments, especially if water levels fluctuate. Other possible factors responsible for such

loss include grazing, plowing, and natural climatic

shifts associated with reductions in wetland vegetation. Losses to saltwater wetlands may result from

decreased freshwater outflows” or destruction of

dikes in coastal areas.

Actual gains in freshwater vegetated wetlands

totaled 3.6 million acres. Roughly 50 percent of the

gains were from the ‘ ‘other uses’ category. These

gains can be accounted for primarily by increases

in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands surrounding

newly constructed farm ponds on lands that were

formerly neither wetlands nor in agricultural use.

According to information from SCS, about 50,000

farm ponds, averaging 0.5 acre in size, were constructed each year during the period analyzed in

NWTS (18). Other gains were from agriculture (25

percent), nonvegetated types (13 percent from open

water and 2 percent from unconsolidated shore),

deep water (8 percent), urban areas (1 percent),

and saltwater vegetated wetlands ( 1 percent). Most

of these gains probably were related to successional

changes associated with abandonment of former

land uses, such as the lack of maintenance of drainage ditches for forestry and agriculture, or natural

factors like beaver activity, construction of roads

that block drainage, construction of irrigation ditch
92 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Figure 7.—Freshwater Wetland Trends (mid-1950's to mid-1970's)

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

1,7:

—

899 925

Actual

loss

Actual

gain

1,828

1 621

1

188 65 25 12 1 25

Agriculture Urban Other use Lakes Open water Bare shore Other nonveg. Salt. veg

Conversions of wetlands

SOURCE: USFWS National Wetland Trends Study, 1982

Table 12.—Probable Causes of Freshwater Vegetated Wetland Changes

Acres Cause of loss

Freshwater wetland loss to:

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,720,000

Urban use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deep water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Open water.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unconsolidated shore. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other nonvegetated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Saltwater vegetated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

925,000

621,000

618,000

579,000

188,000

25,000

1,000

14,677,000

Drainage, flooding, excavation, clearing, land-leveling, filling, ground

water pumping, and surface water diversions for conversion to

cropland

Fill for development

Impoundments

Drainage, excavation, filling for forest management, mining, other

Impoundments, drainage/flooding, excavation, climatic changes

Impoundments, grazing, plowing, climatic changes

Decreased freshwater outflow, destruction of dikes

Acres Cause of gain

Freshwater wetland gains from:

Other uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,828,000

Agricultural use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899,000

Open water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450,000

Deep water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305,000

Unconsolidated shore. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,000

Urban use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,000

Saltwater vegetated wetlands . . . . . . 25,000

Other nonvegetated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,622,000

Succession around margins of newly constructed farm ponds

Lack of maintenance on drainage ditches, dikes

Succession around margins of existing ponds

Succession around margins of larger water bodies

Vegetation establishment

Drainage and open space management

Increased freshwater outflow, construction of dikes

—

SOURCE: Data from FWS National Wetland Trends Study, 1963
Ch. 5—Wetland Trends ● 9 3

systems that may leak and support some wetland

vegetation, and construction of dikes in coastal

areas.

Saltwater Wetlands

Saltwater-loss trends differ from those of freshwater since conversions to deep water and urban

use are most prevalent. Agricultural use has had

little impact on saltwater wetlands in recent years

(see fig. 8). There was a net loss of 373,000 acres

of saltwater vegetated wetlands between the mid1950’s and mid-1970’s, representing a 7.6-percent

reduction. Emergent saltwater wetlands comprised

95 percent of these net losses. The remaining 5 percent were saltwater forested and scrub-shrub wetlands. Information on actual losses and gains is

presented below and summarized in table 13.

Actural losses in saltwater vegetated wetlands

totaled 482,000 acres. Conversions to deep water

were responsible for 55 percent of these losses. This

amount probably can be attributed to dredging for

canals, port and marina development, and erosion.

Urban use accounted for 22 percent of the losses.

Conversions to nonvegetated types (i.e., unconsolidated shore, 11 percent; and other, 2 percent) were

likely to be associated with dredged-material disposal practices, removal of vegetation for recreational development, such as beach creation, and

death of vegetation associated with changes in salinity. Transitions to freshwater vegetated wetlands

were responsible for 6 percent of the losses. Such

transitions could be related to increases in freshwater outflow or dike construction. Agriculture and

other uses were each responsible for 2 percent of

the losses.

Actual gains in saltwater vegetated wetlands

totaled 109,000 acres. Roughly 50 percent of the

gain was from deepwater areas, and 40 percent was

Figure 8.—Saltwater Wetland Trends (mid-1950’s to mid-1970’s)

(268)

(107)

Agriculture Urban

SOURCE USFWS National Wetland Trends Study, 1982

Deepwater Nonveg. Fresh. veg. Other use

Conversions of wetlands
94 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Table 13.-Probable Causes of Saltwater Vegetated Wetland Changes

Acres Cause of loss

Saltwater wetland loss to:

Deep water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urban use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unconsolidated shore. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Freshwater vegetated wetlands . . . .

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other nonvegetated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

268,000

107,000

50,000

25,000

9,000

11,000

12,000

482,000

Dredging for canals, port and marina development, erosion

Fill for development

Dredged material disposal, removal of vegetation for recreational

development, death of vegetation

Increased freshwater outflow, dike construction

Diking for conversion

Filling for port development

—

Acres Cause of gain

Saltwater wet/and gain from:

Deep water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,000 Natural establishment of vegetation, marsh creation efforts

Nonvegetated types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,000 Same as deep water

Other uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000 Same as deep water

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 Destruction of dikes

Freshwater vegetated wetlands . . . . 1,000 Reductions in freshwater outflow, dike construction, increased

saltwater inflow

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,000

SOURCE: Data from FWS National Wetland Trends Study, 1983.

from nonvegetated types. Reasons for these changes

probably include natural establishment of vegetation and marsh-creation efforts associated with

dredged-material disposal and erosion-control practices. Other uses were responsible for 7 percent of

these gains, and abandonment of agricultural lands

accounted for 2 percent of the gains. The remaining 1 percent were gains from freshwater vegetated

wetlands that may be associated with reductions in

freshwater outflow, destruction of dikes, or increased saltwater flow.

Regional Trends

Using national figures of wetland losses and gains

can be misleading. Farm ponds—such as in Missouri— even with aquatic plant improvements

through plant succession, cannot compensate for

potholes lost in the prairie-pothole area. A wide

variety of migratory birds uses the latter for reproduction and rarely or infrequently uses the former.

Regional information on wetland use was obtained

by OTA from four primary sources: NWTS, other

inventory and trend studies, permit information,

and interviews.

NWTS (8)

For OTA’s study, NWTS grouped its data into

13 regions so that wetland losses and gains on

regional levels could be analyzed. The regions are

listed in table 14 and shown in figure 9. Although

this study was based on a stratified random sampling, very large standard errors are associated with

its data on a regional level.1 The regional data reflect actual losses and gains in wetlands and other

land uses at the sample sites. Such data indicate

probable trends in wetland use in a region, especially if they can be supported by other sources of

evidence.

Regional data provide an average picture over

a large area and do not necessarily reflect the actual status of wetlands within a single State in the

region. For example, in the Upper Midwest, Illinois

lost 186,905 acres, or 23 percent, of the wetlands

that were present in the mid-1950’s; Wisconsin lost

133,872 acres, or 3 percent, of wetlands present in

‘The following explanation of statistical reliability is from W. E.

Frayer & Associates, “Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater

Habitats in the Coterminous United States, 1950’s to 1970’s—Final

Draft 1982, ” National Wetlands Inventory, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Standard errors for overall wetland loss figure for physiographic

regions range from a low of 11 percent of the measured loss in the gulf

coastal zone to a high of over 134 percent of the measured loss in the

intermontane region. The majority of the standard errors for physiographic regions are from 15 to 35 percent of the measured loss. Reliability can be stated generally as ‘‘we are 68 percent confident that the true

value is within the interval constructed by adding to and subtracting

from the entry the SE%/100 times the entry ” For example, if an entry

is 1 million acres and the SE percent is 20, then we are 68-percent confident that the true value is between 800,000 and 1.2 million acres.

An equivalent statement for 95-percent confidence can be made by adding and subtracting twice the SE% /100 to and from the entry,

respectively.
Ch. 5—Wetland Trends . 95

Table 14.—Physiographic Regions Used for Regional

Analysis of National Wetland Trends Study Data

Region

1—Atlantic coastal zonea

2—Gulf coastal zoneb

3—Atlantic coastal flatsa

4—Gulf coastal flatsb

5—Gulf-Atlantic rolling plain

6—Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain

7—Eastern highlands

8—Dakota-Minnesota drift and lake bed flats

9—Upper Midwest

10—Central

11 —Rocky Mountains

12—Intermontane

13—Pacific mountains

a~tlantic regions d. not include Florida.

bGulf regions include Florida.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

the region. Data from Minnesota more closely reflect the trends for the entire region. Minnesota lost

447,709 acres, or 8 percent, of wetlands in the upper midwest portion of the State.

The proportion of wetlands and percentage of

loss vary considerably in the different physiographic regions (see table 15). Three regions have a

greater proportion of land area as wetlands and a

greater loss rate than the national averages of 5 percent and 11 percent, respectively: Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, gulf coastal flats, and gulf-Atlantic

rolling plain. Five regions have a greater proportion of land area as wetlands and loss rates at less

than or equal to the national averages: Atlantic

coastal zone, gulf coastal zone, Atlantic coastal flats,

Dakota-Minnesota drift and lakebed flats, and UpFigure 9.— Physical Subdivisions

Lower MISSISSIPPI Alluvial Plain \
96 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Table 15.—Pattern of Wetland Loss by Physiographic Region

Wetland portion New loss of Standard

of region wetlands (mid- Actual Actual error for

(mid-1950’s) 1950’s-mid-1970’s loss gain net change

Region ( % ) (

0

/ 0 ) (acres) (acres) (%0 )

l—Atlantic coastal zonea . . . . . . . . . . 3 84,000 48,000

2—Gulf coastal zoneb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9 371,000 70,000

3—Atlantic coastal flatsa 

. . . . . . . . . . 36 11 1,274,000 74,000

4—Gulf coastal flatsb. ... , . . . . . . . . . 27 13 1,872,000 341,000

5—Gulf-Atlantic rolling plain . . . . . . . 8 2,310,000 291,000

6—Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain . 36 32 3,749,000 331,000

7—Eastern highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 322,000 211,000

8—Dakota-Minnesota drift

and lake bed flats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9 816,000 424,000

9—Upper Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 2,286,000 754,000

10—Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 763,000 637,000

11-Rocky Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 <1 125,000 112,000

12—lntermontane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 12 685,000 320,000

13—Pacific mountains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 31 473,000 94,000

52.3c

11.3d

15.0e

14.5f

31.2g

8.6h

68.8g

33.6g

16.8g

(i)

(i)

(i)

77.1

aAflant/c ,egion~ do not include Florida.

bGulf regions include Florida.

Cstandard error g~en is for saltwater wet~ands. The freshwater wetlands had a net gain of 1o,626 acres with a standard error of ~g percent.

‘Standard error given is for saltwater wetlands. The freshwater wetlands had a net gain of 2,137 acres with a standard deviation greater than this value.

estandard error given is for freshwater wetlands, saltwater wetlands had a net ioss Of 866 acres with a standard deviation 9reater than this ‘a[ue,

‘Standard error given is for freshwater wetlands. Saltwater wetlands had a net gain of 933 acres with a standard error of 81.6 percent.

gstandard error is for a)l vegetated wetlands measured in region which included eXCiUsiVdY freshwater type$.

‘Standard error is for freshwater wetlands. Saltwater wetlands had a net loss of 22,282 acres with a standard error of 67.8 percent.

‘Standard deviation is greater than estimated net change.

SOURCE: Original data from FWS National Wetland Trends Study, 1983.

per Midwest. Two regions have a lower proportion of land area as wetlands and loss rates greater

than the national average: Pacific mountains and

Intermontane. Three regions have a lower proportion of land area as wetlands and loss rates less than

the national average: Eastern highlands, Central,

and Rocky Mountains. Although the amount of

wetland acreage lost from these areas with relatively

few wetlands may not have contributed much to

the national totals, such losses may be environmentally significant on a regional level.

The percentage of wetland loss to various activities varies among the physiographic regions (see

table 16). The actual losses of vegetated freshwater

wetlands to agriculture range from 1 to 90 percent.

However, agricultural use was the greatest cause

of loss of vegetated freshwater wetlands in all

regions, and the proportion of agricultural loss was

greater than the national average (i.e., 80 percent)

in six regions.

In all 11 physiographic regions with predominantly vegetated freshwater wetlands, the losses to

agriculture were greater than any gains in wetlands

from agriculture. However, there were two exceptions to this net loss to agriculture when data from

subdivisions comprising the physiographic regions

were examined. (Standard errors are extremely

high for subdivision data. ) Agriculture is a source

of net gain of wetlands in the Adirondack-New

England subdivision of the Eastern highlands region. This trend is supported by the findings of the

New England case study, which notes increases in

wetlands from agricultural abandonment and the

lack of maintenance of drainage ditches. Agriculture is also a source of net gain of wetlands in the

Columbia Basin subdivision of the Intermontane

region. Wetland increases associated with irrigation development may be partially responsible for

this trend.

Conversions to urban use were the second most

important cause of actual losses in two regions, the

third most important cause in three regions, and

the least important cause in six regions. Proportions of loss to urban use range from O to 36 percent. These proportions are greater than the national average (6 percent) for urban loss in three regions: gulf coastal flats, Eastern highlands, and Upper Midwest.

In all regions, losses to urban use were greater

than any gains in wetlands from this use, with one
Ch. 5—Wetland Trends ● 9 7

Table 16.—Percentage of Vegetated Wetland Loss to Different Uses by Physiographic Regiona

(mid-1950's to mid-1970's)

Region Agriculture Urban Other Water/nonvegetated

1—Atlantic coastal zoneb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 36 5 54

2—Gulf coastal zonec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19 78

3—Atlantic coastal flatsb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2(+) 3

4—Gulf coastal flatsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 19 4(+ ) 11

5—Gulf-Atlantic rolling plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4(+) 9

6—Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3 3 (+) 4

7—Eastern highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 22 5 (+) 35

8—Dakota-Minnesota drift and lake bed flats. . . . . . 83 4 (+) 12(+)

9—Upper Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 8 3 (+) 18

10—Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5 15 (+) 17 (+)

11 —Rocky Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 (+) 10 (+)

12—lntermontane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1 7 (+) 4 (+)

13—Pacific mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 1 7 (+) 5

a(+) indicates there was a net gain in wetlands from the use -.categow in the region. If (+) is not indicated, then there was a net lOSS from that use cateaory,

DAtlantiC regions do not includ; Florida.

CGulf regions include Florida.

SOURCE: Original data from FWS National Wetland Trends Study, 1983.

exception. Urban use is a source of wetland gain

in the West central rolling hills subdivision of the

Central region which can be attributed to a gain

in wetlands in Iowa, accompanied by a slightly

lower rate of wetland conversion to urban use in

Nebraska. Gains of wetlands from urban use in

Iowa could be associated with flood plain management activities.

The combined category of deep water, open

water, and other nonvegetated types was the second most important cause of actual losses of vegetated freshwater wetlands in six of the regions and

the third most important cause in the remaining

five regions. The proportion of these losses was

greater than the national average (10 percent) in

five regions.

These losses to deep water, open water, and other

nonvegetated types were accompanied by gains in

freshwater vegetated wetlands from these categories, resulting in a net gain in 4 of the 11 regions,

including Dakota-Minnesota drift and lakebed flats,

Central, Rocky Mountains, and Intermontane. All

other regions had a net loss of vegetated wetlands

from these categories. Subdivision data on these net

changes show five exceptions each for the general

region trends of net loss and net gain of vegetated

wetlands from this category. Again, standard errors for these numbers are very high.

Conversions to other uses were the second most

important cause of loss in three regions, the third

in four regions, and last in the remaining four

regions. Proportions of loss from other uses range

from 2 to 19 percent. These proportions are greater

than the national average (4 percent) in five regions.

In all regions, these losses to other uses were accompanied by gains, resulting in a net gain in freshwater vegetated wetlands from this category. This

gain is relatively small when compared to the overall

losses of wetlands.

Two physiographic regions comprise 98 percent

of the data for saltwater wetlands: Atlantic coastal

zone and the gulf coastal zone. The remaining 2

percent is primarily from the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain. A very small amount of saltwater wetlands was also measured in the gulf and Atlantic

coastal flats regions. No data were collected for

saltwater wetlands of the Pacific coast.

The Atlantic coastal zone and gulf coastal zone

(including Florida) both showed a net loss of salt

and brackish wetlands. However, in the Atlantic

region, this loss was attributed primarily to urban

use. There was also a net loss due to agriculture,

conversions to freshwater wetlands, and other uses.

A net gain of vegetated wetlands resulted from deep

water, open water, and other unvegetated areas.

In the gulf region, the net loss of salt and brackish

wetlands was due primarily to deep water and nonvegetated areas. Louisiana and Florida accounted

for 84 percent and 10 percent of these losses, respectively. Erosion, subsidence, and dredging for canals

and marinas were probably responsible for these

trends. Urban losses also were significant. Additional losses were due to agricultural and other uses.
98 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Regional Case Studies

Ten OTA regional case studies (table 17) of

trends in wetland use in 21 States provided information from three major sources:

● Wetland inventory and trend information

(other than NWTS): There are few reliable

trend studies. Moreover, there are many problems with comparing inventory studies to establish trends, owing to variations in wetland

definitions, size categories, and study areas.

For example, in Minnesota, a 1950 inventory

examined wetlands within 15,803 square miles

(mi2) of the prairie-pothole region. A 1955 inTable 17.—Wetland

●

Case

ventory looked at Circular 39 types 1-8 in

western Minnesota; in 1964, types 3-5 were

inventoried in 19 western Minnesota counties;

and in 1982, types 3-5 (over 10 acres) were

inventoried in 14 western Minnesota counties

(6).

Permit information on section 404 and State

programs: There are few cases where data

have been compiled for particular permit programs. Data that are available generally report

only what has been allowed under the reported

permit program and exclude information on

illegal activity and activities taking place in

wetlands that aren’t covered by the permit proStudy Sites

Region/States OTA contractor

New England/Massachusetts, Water Resources Research Center

Connecticut, Rhode Island, University of Massachusetts

Vermont, Maine, and New Amherst, Mass, 01003

Hampshire

North and South Carolina School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

Gulf Coast and Lower

Mississippi River/Louisiana,

Texas, and Mississippi

Prairie Potholes/Minnesota,

North and South Dakota

California and Alaska

New Jersey

Washington

Nebraska

Duke University -

Durham, N.C. 27706

Coastal Ecology Laboratory

Center for Wetland Resources

Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, La. 70803

Department of Agricultural Economics and

Center for Environmental Studies

N.D. Agricultural Experiment Station

North Dakota State University

Fargo, N.D. 58105

ESA/Madrone, Environmental Consultants

23-B Pamaron Way

Novato, Calif. 94947

JACA Corporation

550 Pinetown Road

Fort Washington, Pa. 19034

Shapiro and Associates, Inc.

The Smith Tower, Suite 812

506 Second Avenue

Seattle, Wash. 98104

Center for Great Plains Studies

1213 Oldfather Hall

Lincoln, Nebr. 68588

Florida Center for Governmental Responsibility

Holland Law Center

University of Florida

Gainesville, Fla. 32611

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment
Ch. 5—Wet/and Trends • 99

gram. The 404 program provides only very

general unverifiable estimates of acreages of

wetlands converted by permitted projects on

a districtwide basis.

● Interviews: Interviews are probably the best

qualitative source of information if they are

accompanied by information from the other

data sources. However, they must be viewed

strictly as expert testimony.

OTA information from the regional case studies

allows the following general conclusions about past

and current wetland trends:

● Agricultural practices are a major factor

associated with wetland loss in inland areas of

North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland,

Florida, Nebraska, and California, plus the

prairie-potholes and Lower Mississippi River

Valley. Losses to wetlands continue in these

areas today. More detailed information on agricultural conversions is provided at the end

of this chapter.

● LOSS of coastal freshwater and saltwater wetlands to open water, deep water, and unvegetated areas through dredging and filling for

marinas and canals is a major factor in South

Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Louisiana,

California, New Jersey, Florida, and Washington. The rate of loss from man’s activities

has been reduced as a result of regulatory efforts under the Federal section 404 program

and State programs. Some projects are not approved; others are approved with required

measures for restoration or creation of wetlands. Regardless of mitigation measures,

however, losses continue to occur.

● Loss of inland wetlands to open and deep

water areas from impoundments occurs in

New England, Nebraska, Lower Mississippi

River Valley, and prairie-potholes areas.

Losses related to agricultural development and

the farm pond exemption continue, although

the construction of farm ponds may result in

new wetlands forming on adjacent lands.

Losses from newly designed impoundments

and channels for flood control and municipal

water supply continue, but projects are

handled in a more environmentally sensitive

manner in accordance with Federal and State

●

●

environmental and regulatory policies. Some

projects may require mitigation.

Urban development has been a major factor

in wetland loss in coastal areas in South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, California, Washington, New Jersey, New England, and Alaska. Federal and State regulatory programs

have slowed the loss considerably. Current

losses usually are restricted to water-dependent

projects and often require mitigation. Losses

continue in areas that are not subject to regulation and from small projects that potentially

may have significant cumulative impacts.

Losses also continue in areas (e. g., southeast

and south-central Alaska) where there are few

alternative construction sites in nonwetlands.

Sources of loss from other uses include forestry, mining, port development, road construction, and succession to nonwetlands. These activities are important to varying degrees in

many areas, including North Carolina, the

Lower Mississippi River Valley, Florida, New

England, Nebraska, prairie-potholes, Maryland, California, Alaska, and Washington.

Losses continue for nonregulated activities and

areas. Losses also continue for activities subject to regulation, but again are generally

handled in a more environmentally sensitive

manner in accordance with Federal and State

environmental and regulatory policies.

Case study information can reveal further some

of the specific factors associated with these losses

in different regions. The following tables summarize case study information on the major national

trends for vegetated wetlands. Tables 18 to 21 present information on conversions to agriculture,

open and deep water, urban development, and

other uses, respectively. Conversions to other nonvegetated wetlands were not addressed specifically

in the case studies. The category ‘ ‘other uses’ includes information on forestry, mining, ports, road

construction, and activities in nonwetlands. The

tables include information on how the conversions

are accomplished, important regions and types of

wetland involved, reasons why the changes occur,

and current and past trends, where available. Impacts of activities causing conversions are discussed

further in chapter 6; the current programs that reg-
Table 18.-Agricultural Conversions of Wetlands (mid-1950’s to mid-1970’s)

Important regions/

How accomplished wetland types Reasons Trend

Major drainage, flooding Prairie potholes of Minnesota, North Opportunity to gain additional cropland Of original, 25 to 30 percent of acres remain; greatest percentage

Dakota, South Dakota/shallow, Elimination of nuisance by avoiding potholes within cropland. and acreage drained in Minnesota. However, this is extremely

moderately deep marshes and Change in farming from diversified crops and livestock to row variable within region, varying by 12 to 95 percent. Continuing

seasonally flooded flats crops and small grain conversion. Annual drainage rates estimates range from 0.1 to

Increase in tractor horsepower 5.0 percent, Almost half remaining wetlands are under protective

Increases avoidance costs programs; of these, 90 percent are permanent forms

Increase in center-pivot irrigation

Climatic variations

Absence of financial incentives to maintain wetlands

Drainage opportunities from channel projects and rural roads

ditches

Tax benefits for drainage

Major drainage, flooding, Nebraska Rainwater Basin/shallow, Intensify or expand cropland Continuing conversion. Remaining are 15- to 25-percent original

excavation, moderately deep marshes and Drainage opportunities through rural road upgrading and acres and 10- to 15-percent original basins. Protection programs

land-leveling seasonally flooded flats improvement cover 50 to 85 percent of remaining acreage. Nearly 90 percent

Drought incidence of these are in permanent form

Possible Federal or State cost-sharing assistance for reuse systems

or leveling associated with irrigation

Tax benefits for drainage

Available farm equipment

Ground water pumping, Nebraska SandhiHs/wet meadows Conversion of rangeland to cropland Accelerating conversion rate in last 10 years. Remaining are 85 to

associated land- Long-term reduction in ground water levels and seasonal ground 95 percent of original acres and more than 95 percent of

leveling and filling water variations due to expanding center-pivot irrigation original basins

increase efficiency of center pivot

Expand hay production into wetter areas

Ground water pu~ing, Nebraska-Central Platte Valley/wet Indirect impact of regional irrigation development Of original wet meadows 30 to 45 percent remaining

surface water meadows Conversion of rangeland to cropland

diversions

California–Klamath Basin/emergent Conversion of rangeland to cropland Of original acreage 40 percent remaining. Continuing conversions

marshes on private and managed wetlands. Approximately 50 percent of

remaining wetland and lake areas in national wildlife refuges and

State wildlife management areas

Normal farming: land- California–Central Valley/emergent Less water available More than 90 percent converted from 1850 to 1978. Continuing

leveling of flood- marshes Increased pumping costs conversions of ricelands to less water-intensive crops. Degradairrigated areas, shift in Clean farming practices tion of habitat on secondary wetland areas. Of remaining

crops, shift in planting Pestacide/herbicide use acreage, 20 percent in public ownership

and harvest schedules Flood control

Irrigation technology

Drainage, land-leveling California–Central Valley/emergent Less water available See above description of overall trends of Central Valley. Convermarshes Higher taxes on nonagricultural lands sion of private wetlands to agriculture. Reduction of flooded

Increased pumping costs public acreage

Degradation of habitat on secondary wetland areas
Table 18.—Agricultural Conversions (Continued)

Important regions/

How accomplished wetland types Reasons Trend

Clearing vegetation Lower Mississippi River Valley/bottom Soybean demand Significant conversion prior to 1937. Forty-four-percent reduction,

land hardwoods Relative price of timber 1937 to 1977. Forest remaining O to more than 60 percent

Drought incidence (1979), Rate of clearing peaked 1967 (except Louisiana). ClearFlood-control projects ing rates related to remaining forest. Continuing conversion

Clearing vegetation North and South Carolina/bottom land Relative price of timber increase from 1930’s to 1950’s from reforestation of abandoned

drainage hardwoods Improved drainage equipment farms. Increasing rate of conversion 1950’s to 1970’s

Refined use of lime, fertilizer, pesticides

Improved seed stocks

Agribusiness investment

Clearing vegetation, North Carolina/pocosins Improved drainage equipment By 1979, 33 percent totally developed. Of remaining areas, 65 perdrainage cent owned by agricultural and forest products industries. Five

percent protected from drainage through public ownership or

lease

Clearing vegetation, South Carolina/carolina bays Large-scale agriculture Ninety-five percent altered

drainage Forestry -

Clearing vegetation, South Florida/cypress Agricultural and urban uses Conversions occurred from 1900 to 1973, including 25 percent of

drainage cypress domes and stands and 12 percent of scrub cypress.

Continuing conversions

Lack of drainage, ditch New England/wooded wetlands Agricultural abandonment Wetlands recreated

maintenance

Mowing, seeding, ferti- South Florida/wet prairies, sawgrass Expanded agriculture Conversion of 45 to 52 percent of wetlands from 1900 to 1973.

Iizing, grazing Transform areas to dry land to prepare for urban development (and Continuing conversions

avoid regulations associated with fill in wetlands)

SOURCE OTA Regional Case Studies
Table 19.—Conversions of Wetlands to Open-Water and Deep-Water Environments

How accomplished Region/type Reasons Trend

Fill, flooding New England/forested and marsh Municipal reservoirs Majority of change from beaver activity. Between early 1950’s to

Flood control mid-1970’s 47 percent of change from man’s activities

Blocked drainage from highway construction attributed to impoundments. Continuing conversions but with

Farm ponds reduced impacts on wetlands from large-scale project due to

Recreational ponds regulatory requirements. Continuing conversions to farm ponds

Beaver activity

Fill, flooding, excavation Lower Mississippi River Valley/forested Flood control impoundments, navigation channels Continuing construction of formerly authorized projects (e.g.,

and marsh Yazoo Pumps)

Fill, diversion, flooding, Lower Colorado River Valley, Salton Flood control, irrigation, urban water-supply impoundments Most of conversions associated with dams building occurred prior

excavation Sea/desert riparian marshes and to 1940’s. Channelization, dredging, and levee projects conforests tinue. Some wetlands created in large impoundments. Small

habitat restoration and preservation activities along river

Flooding Prairie potholes-Minnesota, North Concentrate surface water and provide drainage for other wetlands See trends for agricultural conversions–table 18.

Dakota, South Dakota/emerfgent marsh

Flooding, excavation Nebraska Rainwater Basin/marsh Create irrigation reuse pits See trends for agricultural conversions–table 18

Reservoirs

Irrigation canals

Fill, flooding, diversions Nebraska–Platte River Valley, other Impoundments and diversions for irrigation and power See agricultural conversions-table 18

rivers and streams/marsh and riparian

habitat

Fill, flooding South Carolina coast/fresh and salt marsh Impoundments for rice culture, waterfowl management Transition from swamp and salt marsh to fresh marsh. Impoundment construction in 19th century. Majority now managed for

waterfowl. Areas not maintained reverted to original state.

Resurgence of interest in reconstructing old impoundments

mostly for wintering waterfowl and hunting. Some interest in

aquiculture. Proposed impoundments in these areas covered the

majority of permit applications for South Carolina. Very little was

permitted in 1978

Fill, flooding, excavation North Carolina coast/salt marsh Impoundments and ditches for mosquito control

Dredging, fill, erosion, Mississippi deltaic plain–coastal Natural processes:

subsidence, salinity Louisiana and Mississippi/fresh and –storm-caused erosion

intrusion salt marsh —subsidence

—sea-level rise

Development activities:

–canals for oilfield access (spoil banks)

–harbors

Combination natural/development:

–prevent sediment from accumulating and compensating for

natural losses

—salinity intrusion from canals kills freshwater vegetation

—some impoundments

From 1956 to 1967, 17 percent of salt marsh converted. Rate of

conversion slowed by using pesticides, open marsh watermanagement. Difficulty in getting 404 permits because of questions about success of control techniques and magnitude of

problem

From 1955 to 1978, 55 percent of fresh marsh converted to other

uses. Continuing conversions. Slight increase in salt marsh (2

percent), 1955 to 1978. Net loss of all marsh, approximately 20

percent. Canals responsible for 65 percent or more of total

conversion
Table 19.—Conversions of Wetlands to Open-Water and Deep-Water Environments (Continued)

How accomplished Region/type Reasons Trend

Dredging, fill, erosion, Chenier Plain–Texas, southwest Direct wetland conversions due to dredging From 1952 to 1974, 30 percent of marsh (fresh and salt) consubsidence, salinity Louisiana/fresh and salt marsh Additional conversions induced by canals for oil access verted to other uses. Continuing conversions

intrusion Some impoundments, ricefields

Fill, flooding, clearing Coastal Louisiana/fresh and salt marsh Crayfish culture–construction of leveed open ponds, use of Thirtyfold increases in acreage for crayfish culture from 1960 to

and swamp ricefields, clearing swamp and marsh ponds 1980. Uncertain whether clearing of forested wetlands will

increase because of questions about relative productivity of open

v. forested ponds. Uncertain how State regulatory program will

deal with requests to clear lands. Of current crayfish culture, 45

percent of area is swamp/marsh ponds; the remainder are riceIands and open ponds

Dredge and fill South Carolina coast/barrier islands– Water-dependent development Probably a reduced rate of conversion and now only for waterfresh and salt marsh Marinas, ports (restrictions on certain marina development dependent activities. Less than 100 acres of saltwater wetlands

activities) converted since 1977. About 3,000 fresh and saltwater acres

converted between 1954 and 1968

Dredge and fill New Jersey coast/fresh and salt marsh Residential lagoons Tens of thousands of acres converted during 1950’s and 1960’s.

Marinas Conversions considerably reduced since 1973. Compensation of

wetlands required for large controversial projects. Few acres

initially converted in Atlantic City region

Dredge and fill Florida/barrier islands–mangroves Finger-fill canals Reduced conversion rates due to regulation

Dredge and fill Southern California coast Marinas Reduced conversion rates due to regulation

Flooding Alaska–southcentral and southeast Hydroelectric development Increased demands for power; several hydroprojects currently

regions/flood plain wetlands being planned

SOURCE OTA Regional Case Studies.
Table 20.—Wetland Losses From Urban Development

How accomplished Region/type Reasons Trend

Fill, stormwater South Carolina-Hilton Head Barrier island development–resorts and second homes Prior to implementation of Special Area Management Plan in 1982,

management Island/freshwater marshes 33-percent conversion and 20-percent alteration of freshwater

wetlands. Plan should help reduce these changes

Fill New Jersey –pinelands/forested wetlands Residential, commercial development Conversion of several thousand acres per year in 1960’s and

1970’s. Since 1979, rates of conversion have declined to

perhaps several hundred acres per year as a result of Pinelands

Commission Policies. Protection of Atlantic white cedar

Fill New Jersey-Passaic Basin/freshwater Highway development; subsequent residential, industrial, and Reduction by 20 to 50 percent of Troy Meadows and Great Piece,

meadows and swamps commercial use Little Piece, and Hatfield swamps. Conversions continuing; many

wetlands zoned for industrial and commercial use

Dredge and fill California–San Francisco Bay/tidal Urban and industrial use Conversion of 75 percent of original wetlands-60-percent reducwetlands tion when considering wetlands newly created from sedimentation. Former diking of wetlands for agriculture and salt ponds.

Pressure to develop diked historic wetlands for urban use. Most

filling of current wetlands for nonwater-dependent development

halted by Corps, San Francisco Bay Conservation Development

Commission policies. Some conversions due to port and harbor

development continue. About 50 percent of remaining wetlands

preserved as refuges, parks. Preserved areas threatened with

salinity increases due to upstream water diversions

Dredge and fill California–southern coast/tidal wetlands, Urban use, port construction, sedimentation from upstream Conversion of 75 percent of all wetland areas. Of original tidal

mostly salt marsh development, oil exploration, marina development, higher real wetlands, 10 percent remain in Los Angeles and Orange counestate values in coastal areas ties. Continuing population growth. Continuing pressure to

develop all 28 south coast estuary/wetland areas. About 40 percent of remaining acreage is protected. Regulatory programs of

Coastal Commission and Corps have restricted some development and require compensation for other development

Fill New Jersey-Hackensack Waste disposal, urban and commercial development Reduction in rate of wetland conversion. From 1950 to 1970,

Meadows/emergent wetlands 3,000 to 3,500 acres filled. Conversion estimates since 1972

range from 495 to 1,200 acres, depending on definition used.

Designated 3,576 acres for preservation. However, some

wetlands initially designated for preservation were filled for

sports complexes and turnpike exchanges. Other wetlands slated

for nonwater-dependent development
I

I

●

Table 20.—Wetland Losses From Urban Development (Continued)

How accomplished Region/type Reasons Trend

Fill New Jersey–Atlantic City Residential and commercial development, highway fills, landfills, Substantial reduction in conversion rate since 1973 with State and

dredge material disposal Federal regulation. Continuing conversions from major public

works projects (e.g., regional wastewater treatment plant, airport runway extension) that will likely include compensation,

Continuing conversions also stemming from cumulative impacts

of small projects (e. g., bulkheading). Limited protection for

freshwater marsh areas

Fill New England/coastal wetlands Residential and industrial/commercial development, highway Conversion rates probably reduced considerably due to increased

construction effectiveness of State and Federal regulations. Some increases in

wetlands acreage from agricultural abandonment

Drainage through ditches South Florida/freshwater wetlands Residential development Continuing development in areas covered by Corps general permits

or dike construction for headwater areas. Development of plans to limit road

and pumping; dredge construction and housing density in certain areas. Reduced rates

and fill of conversion in areas that are covered by Federal and State

regulations. Conversion of wetlands to agriculture and subsequent conversions of agricultural lands to urban use

Fill, bulkheading, clear- Washington–Western lakes/freshwater Residential purposes: establish yards, beaches, boat access, lawns Wetlands reduced on Lake Washington from 2,300 acres in 1902

ing, dredging, mow- marsh to 1,400 acres in 1936. Since 1936, about 500 acres filled. Reing, lowering water cent development activities generally require dedication of

levels portion of wetlands for habitat preservation under State Shoreline

Management Act

Fill Alaska–urban areas, especially Population increases, lack of alternative building sites Wetland conversions limited to some areas to lower value wetlands

Anchorage and coastal towns of south- Road construction through local wetland plans (Anchorage). Conversions in other

central and southeast regions/bogs, Recreational development areas not so limited

coastal marsh, and forested wetlands Industrial developments

SOURCE: OTA Regional Case Studies
Table 21.-Wetland Losses From Other Activities

How accomplished Region/type Reasons Trend

Forestry:

Clearing, partial North Carolina/pocosins Pulp and paper production. Continuing conversions–65 percent of remaining pocosin and other

drainage, planting Management to maximize forest growth freshwater wetlands in North Carolina owned by agricultural and

pine plantations forest products industries

Clearing, planting hard- Lower Mississippi River Valley/bottom Pulp and paper production

wood plantations land hardwoods Management to maximize forest growth

Selective cutting, partial North Carolina, lower Mississippi River Demand for hardwood products Continuing drainage. Land of major forest companies in 27 eastern

drainage Valley/bottom land hardwoods counties of North Carolina is 25-percent wetland

Mining:

Excavation of Iimerock South Florida/emergent marsh Fill for construction, manufacture of concrete. Need to locate on

edge of urbanized areas

Excavation, water diversion, and clearing

vegetation

Excavation of

phosphates, water

diversion

Excavation and fill

Excavation of peat, water

diversion (proposed)

California-desert conservation

area/riparian vegetation

North Carolina/bottom land hardwoods,

fresh and salt marsh, pocosins

Alaska/forested flood plain wetlands of

Yukon region, northwest/wet tundra,

southeast/forested flood plain wetlands

North Carolina/pocosins

Availability of gold, minerals, and other materials (e.g., borax,

potash, soda ash, lithium, sand, and gravel)

Recovery of phosphate ore for the manufacture of fertilizer

products

Availability of gold, copper, tin, platinum, antimony, mercury, and

the like. Extensive mineral and coal resources in remote locations. Tailing disposal. Road and facility construction

Synfuel development

Continuing conversion of wetland; however, projects are now

designed for reduced impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, water

quality, and hydrology as a result of Federal and State regulations. Some proposals in important wetlands denied when alternative sites available. Filling of previously mined sites for

urban/commercial development

Continuing mining on an additional 25,000 acres, only a small

percentage of which are wetlands and riparian areas

Conversions continuing but at a variable rate, depending on

generaI economic conditions and, especially demand for

agricultural produce. Increased permit requirements for expansion of operations

Conversions continuing. Placer mining is not regulated under section 404

State mining permits granted on 20,000 acres. No other permits

required owing to imitation of 5ft3

/s by 404 program. Actual

mining operation dependent on funding and possible support

from Synthetic Fuels Corp.

Port development:

Dredge and fill Washington-Puget Sound–Puyallup

River/brackish marsh

Dredge and fill Washington-Grays Harbor/saltwater

marshes

Excavation, fill Alaska/coastal wetlands

Fill Washington–Puget Sound–Snohmish

Estuary/brackish marsh

Port development

Port development, navigational dredging

Harbors and canneries for commercial fisheries. Oil and gas

terminals

Industrial and port expansion.

More efficient earth-moving machinery-fill more economical than

piers and pilings for foundations. Solid waste, wood waste, and

dredged material disposal

Continual conversion to port facilities 1880 to present. From 1880

to 1940, about 1,900 acres of vegetated wetlands filled. By

1980, only 14 acres original marsh remained

Increases in intertidal flats and marshes and decreases in open

water between 1890 and 1981. No wetland conversions from

dredged material disposal since 1976. Proposed fill of about 90

acres of vegetated wetlands and 400 acres of intertidal flats as

part of Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan

Conversions continuing, losses, primarily related to oil and gas

development

Drainage and diking 9,000 acres for agriculture, 1880 to 1940.

Port and industrial development since 1940. Landfilling urban

waste 1965 to 1979 of about 200 acres. Other filling of less

than 70 acres 1970 to 1980 (mostly wood waste, dredged

material). Some breaching of dikes 1947 to 1970, increasing

wetlands from agriculture
Table 21.–Wetland Losses From Other Activities (Continued)

How accomplished Region/type Reasons Trend

Road construction:

Dredge and fill New England/all wetland types Highway development

Dredge and fill, drainage Nebraska-Rainwater Basin/freshwater Rural road improvements for safety and drainage to protect road

emergent marshes subgrade-ditch cleaning, including some deepening and

widening

Fill Alaska–primarily North Slope/also south- Access roads. Production and transport facilities and pipelines.

central region—Kenai National Moose Drill pad construction

Range/wet and moist tundra

Transitions to nonwetlands:

Erosion and sedimentation from offsite activities isolate

wetlands from tidal

influence

Erosion and sedimentation from off site

activities raise wetland

elevations

Erosion and sedimentation from offsite

activities fill isolated

wetlands

Disposal of nonfill

material (wood waste)

Disposal of nonfill

material (garbage)

California–north and central coast

estuaries/brackish marsh

Maryland Chesapeake Bay/freshwater

marshes

Prairie potholes–Minnesota, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska Rainwater Basin/freshwater marshes

Western Washington, California/brackish

and freshwater wetlands

California–San Francisco Bay, New

Jersey–Hackensack

Meadows/brackish and freshwater

wetlands

SOURCE OTA Regional Case Studies

Major source of wetland conversion from mid-1950’s through early

1970’s, Continuing construction in wetlands, but now generally

designed to minimize wetland impacts; compensation sometimes

included

Impacts on wetland from new road alinements minimal if Federal

funding involved. Continuing wetland conversions associated

with maintenance and improvements of existing roads (even if

Federal funding is used).

Conversions continuing. Some secondary impacts now limited as a

result of better understanding of how to prevent thermal erosion

of permafrost

Forestry, agricultural development practices in watershed Conversions continuing. Greater use of BMPs in recent years

should help reduce this problem; however, impact can continue

for many years after sediment-releasing source is terminated,

owing to material working its way down river channel

Agricultural and development practices Conversions continuing

Agricultural practices Conversions continuing

Disposal of waste from timber harvest and forest products plants Conversions continuing. Questions about regulatory authority

Landfills for urban waste Continuing wetland conversions at existing sites, Questions about

regulatory authority, Conversion rates expected to decline in

future as site selection receives closer scrutiny at local level and

alternatives for waste disposal are considered (e. g., energy

recovery, comporting)
108 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ulate these activities are discussed in chapters 7,

8, and 9. Further elaboration on the reasons for

the major source of loss, due to converson to

agriculture is presented following the tables.

Agricultural Conversions

Information on Federal policy and national

trends in agricultural land use was obtained from

a working paper on agricultural policies prepared

for OTA, except where other sources are noted.

Trends in Agricultural Conversions

Eighty percent of freshwater wetland losses occurring between the mid-1950’s and the mid-1970’s

were attributed to agricultural conversions, according to NWTS data. Only 2 percent of estuarine wetlands were lost to agriculture during this 20-year

period. Conversions of estuarine wetlands to agricultural use were greater prior to 1950. For example, in the Snohomish Estuary of western Washington, conversion of wetlands to agricultural use was

greatest prior to 1940 but continued to increase at

a reduced rate until about 1960 (14). In California, diking of northern coastal wetlands for

agriculture primarily occurred prior to 1950 (7).

Since that time, many of the diked former agricultural areas have been filled for other uses. On the

east coast, former diked estuarine wetlands used

for agriculture have in many cases reverted back

to estuarine wetlands or been maintained for nonagricultural purposes such as waterfowl production

(13).

Although the general trend is the loss of wetlands

to agriculture, there have been some relatively small

gains in wetlands from former agricultural lands.

Agriculture-related losses and gains of freshwater

vegetated wetlands were 11.7 million and 899,000

acres, respectively. Similar losses and gains of estuarine wetlands were 9,000 and 2,000 acres, respectively. Some parts of New England actually had

net gains in wetlands from agricultural land use.

Some of these agricultural lands have reverted to

wetland through lack of maintenance of former

drainage ditches. However, the majority of abandoned agricultural areas have been converted to

other nonwetland uses (1 7).

Wetland conversion to agriculture almost always

involves surface drainage, but drainage may occur

in areas that are not wetlands. USDA has prepared

estimates of surface and subsurface drainage of all

lands between 1900 and 1980. The data do not

cover wetlands separately. By examining these

drainage data in relation to NWTS estimates of

wetland loss to agriculture between the mid-1950’s

and mid- 1970’s, it is possible to make some estimates of wetland loss to agriculture between 1975

and 1980 on a nationwide basis.

Pavelis(11) estimates that about 17 million acres,

or about 850,000 per year, were surface-drained

between 1955 and 1975 (table 22). During approximately the same period of time, NWTS estimates

that 11 million acres of wetlands, about 550,000

acres/yr, were converted to agricultural land. This

amount represents about 65 percent of the surface

drainage. Between 1975 and 1980, just over 2 million acres, or about 426,000 acres/yr, were surface-drained. Even if all the drained lands were

wetlands, the rate of wetland conversion (requiring surface drainage) has declined by at least 20

percent. However, if the proportion of drained wetlands to overall drained land has remained about

65 percent since 1975 the rate of actual wetland conversion to agricultural land would be about 275,000

acres/yr or about 50 percent of past wetland drainage rates. If gains in wetland acreage due to agriculture are proportional to those of the mid- 1950’s

to mid-1970’s, net conversion rates would be just

over 250,000 acres/yr.

Interpretation of these nationwide figures may

be somewhat misleading. In the past, drainage was

concentrated in the Midwest, the Lower Mississippi

River Valley, and the Atlantic and Texas coasts.

More recently, although new drainage has been at

a virtual standstill in many parts of the country,

significant drainage activity still is taking place in

the Lower Mississippi River Valley, Florida, and

the Southeast in general (12). For example, data

from the Lower Mississippi River Valley show that

rates of clearing of bottom land hardwoods (which

is often accompanied by drainage for crop production) continued to increase between 1967 and 1977

in Louisiana. Louisiana also had the greatest percentage of remaining forest in 1978. But in the five
Ch. 5—Wet/and Trends . 109

Table 22.–Surface and Subsurface Drainage of Farmland, 1900-1980

Farmland currently Acreage shares Annual change, past Undepreciated

Year drained 5 years drainagea

Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface

drainage drainage drainage drainage drainage drainage drainage drainage

systems systems systems systems systems systems systems systems

(Millions of acres)b

(Percent) (Thousands acres per year)c(Millions of acres)

1900 . . . . . . 5.271 1.024 83.7 16.3 — — 3.975 1.014

1905 . . . . . . 9.775 1.902 83.7 16.3 900 176 7.447 1.877

1910 . . . . . . 18.673 3.632 83.7 16.3 1,780 346 15.313 3.572

1915 . . . . . . 29.344 5.701 83.7 16.3 2,134 414 25.029 5.541

920 . . . . . .

925 . . . . . .

930 . . . . . .

935 . . . . . .

940 . . . . . .

945 . . . . . .

950 . . . . . .

955 . . . . . .

43.452

41.420

42.676

38.606

36.532

40.769

57.980

64.995

5.993

6.143

6.687

7.244

8.905

9.555

11.949

13.670

87.9

87.1

86.5

84.2

80.4

81.0

82.9

82.7

2.1

2.9

3.5

5.8

9.6

9.0

7.1

7,3

2,822

-406

251

-814

-415

847

3,442

1,443

58

30

109

111

332

130

479

344

38.131

41.412

38.514

32.697

19.298

15.800

22.849

29.172

5.573

6.143

6.010

6.118

4.711

3.291

5.394

6.510

1960 . . . . . . 70.784 15.823 81.7 18.3 1,117 431 34.252 7.550

1965 . . . . . . 76.013 17.630 81.2 18.8 1,046 361 35.244 9.048

1970 . . . . . . 79.753 19.331 80.5 19.5 748 340 21.773 10.426

1975 . . . . . . 82.563 20.817 79.9 20.1 566 297 17.588 11.912

1980 . . . . . . 84.715 22.768 78.8 21.2 427 390 13.931 13.863

a “Undepreciated drainage” refers to surface drainage systen?s In place for less than 20 years, to those subsurface systems in place for less than W years if installed

before 1940, or to those subsurface systems in place for less than 40 yews if installed in 1940 or thereafter. Note that by 1980 surface and subsurface systems were

about equal in impxtance on an “undepreciated basis,” even though surfaca systems are still in much wider use, as indicated by the acreages and percentage distributions

for current drdnage (COIS. 1 to 4). Such a breakdown is useful as an overall indicator of general age and condition of farm drainage systems and was helpful for measuring active grrxs capital stocks md net capital values.

Acreages for surface and subsurface drainage add to the overall net acreage drained.

c Rates of incr=se or decrease fw surface and sumurface drainage ajd to the overall chan9e for all farm drainage.

SOURCE: G. A. Pavelis, unpublished draft, “Farmland Drainage in the United States, 1900 to 1980: Acreage, Investment and Capital Values, 1982.”

other States in the study region, clearing had

peaked between 1957 and 1967. The study notes

that ‘ ‘rates of acreage decreases in bottom land

hardwood forest area closely reflect the magnitude

of reduction in total hardwood forest area by State

(10). ” Thus, although national drainage rates have

declined, wetland drainage probably is continuing

in some areas.

How Wetlands Are Lost to Agriculture

Wetlands are lost to agriculture through two primary means: direct conversions by draining and/or

clearing and indirect conversions associated with

normal agricultural activities. Direct conversions

of wetlands for the purpose of expanding agricultural operations probably result in far more lost

wetland acreage than do the indirect conversions

on a nationwide basis. However, indirect conversions may be the major factor associated with loss

of wetlands to agriculture in some regions of the

country. Conversion activities are summarized in

table 18.

Examples of direct conversion of wetlands to agriculture include drainage to expand crop acreage

in the prairie-pothole region, construction of irrigation reuse pits to improve irrigation efficiency and

to drain wetlands in the Rainwater Basin of Nebraska, clearing and draining bottom land hardwoods

for soybean or rice production in the Lower Mississippi River Valley and for soybeans and other

crops in North Carolina, and the mowing-chopping-seeding-grazing sequence for improving

Florida sawgrass for agriculture.

Examples of indirect conversions of wetlands associated with normal agricultural activities include

the general lowering of the water table for irrigation, which results in drying of ‘ ‘wet meadows,

making them suitable for crops in the Platte River

Valley and the Sandhills of Nebraska; changing

water-management practices associated with crop

changes in the Central Valley of California (i. e.,

when ricefields are converted to orchards, water

from flooded ricefields is no longer available for

discharge to wetlands); clean farming techniques
110 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NWTS estimates that between the mid-1950’s and mid-1970’s 11 million acres of wetlands or about 550,000 acres/yr

were converted to agricultural use through drainage and clearing

such as changes in rice-culture practices that result

in fewer wetland species growing within ricefields;

and changes in seed varieties and equipment that

allow earlier planting and later harvests and tend

to eliminate wetland vegetation that might grow in

cultivated areas at other times of the year.

Individual permits under section 404 generally

are not required for these direct and indirect conversion activities, either because they occur in areas

covered by nationwide permits, are exempted under

law, entail no dredge or fill activities, or involve

incidental discharges or vegetation clearing that falls

outside the Army Corps of Engineers guidelines for

regulated activities. Even in cases where the Corps

requires an individual permit, it is likely that the

activity will be approved with few modifications due

to difficulties associated with demonstrating adverse

water quality and cumulative impacts from these

activities. (See ch. 8 for further discussion of these

issues. )

In the opinion of some agricultural analysts, the

404 program has had a minimal effect on the conversion of wetlands to agriculture or is viewed as

being a modest nuisance, but not a significant

hurdle for farmers. Although the importance of the

404 program varies in different locations, the Corps

generally gets involved in response to a complaint

or for very large projects. Monitoring potential ag-
Ch. 5—Wetland Trends ● 111

ricultural conversion activities and enforcement of

section 404 is not now considered possible, given

the current manpower and budget of the Corps.

Economic factors (e. g., profits, available land,

costs of maintaining wetlands) and Government

policies often are cited as reasons for converting

wetlands to agricultural use.

ECONOMIC FACTORS

Commodity prices are a major factor in the decision to expend funds to bring wetlands into production. In some parts of the country, when prices

are sufficiently high, it can be extremely lucrative

to grow crops on wetsoils that may, but not necessarily, include wetlands. For example, in an analysis of minimum prices and potential yields for conversion of different wetsoils to soybean production

in the southern Mississippi Valley alluvium, it was

found that the minimum price for planting soybeans

profitably ranged from $1.05 to $2.31 per bushel

(bu) (5). With soybean prices ranging from a low

of about $2.00/bu in 1958 to a high of over $7.00/bu

in 1976, growing soybeans has been extremely lucrative (10). Production alternatives on these bottom land hardwood acres are not nearly as economically desirable as crop production, For instance,

sustained timber production from natural bottom

land hardwood stands is not considered to be a

viable economic investment. Hardwood plantations

can produce good returns on some sites, but crop

returns are better (10).

There is general agreement that the primary reasons for draining wetlands in the prairie-pothole

region are the economic and technological factors

associated with farming, including the:

●

●

●

●

elimination of the nuisance and cost of avoiding potholes situated within cropland;

opportunity to gain relatively productive cropland by draining wetlands (particularly if land

is already owned);

change in farming from a diversified croplivestock combination to increasing emphasis

on row-crop and small-grain production;

rapid increase in tractor horsepower, which increases avoidance costs and facilitates drainage

of potholes by providing the power to operate

drainage equipment. This allows the land-

●

●

●

●

●

owner the opportunity to drain his own land

during slack periods at low cost;

continuing increase in the use of center-pivot

irrigation systems that are not compatible with

potholes;

variable short-term climatic conditions that increase nuisance and cost factors in a wet year

and provide opportunity for low-cost drainage

in a dry year;

short-term net farm income variability, which

provides investment capital for drainage during periods of high income and increases the

incentive to expand cropland area;

absence of private returns from maintaining

wetlands without Government programs; and

low returns from Government incentives to

preserve wetland relative to profits from conversion (6).

Pressures on agricultural lands from urban use

(also an economic issue) may increase demands for

agricultural land on wetlands in some parts of the

country. For example, in south Florida, land use

data for a single county between 1972 and 1980

showed that 23,767 acres of wetlands were converted to agricultural use while 655 acres were urbanized. During that same period, 24,539 acres of

agricultural lands were lost to urbanization. Thus

it appears that urbanization displaces agriculture,

which then moves into wetland areas (l).

Costs of maintaining wetlands may be a factor

in the decision to convert to agriculture in a few

circumstances. For example, the California case

study noted examples where hunting club landowners in the Central Valley found it too costly to

maintain wetlands for waterfowl habitat because

of local property tax policies. Wetlands were taxed

as recreational lands at a higher rate than were agricultural lands. Costs of water and taxes have stimulated some hunt clubs to convert portions of their

land for crop use (7); however, property taxes aren’t

considered to be a factor in conversion to agriculture in most other regions of the country. For example, in Nebraska, wetlands are taxed at a nominal rate (9).

The cost of direct conversions of wetland to agricultural use depends on the characteristics of the

area to be converted. Relevant characteristics include how wet it is and for what period of time,
112 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

the topography, the conversion technique used, and

the availability of an outlet for drainage. Ownership of the areas to be converted and of equipment

to perform the work also are factors in the cost. For

example, the prairie-pothole case study cited six

studies of costs of open drainage conducted from

1971 to 1981 by four different investigators. Costs

per acre ranged from $11.24 to $400.00 (6). The

Nebraska case study makes estimates of conversion

costs for different methods for its analysis of the

profitability of conversion. Conversion of Rainwater Basin wetlands (with an average size of 10

acres) to irrigated agricultural use with a reuse pit

ranged from about $2,000 in 1965 to $6,600 in 1980

(9). Amortized costs over a 30-year period ranged

from $12.95 to $84.99/acre/yr in 1965 and 1980,

respectively (9). Estimates of landshaping costs in

the Sandhills for irrigation vary with the terrain and

range from $4,000 to $26,000/center-pivot (9).

Converting pocosin wetland to cropland in North

Carolina could cost as much as $740/acre (13).

Incentives from Federal programs (and in a few

cases, State programs) to landowners to preserve

wetlands are sometimes enough to outweigh the

profitability of drainage and conversion (see following section). In many cases, however, payments

from such programs as USDA’s Water Bank Program and FWS easements are less than profits from

conversion. A survey of landowner attitudes in

Minnesota and North Dakota found that low payments from FWS and Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service (ASCS) programs were the

overriding reason for refusal to participate in these

protection programs (6). (Other important factors

listed included the long period that the agreements

cover and the lack of information about programs. )

The Nebraska case study noted that wetland payments under the ASCS program of $10/acre and

State habitat program contracts of $15 to $30/acre

appear to be inadequate. To be successful, payments should be increased to the $35 to $45/acre

range in Nebraska. The higher range would reflect

not only the modest return that may sometimes be

received by converting wetlands but also the partial value to society in preserving wetlands (9).

NATIONAL TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

The amount of total cropland planted nationwide

declined between 1954 and 1972 from 355 million

to 295 million acres. This decline was largely a

result of production controls that were fairly constant throughout the 1960’s. Some shifts of lands

in and out of production did occur during this time,

however. Land in major crops increased from 295

million acres in 1972 to 326 million acres in 1974

and then increased steadily until 1981, when 365

million acres were planted. (The year 1978 was an

exception; there was a significant set-aside in that

year, so land in crops decreased.) It is widely

assumed by agricultural analysts that a major portion of the gains in planted cropland after 1972

came from areas that previously were idled by Government programs.

The nationwide expansion in cropland is attributed to the growth in export demand for grains and

oilseeds that began in 1972. Primary factors for this

increase in demand include the entry of the Soviets

into the international market, a shortfall in crop

production on the Indian Subcontinent, and the devaluation of the dollar in 1971. Major increases in

commodity prices occurred between 1972 and 1976.

Although the prices declined in 1977 and 1978,

prices in general were sufficiently high during the

late 1970’s for farmers to increase their amount of

land in crops.

The demand for new cropland is expected to increase over the next 20 years, despite expected advances in productivity. The amount of additional

cropland needed will depend on the food needs of

the United States, the production capability of U.S.

soils, and the total export demand. Maximum estimates for cropland needed by the year 2000 range

from 378 million to 437 million acres, depending

on rates of increase in crop yields (4). Although

USDA’s National Resources Inventory identified
Ch. 5—Wetland Trends ● 113

an estimated 70 million acres of wetlands, the extent that wetland acreage will be used to meet this

demand cannot be estimated readily.

Regardless of the availability of nonwetlands to

meet future needs for cropland, demand for wetland

conversions may well continue as a result of shifting the production of certain crops to different regions of the country. For example, estimates have

been made that soybean production on existing

cropland can be increased up to 21.5 percent in

Louisiana and Mississippi without any environmental damage; destruction of scenic, recreation,

and wildlife areas; lowered water tables; or waterquality degradation associated with conversions. Irrigation and precision land-forming would be required to make these improvements in production,

and these techniques are being implemented on a

fairly large scale. On the other hand, increased production costs of cotton in the West and Southwest

associated with irrigation requirements and improvements in pest control may revitalize the cotton industry in the Southeast and in the Lower

Mississippi River Valley, where cotton grows well

on converted bottom lands with high organic

matter.

Since data from the last 10 years are insufficient

to provide an accurate estimate of current conversions of wetlands to agricultural use, future projections of wetland conversion rates cannot be made.

However, without restrictions on conversions, it can

be expected that wetlands probably will continue

to be converted for agricultural use. Production on

newly converted wetlands may have little impact

on the national need for about 400 million acres

of cropland over the next 20 years or even on regional incomes from farming. However, it may well

make a difference for individual farmers.

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6,

Center for Governmental Responsibility, “Wetlands Loss in South Florida and the Implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, University of Florida, College of Law, contract study

for OTA, September 1982, p. 25.

Center for Wetland Resources, “Wetland Trends

and Factors Influencing Wetland Use in the Area

Influenced by the Lower Mississippi River: A Case

Study, ” Louisiana State University, contract study

for OTA, September 1982, p. I-28.

Council on Environmental Quality, “Our Nation’s

Wetlands: An Interagency Task Force Report’

(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 041-011-0004509, 1978).

Council on Environmental Quality, “National Agricultural Lands Study, Final Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981.

Davis, B., “Economic Potential for Converting

Woodland and Pasture to Cropland: Lower Mississippi Valley and Southeast, Economic Research

Service, USDA ERS-495, Washington, D. C., 1972,

cited in MacDonald, 1979, p. 56.

Department of Agricultural Economics, “Wetlands

in the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota, North

Dakota, and South Dakota—Trends and Issues, ’

North Dakota State University, contract study for

OTA, August 1982.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

ESA/Madrone, “Wetlands Policy Assessment: California Case Study, contract study for OTA, September 1982, pp. 26-63.

Frayer, W. E., Monahan, T. J., Bowden, D. C.,

and Grayhill, F. A., “Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Coterminous

United States, 1950’s to 1970’ s,” Department of

Forest and Wood Services, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., 1983, p. 31.

Great Plains Office of Policy Studies, ‘ ‘Wetland

Trends and Protection Programs in Nebraska, ”

University of Nebraska, contract study for OTA,

September 1982.

MacDonald, P. O., Frayer, W. E., and Clauser,

J. K., “Documenting Chronology, and Future Projections of Bottom Land Hardwood Habitat Loss

in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Ecological

Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979, p.

133.

Pavelis, G. A., “Farm Drainage in the United

States, 1900 to 1980: Acreage, Investment and Capital Values, unpublished draft, 1982.

Pavelis, G. A., personal communication.

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,

“Wetland Trends and Policies in North and South

Carolina, Duke University, contract study for

OTA, August 1982.
114 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

14,

15,

16.

Shapiro & Associates, Inc., “An Analysis of 17.

Wetlands Regulation and the Corps of Engineers

Section 404 program in Western Washington, contract study for OTA, September 1982, p. 16.

Shaw, S. P., and Fredine, C. G., “Wetlands of the 18.

United States: Their Extent and Their Value to

Waterfowl and Other Wildlife, ” U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Circular 39, 1956 (Washington, 19.

D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971),

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “ 1980 Appraisal

Part I: Soil, Water and Related Resources in the

United States: Status, Condition, and Trends, ”

1981.

Water Resources Research Center, “Regional

Assessment of Wetlands Regulation Programs in

New England, University of Massachusetts, contract study for OTA, September 1982, pp. 17-18.

Wilen, Bill O., National Wetlands Inventory, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, personal communication.

Wooten, H. H., “Major Uses of Land in the United

States, ” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical

Bulletin 1082, 1953.
Chapter 6

Impacts and Mitigation

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Contents

Page

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 117

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Development Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 119

Dredging and Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Filling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Drainage and Clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ... ....... . . . . . 121

Extensive Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Water Withdrawals and Diversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Disposal and Discharge of Pollutants and Nonpoint-Source Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Variables of Wetland-Impact Magnitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Physical and Chemical Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Biological and Ecological Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Operations Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......125

Predicting Impacts of Development Activities .. .. .. ... ... .. . 126

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Wetland Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

General Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Mitigating Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Feasibility of Compensation or Offsite Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Onsite Mitigation to Minimize Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....135
Chapter 6

Impacts and Mitigation

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Wetlands are important to development activities

such as agriculture, forestry, port and harbor development, oil and gas extraction, housing and urban growth, mining, and water-resource development. Development activities that involve excavation (or dredging), filling, clearing, draining, or

flooding of wetlands generally have the most significant and permanent impacts on wetlands. These

impacts vary from project to project, depending on

the scale and timing of the project, the type of

wetland affected, and many other variables. Direct

impacts associated with some development activities

often can be mitigated by redesigning the project

or modifying the construction timetable.

The ability to restore significantly degraded wetlands to their original condition depends on the type

of wetland and on the degree to which it has been

affected either by natural processes

ment activities. For example, San

or by developFrancisco Bay

wetlands that were once used for agriculture are

being restored by removing manmade dikes that

separated these wetlands from the bay. It is also

possible to create new wetlands in areas that are

not subject to a high degree of wave action or swift

currents. Costs of creating new wetlands in relatively calm coastal environments range from as little

as $250/acre to over $6,000/acre.

The ability to construct new wetlands should not

be used as sole justification for the unregulated conversion of wetlands to other uses: manmade wetlands do not necessarily provide the same values

as natural ones. In addition, it is probably not possible to create new wetlands at the rate they have been

converted to other uses in the past.

INTRODUCTION

Generally, any wetland-development activity of

a significant magnitude has the potential to affect

wetlands adversely. This chapter identifies the activities and operations that affect wetlands and

describes the nature of their impacts. The actual

impacts of an activity, however, are site and project specific. In other words, an activity with major

impacts in one circumstance may have moderate

impacts in another. All major development activities responsible for wetland loss, including those

regulated under the 404 program, are included in

this discussion.

The present ability to predict or monitor impacts

on wetlands also is evaluated in this chapter. Impact assessment is a critical step in determining

what development activities to allow in wetlands

and how to mitigate potential impacts. The uncertainty associated with impact assessment influences

both the ability to safeguard wetlands and the equity

of regulatory decisions. On the one hand, wetlands

require protection from project impacts that are not

always obvious; on the other, regulatory decisions

based on highly uncertain impact assessments may

impose unnecessary burdens on developers.

Finally, opportunities for and limitations of

mitigating impacts are evaluated in this chapter.

Under the current regulatory program, mitigation

conditions are imposed on about one-third of all

permits processed annually; in comparison, less

than 3 percent of all applications are denied. This

suggests that the strategy

minimize or compensate

prevent development.

of the 404 program is to

for impacts rather than

117
118 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

DEFINITIONS

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

distinguishes between three basic types of impacts

in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

regulations: 1

●

●

Ž

Cumulative impacts are those impacts on the

environment that result from the incremental impact of a development activity when

added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future activities. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but

collectively significant, activities taking place

over time.2

Direct effects are caused by specific activities

and occur at the same time and place as the

activities. 3 *

Indirect, or secondary, effects are caused by

the activities and are later in time or farther

removed in distance but still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growthinducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.4

Impacts can also be described as permanent or

temporary, and short or long term. The former distinction refers to whether or not the wetland restores

itself naturally after suffering impacts; the latter indicates the length of time an impact takes to manifest itself after the activity occurs. An activity may

have temporary and permanent impacts, as well

as short- and long-term impacts, simultaneously.

ICFR title 40, pt. 325 to end, July 1, 1982.

2

S. 1508.7.

3

S. 1508.8.

“The words “effect” and ‘ ‘impact’ are used interchangeably in

both the CEQ regulations and this chapter.

4

S. 1508.8.

A canal dredged through a wetland area, for instance, will immediately damage a wetland by removing vegetation and wetland soil; this impact,

in most cases, is permanent. The dredging, however, also will cause turbidity—generally a shortterm, temporary impact—and slumping of adjacent wetland areas into the canal-potentially a

long-term, permanent impact.

Two other terms used to describe impacts in this

chapter are onsite and offsite. Activities can impact

a wetland whether they take place directly on the

wetland (onsite) or some place removed from the

wetland (offsite). In general, offsite activities will

have less immediate impacts than will onsite activities. Dredging in a wetland will remove vegetation and overlying substrata and cause immediate

damage, Erosion of fill material disposed in areas

adjacent to a wetland may cause gradual accumulation of sediment in the wetland over a longer time.

The term mitigation as used in the NEPA regulations

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

includes:

avoiding the impact altogether by not taking

a certain (i. e., activity) action or parts of an

action;

minimizing impacts by limiting the degree

or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;

reducing or eliminating the impact over time

by preservation and maintenance operations

during the life of the action; and

compensating for the impact by replacing or

providing substitute resources or environments.5

5

40 CFR, pt. 1508.20.
Ch. 6—Impacts and Mitigation ● 119

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Dredging and Excavation

Both dredging and excavation in wetlands involve the direct removal of wetland vegetation and

the underlying wetland soil. Because the elevation

of the dredged area is reduced, it normally will be

flooded by deeper water most of the time, thereby

eliminating the possibility of recolonization by

wetland plants unless the area becomes subsequently filled, either naturally or by man. For example,

dredging or excavation are responsible for wetland

losses associated with agricultural conversion in

Nebraska; mosquito-control ditching along the east

coast in North Carolina; canal construction in

coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; peat

mining in Maryland, Michigan, and Minnesota;

phosphate mining in North Carolina and Florida;

the extraction of other materials such as borax,

potash, soda ash, lithium, gold, sand, and gravel;

and port and other water-dependent coastal development.

Dredging commonly is used to deepen or

straighten waterways for navigation, port, and

marina facilities or for flood control. In addition

to the direct effects of removing wetland vegetation and soil, dredging may impact wetlands even

if it takes place offsite. Giese and Mello (21), for

instance, found that dredging a navigation inlet into

a small estuary increased the tidal range in the upper estuary, exposing the bottom at low tide. Salinity was increased, shellfish beds were exposed, benthic (i. e., bottom-dwelling) invertebrate populations

were eliminated, and vegetation patterns were

changed. The dredging of canals primarily for acPhoto credit: Office of Technology Assessment, Joan Ham

The dredging of canals for navigation and for access to oil and gas development sites in coastal Louisiana has led to

saltwater intrusion into freshwater marshes. The excess salinity eventually kills the marsh vegetation
120 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

cess to oil and gas development sites also has contributed significantly to direct and indirect wetland

losses in coastal Louisiana (15). While many early

studies attributed these losses to the presence of

levees on the Mississippi River, which reduced the

sediments contributing to the buildup of deltas and

wetlands (8), several recent studies in the Mississippi Delta have shown a positive correlation between

canal density and the extent of wetland loss (13,53).

In addition to direct wetland loss resulting from the

disposal of dredged material along canal banks, the

increase in canal density in an area leads to more

saltwater intrusion into wetlands as water is flushed

in and out by the tides. Salinity changes may kill

vegetation, and tidal flows help erode the banks of

canals, causing them to widen at the annual rates

of from 2 to 14.8 percent per year. At the high annual rate, a canal would double its width in only

4.7 years.

Excavation commonly is used for mining and to

create dugouts, or reuse pits, for irrigation. Mining for minerals such as peat, phosphate, and limerock will cause total removal of wetland vegetation

overlying these deposits (30). Additional adverse

impacts also may result. For example, after limerock was excavated and removed from the Biscayne

Aquifer in southern Florida, ground water filled

the pits left by the excavation, lowering the water

table. The stockpiling of materials, the construction of access roads, and other filling associated with

development and operation of a mine also block surface waterflows. Water-filled rockpits, which are

attractive locations for residential development, can

become degraded quickly by urban runoff. In addition, water in the open pit is subjected to continuous, year-round evaporation (9).

In another example, the number and size of wetlands in the Rainwater Basin in Nebraska have

been reduced through the excavation of ‘dugouts,

or irrigation reuse pits. This practice results in partial drainage of some wetlands and the flooding of

others (22). These wetland losses subsequently have

led to increased incidence or risk of disease to waterfowl, reduction in food supply for migratory birds,

and loss of breeding and rearing habitat for birds

(22).

Filling

The immediate and permanent effect of filling

is to bury wetland vegetation, increase the elevation of the area, and eliminate the periodic inundation of the wetland (14). Several types of solid

waste are used as fill material. Municipal waste,

including household refuse and incinerator residue,

has been used for wetland fills. Construction and

demolition debris is used occasionally, as are stone,

sand, gravel, and broken concrete from highway

construction. Even coal ash has been disposed of

as fill in wetlands (8), The disposal of some types

of solid waste in wetlands carries the risk of detrimental chemical effects owing to leaching of nutrients and toxic chemicals from the fill material.

For example, filling is a major factor associated

with wetland loss for land-leveling and agricultural

conversion in Nebraska and California; for construction of impoundments in New England, the

Lower Mississippi River Valley, Lower Colorado

River Valley, South Carolina, and North Carolina;

for canal construction and dredged-material disposal in coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; for

port, harbor, and other coastal development; for

urban and industrial development in South Carolina, New Jersey, California, New England, south

Florida, Washington, and Alaska; for road construction in Alaska, New England, and Nebraska;

and for disposal of waste products in Washington,

California, and New England.

Filling often is associated closely with dredging

and excavation activities. For example, the major

method used in the Southeast to create waterfront

real estate has been to excavate canals within wetlands, using the dredged material as fill for building

sites. This practice not only results in complete loss

of the wetland but also creates canals that are poor

habitat for both flora and fauna (26). A comparative

study of a residential lagoon system and natural

wetlands has shown that the lagoon supports smaller

fish and shellfish communities (28).

Highways built on fill material can have indirect

impacts by either flooding or dewatering adjacent

wetlands. Culverts normally constructed at soil level
Ch. 6—impacts and Mitigation • 121

will prevent flooding of the road, but will not allow

the flow of subsurface water. In some instances,

borrow canals adjacent to the highways also have

diverted the drainage directly into a coastal estuary,

permitting saltwater intrusion into the wetland

where the normal drainage had been cut off.

Drainage and Clearing

Narrow drainage ditches (less than 5-feet wide)

may be excavated to accelerate and channel surface water runoff and to lower ground water levels,

increasing the value of the drained land for agricultural and forest management. For example,

draining and clearing is a major factor associated

with wetland conversions in the prairie potholes and

in Nebraska, California, the Lower Mississippi

River Valley, North and South Carolina, and south

Florida; for urban development in south Florida

and Washington; and for forestry management in

North Carolina and the Lower Mississippi River

Valley.

The major ecological impact from draining and

clearing wetlands for agricultural purposes is the

loss of diverse wildlife habitat. Studies in Missouri

where wetland channelization projects were undertaken to reduce flooding problems indicated that

78 percent of bottom land hardwood forest previously flooded was converted to crop production

after project completion (19). In Louisiana, 51 percent of the original 4.5 million hectares of forested

wetlands have been converted to agricultural use,

mostly for soybean and cotton production. The loss

of hardwood forests has meant a loss of prime habitats for birds and mammals, as well as a loss of

critical spawning grounds for aquatic species.

Under some circumstances, ditches in agricultural

areas also may increase the runoff of pesticides, her-
122 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

bicides, fertilizers, and animal wastes to downstream wetland systems. The drainage may change

vegetation in adjacent areas; the runoff may cause

pollution of adjacent land and open water areas

(45). Drainage of wetlands for agricultural uses

results in the loss of organic material from the soils

due to oxidation. In some parts of the country, this

may lead to soil subsidence and increased hazards

of fire (9). For example, reclaimed peat-based agricultural land in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley

has subsided through processes of compaction, oxidation, and wind loss and is now up to 20 ft below

sea level (1 7).

In some instances, the creation of new habitats

has changed the behavior of migrating birds; rice

cultivation in southwest Louisiana and eastern

Texas has encouraged overwintering of waterfowl

that normally overwinter in eastern Louisiana

wetlands. Natural filling of drainage ditches may

cause an area to revert to a wetland, as occurred

on some former agricultural lands in New England

(56).

Forested wetlands are also partially drained to

lower the water table and allow harvesting of the

forested land. After harvesting, an area may be

allowed to regenerate naturally or replanted as a

pine or hardwood plantation. Active forest management can significantly increase the yield of wood

from the land but also decrease wildlife diversity

within forested plantations, depending on a number

of factors. Maki, et al, (31) report that the practice of ‘‘high grading, ’ in which only desirable

large and shade-intolerant species are harvested,

produces extensive stands of shade-tolerant species

having less value as habitat. Large-scale drainage

and channelization could contribute to decreases

in resident invertebrate density and diversity (3).

If good management practices are not used, constructing drainage ditches and channelizing streams

in forested wetlands may also increase erosion and

sedimentation, which in turn affects wildlife habitat

and water quality in adjacent areas (7). In addition, the drainage of wetlands (14) may increase

the danger of floods in downstream areas.

Drainage of wetlands in south Florida has been

cited as contributing to flooding, drought, oxidation and subsidence of peat, saltwater intrusion,

reduction of fish and wildlife resources, and waterquality problems in Lake Okeechobee-particularly

increases in nutrients, suspended solids, and pollutants introduced from land uses to which wetlands

are converted (9).

Grazing of livestock in wetlands has been a common practice because of the relatively rapid and

lush growth of some wetland plants, particularly

in arid regions. Some wetland vegetation has

proved more nutritious for livestock than upland

forage (38). Overgrazing leads to trampling and

compaction of soft wetland soils and the loss of

natural food sources for resident and migratory

wildlife. Moderate grazing, on the other hand, can

help maintain a wetland by encouraging the growth

of annuals and by setting back vegetative succession.

Other agricultural practices, such as mowing,

disking, and burning wetland vegetation to control crop weeds and mosquitoes, are often carried

out in the playa basins of the southern Great Plains.

The adverse effects of these practices are temporary

and, like moderate grazing, can promote the growth

of annual wetland vegetation (38). However, such

practices conducted late in the growing season may

severely curtail winter cover for upland game birds

and waterfowl.

Extensive Flooding

Permanently inundating wetlands to certain

depths will eliminate wetland vegetation. Sometimes wetlands are flooded to create ponds for growing aquatic organisms, particularly fish and shellfish. Extensive flooding of wetlands is also

associated with agricultural conversions of prairie

potholes; development of impoundments for municipal- and agricultural-water supply, hydropower,

and flood control in places such as New England,

the Lower Mississippi River Valley, the Lower Colorado River Valley, Nebraska, and Alaska; waterfowl management in South Carolina; for mosquito

control in North Carolina; and aquiculture in Louisiana.

Culture ponds for crayfish and shrimp, for instance, are prevalent in Louisiana. These ponds are

constructed by building dikes to raise water elevations. In addition to its direct effects on the wetland
Ch. 6—impacts and Mitigation ● 123

vegetation, such flooding may have indirect effects

on adjacent wetlands. For example, an experiment

in shrimp culture, in which a dike was built to impound part of a coastal wetland, led to large variations in temperature and salinity with subsequent

die-offs of many organisms, including the cultured

species (41).

The construction of dikes or the disposal of spoil

from dredging operations may result in the impoundment of swamps and marshes. An impounded swamp does not dry out periodically like

a natural swamp and has a lower water turnover.

This results in reduced primary and secondary productivity and decreased value for wildlife habitat.

Virtually no fish are found in the stagnant water

of such an area (10).

Water Withdrawals and Diversions

Alterations in the hydrologic regime from large

water withdrawals for municipal-industrial use or

large-scale diversions of water for irrigation and

flood control can cause various impacts on wetland

ecosystems. The effects of these withdrawals and

diversions on downstream wetlands are twofold,

First, upstream depletions may lower the water

table in downstream freshwater wetlands, causing

a temporary or permanent loss of vegetation and

a decrease in habitat values. Second, decreasing

freshwater inflow in coastal areas will allow tidal

incursion of saltwater into the brackish and freshwater marshes. The increase in salinity to these

marshes will reduce species diversity and abundance as well as overall ecosystem productivity.

Water diversions and withdrawals also reduce the

input of detritus into the estuarine food chain.

Water diverted for irrigation and then returned

to the wetland can increase salinities and temperatures considerably. For example, salinity in Suisun

Marsh, which represents the largest contiguous wetland area in California and 10 percent of the total

State wetland acreage, has been increasing along

with increasing water diversions by the State and

Federal water projects in the Central Valley and

the Sierras. One result has been a decline in certain high-food-value plant species that are favored

by brackish-to-fresh soil-water conditions. These

brackish plant species are particularly important

to wintering ducks and geese (17). In addition, increases in water temperature owing to thermal effluents from powerplants or from irrigation return

flows may cause a reduction in species diversity of

wetland flora or a shift to the more temperaturetolerant, blue-green algae that tend to produce

eutrophic (oxygen-deprived) conditions.

Restricting or manipulating water flows with

dams and reservoirs also can dewater downstream

wetlands. Any wetlands downstream that are not

immediately dewatered may be subject to reduced

flushing, leading to a decrease in the amount of

nutrients reaching the wetlands. Greater than normal floodflows can occur also when large reservoir

releases are sustained, possibly washing out wetlands downstream.

Dikes and flood-control levees often are built to

convert wetlands in flood plains to dry farmland.

These flood-control levees retain floodflows within

a river channel, dewatering the wetlands behind

them. Levees within the floodway also tend to increase the velocity of storm runoff, produce an

overall loss of flood storage capacity, and increase

the chance of downstream flooding (45). Increased

flows may increase scouring and erosion. Unlike

the conversion of wetland by filling, land that is

drained behind or within dikes or levees can be restored to a wetland if the embankments are removed or breached.

Disposal and Discharge of Pollutants

and Nonpoint-Source Pollution

Wetlands have been used to purify wastewater

of nutrients and suspended solids, sometimes with

adverse effects (4). Abundant nutrients in the waste

may increase the productivity and biomass of tolerant vegetation in the wetland while more sensitive

species disappear (58). Algal populations also may

shift in species composition, which may lead to

wetland eutrophication (23). If the wastewater volume is large enough to raise wetland water elevations, a conversion from emergent wetland to open

water can occur. Stormwater discharge also can

have adverse impacts on wetland functions and values. For example, contaminants from urban runoff

have been noted to cause detrimental effects on tidal
124 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

wetlands around Hilton Head Island in South Carolina (43).

A long-term effect of the disposal of contaminated

dredge spoil in or near wetlands is the potential bioavailability of toxic chemicals such as oil and grease,

pesticides, arsenic, and heavy metals, when the sediments are resuspended periodically (1). Although

the bioavailability of these contaminants generally is quite low, under certain conditions there may

be some long-term potential for bioaccumulation

of these harmful substances within the food chain,

especially when contaminated dredged materials are

exposed to the air (27).

For example, filling of wetlands by eroded soil

is also a factor associated with wetland conversions

from forestry, agricultural, and development practices in watersheds of the California coast; from

agricultural and development practices around the

Chesapeake Bay in Maryland; and from agricultural activities in the prairie potholes and Nebraska.

VARIABLES OF WETLAND-IMPACT MAGNITUDE

The actual impacts of a specified construction or

development activity will vary geographically and

by season of the year according to regionally or

locally distinct characteristics of the physicalchemical environment. The characteristics of biological populations and habitats and of the whole

wetland ecosystem also will modify the impacts. A

discussion of these variables has been included here

to illustrate both the site-specificity of wetlandproject impacts and the range of factors that must

be understood to make realistic impact assessments,

and to suggest how these variables may be manipulated to mitigate project impacts.

Physical and Chemical Variables

Composition of Wetland Soils

The physical characteristics of wetland soils will

have considerable influence on the severity of impacts produced by different activities in wetlands.

Wetland bottom type is an important factor in species diversity and productivity. For example, a project that introduces large quantities of silt and clay

would have a significant impact by smothering productive substrates. A wetland’s chemistry also may

influence the magnitude of a project’s impact. The

effects of dredging in marine or brackish waters are

likely to be less severe than in freshwater because

of the buffering capacity of these waters. Also, since

cold water generally has higher levels of dissolved

oxygen, the effects of activities that tend to deplete

the dissolved oxygen will be greater if water temperatures are higher.

Hydrologic Regime and Water Dynamics

The hydrology of a wetland will affect substantially the magnitude of impacts from activities in

wetlands. For example, wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from ground water supplies, such

as perched bogs or playa lakes, will be more adversely affected by excavation or dredging than wetlands that have sources of water besides precipitation. Excavation in these isolated wetlands may

damage the compact peat layer and/or clay layers

that seal the bottom of the wetland and hold water

within it (32).

The construction of highways on wetland fill has

different impacts, depending on the particular wetland hydrology. Culverts placed through a highway

fill may cause flooding of the upslope side and

dewatering of the downslope side (44). In the Florida Everglades, however, the same type of highway

fill with drainage culverts may be able to accommodate the water that flows over the surface of the

wetland.

Composition of Fill Material

The disposal of solid wastes, however, carries the

risk of detrimental chemical and biological effects

due to leaching of the fill material. The magnitude

of adverse impacts depends on the actual waste

composition, which can vary physically and chemically according to geographic region, community

standards, and seasonal variations. In general,

municipal solid wastes have a high proportion of

biodegradable animal and vegetable waste, rags,
Ch. 6—impacts and Mitigation ● 125

wood, cardboard and paper products, as well as ferrous metals. Leaching of organic matter such as

garbage and wood waste can lead to an increased

biological oxygen demand (BOD) and reduced levels or large fluctuations in dissolved oxygen (DO).

Such changes in water chemistry can cause stress

to aquatic populations and changes in species diversity.

Biological and Ecological Variables

Population Abundance, Diversity,

and Productivity

Productivity, abundance, and diversity are important factors in evaluating the potential impacts

of a certain activity on a wetland. Highly diverse

wetland ecosystems with high overall productivity

but low abundance of many species maybe affected

heavily by activities that change the limiting factors for selected species, thereby unbalancing the

whole structure (species composition) of that ecosystem. A less diverse ecosystem may be impacted

less by the same activities. Spartina marshes, which

almost can be considered a monoculture, are known

to be highly resistant to changes in salinity and

might not be affected significantly by, for example, the reduction of freshwater inflows to the

estuary from upstream use of water for cooling a

powerplant.

Presence of Key Species

Important to an Ecosystem

The severity of impact from a particular activity will be greater if the adverse effects focus on a

key species in the wetland ecosystem. For example, detritus-based food chains can easily be disrupted by activities that would lower the abundance

of snails and small crustaceans that help produce

detritus by shredding the marsh grasses.

Habitat Diversity and Carrying Capacity

Fish and wildlife may require different habitats

during their lifecycles, in each season, and even daily, in order to meet their needs for food, water, cover, and reproduction. Wetlands offer a variety of

habitats for a variety of species and life stages.

Habitat diversity often has been assessed as an indication of the importance or health of a wetland.

The degree of impact on a wetland often will depend on which habitats are adversely affected; for

example, fish that use coastal marshes may be diverted from their normal routes by large changes

in salinity and flow (24).

Operations Variables

Frequency, Duration, and Season of Activity

The frequency, duration, and season of a development activity in or affecting a wetland will modify

the severity of impact. Frequent channel-maintenance dredging, for example, might limit the recovery of an adjacent wetland from the temporary effects of sediment resuspension, especially where

there is high exposure to wind and waves. Oil exploration may have rather minor and temporary

adverse effects on waterfowl if access to wetlands

is limited during the breeding, nesting, and rearing season. Similarly, construction of a highway

through a wetland will have less impact on water

quality and wildlife if the construction is rapid and

efficient, avoids the period of high spring runoff,

and is carried out before or after the waterfowl

breeding season.

Location of Activity Within an Ecosystem

The location or orientation of development projects within a wetland can alter the magnitude of

their impact considerably. One example would be

the placement of highway fill in a wetland. If the

causeway fill is placed parallel to the direction of

surface sheet flow and subsurface flow, the problems of blocking wetland drainage or channeling

the flow through culverts will be minimized (44).

In another example, if pipelaying in wetlands is

confined to the ‘‘push-ditch’ method and the

equipment can operate on dry soil at the edge of

the wetland, the impacts will be less than if the

equipment is operated from mats in the wetland.

Distribution, Scale, and Type of Activity

The type, scale, and spatial distribution of construction or development in a wetland must be considered in order to estimate reliably the project’s

impact. Wetland filling, if confined to a single area

of marsh while leaving other areas undisturbed,

may be preferable to a patchwork of fills distributed
126 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

throughout the marsh. Draining and clearing of a cropland have contributed to the decline of watersignificant number of small, isolated wetlands for fowl in the Central and Mississippi flyways (35).

PREDICTING IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITIES

Limitations

According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineer regulations, ‘‘the decision whether to issue a permit

will be based on evaluation of the probable impact,

including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity . . . .” Under the Corps’ public interest

review, the impacts of a proposed project must be

weighed against its other costs and benefits to determine if the project will be allowed. While there are

certain characteristic impacts associated with particular activities, it is clear that the actual impacts

of any project will vary with each site and project

and will depend on the time at which they are conducted. This suggests that in most cases similar activities or projects cannot necessarily be regulated

in a uniform way; the potential impacts of major

projects that might generate significant impacts

must be evaluated on an individual basis.

Guidelines established for the 404 program recognize the variability that exists from site to site

and project to project. The 404(b)(l) guidelines,

for instance, require that the “permitting authority . . . shall determine in writing the potential

short-term or long-term effects of a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material on the physical,

chemical, or biological components of the aquatic

environment. This includes determinations of the

nature and degree of effect that a proposed discharge will have on the following: physical substrate, water circulation, fluctuation and salinity;

suspended particulates/turbidity; contaminants; the

aquatic ecosystem and organisms; and cumulative

and secondary effects.

Even under conditions of very careful site-specific

and project-specific examination, however, the ability to assess potential impacts accurately often is

limited. In general, the immediate effects of an activity are easier to predict than long-term impacts;

physical-chemical impacts are more predictable

than biological impacts; direct effects are more apparent than secondary effects; and the impacts of

each project individually are much easier to predict

than the cumulative impact of many individual

projects. The short-term turbidity caused by dredging, for instance, is predicted relatively easily and

precisely; predictions of most cumulative impacts

are merely speculative. A study of the impacts of

deepening navigational channels on fish and wildlife concluded that:

Assessing the impacts of navigational dredging

and the disposal of dredged material is a controversial exercise; the viewpoints and approaches are

endless. Without question, dredging can devastate

fish and wildlife resources; however, in the absence

of definitive information, impacts are sometimes

more imagined than real (l).

It is well recognized that the routine application

of section 404(a) authority to issue individual permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material

cannot provide for the assessment of cumulative impacts on wetlands or other aquatic resources from

many individual projects that are evaluated separately. The Corps’ proposed general policies for

evaluating permit applications makes a clear declaration:

Although a particular alteration of wetlands may

constitute a minor change, the cumulative effect

of numerous such piecemeal changes often results

in a major impairment of the wetland resources. G

The separate examination of potential effects at

different but interrelated wetland sites cannot, by

itself, account for the cumulative effects. The

Corps’ Environmental Advisory Board concluded

that:

Individual permit processing in specific regions

is costly and ineffective in addressing the cumulative impacts of existing and future similar permit

eFeder~ Rep”ster, VO1. 45, No. 184, PP. 629 740.
Ch. 6—Impacts and Mitigation ● 127

actions in the same region. There was general

agreement that without planning, the cumulative

impact of activities associated with the regulatory

program could indeed lead to serious consequences.

Planning required to assess cumulative impacts of

individual actions must be done on a large scale—

regional, watershed, ecosystem, etc. It was also

generally agreed that any analysis of cumulative

impacts on an area must of necessity be based on

a knowledge of local growth patterns and local planning objectives. 7

Wetland Reviews

As noted in the Code of Federal Regulations,8

‘‘the District Engineer may undertake reviews of

particular wetland areas . . . to assess the cumulative effect of activities in such areas. ” Some

districts have conducted such inventories of wetland

resources, called ‘ ‘wetland reviews, particularly

where there are large numbers of permit applications and pressures for development. In some cases,

the Corps has worked with State and local officials

to plan for future demands for development that

might require section 404 authorization. Such activities also can help to reduce the time it takes to

make a permit decision and to reduce uncertainty

as to which areas are regulated under section 404.

These efforts are described below.

Wetland reviews have been conducted for at least

six estuaries on the west coast, one area in Alaska,

and in the Atlantic City, N.J., area. Each review

is different; however, the review of the Snohomish

Estuary by the Seattle District in 1977-78 provides

a good example of information that can be presented to help reduce the uncertainty associated

with the 404 process. The review’s goal was to provide a comprehensive inventory of wetland habitats,

a discussion of existing regulatory controls, and

recommendations for wetland protection. As part

of the project, a complete inventory and mapping

of land use and land cover was prepared. In addition, fish and wildlife habitats and physical, cultural, and esthetic characteristics were mapped and

evaluated.

From the data gathered, wetland areas within the

estuary were designated as areas of importance,

‘U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 29th Meeting of the Environmental

Advisory Board, held Apr. 21-24, 1982, Arlington, Va.

*33 CFR 320.4(6)(3).

areas of environmental concern, and other areas.

Areas of importance were those areas with unique

resources or those which served critical functions.

It was recommended that they be maintained in

their present state and that any 404 permit be approved “only if the activity is clearly in the public

interest. Areas of environmental concern were

sensitive to development or change, but might have

uses that are ‘‘consistent with maintenance of their

habitat values. ” It was recommended that “only

uses in the public interest and compatible with the

habitat values should be approved. ” Other areas

were those in which ‘‘new development would have

minimal impacts on wetlands and other valuable

habitat types. ”

Since its completion, the Snohomish Estuary

Wetland Study has been used regularly by the Seattle District. Within the Regulatory Functions

Branch, use of the document has emphasized the

identification of wetlands as a means of determining Corps jurisdiction under section 404. As a result, the need for time-consuming site visits has

been reduced. It also is used in preapplication conferences to inform applicants of issues of concern

and to suggest methods for minimizing impacts associated with their proposal. In the Environmental Resources Section, the analysis of wetlands values has been used in preparing environmental assessments (EA’s) of proposed 404 permit activities.

The detailed data base presented in the review

saved both time and effort in preparing environmental documentation. Furthermore, in the winter

it provides data that would not be available even

on a site visit. On occasion, the review even has

been used as a data source for EA’s on sites in other

estuaries with similar habitats.

It should be noted that the Snohomish County

Planning Department also uses the study to evaluate substantial development permits under its

Shoreline Master Program. The small county staff

lacks the technical expertise to evaluate all the functional characteristics and potential impacts associated with a particular site; the review contributes

to the accuracy and consistency of their decisions.

In addition, the important wetlands that were identified in the study have been incorporated as “areas

of special concern’ in the county comprehensive

plan (45).
128 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

General Permits

Advantages

In 1977, Congress authorized the Corps to exempt categories of activities ‘‘similar in nature’

on a nationwide, districtwide, or statewide basis

from case-by-case permit reviews. The Corps is required to establish that activities regulated in this

way ‘‘will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately and will have

only a minimal cumulative adverse effect on the

environment. ” Regionwide and nationwide general

permits provide several positive features for wetland

regulation. They provide regulatory consistency,

avoid administrative delay and paperwork, and circumvent possible duplication of control by other

agencies. Myhrum (34) notes that the nationwide

permit program allows the regulatory agencies to

focus limited personnel and finances on activities

generating greater impacts. Twenty-five nationwide

permits for categorical activities, such as shore

stabilization and minor road-crossing fills, have

been authorized with special conditions attached

to each that must be followed in order for the permit to be valid. Division engineers of the Corps are

authorized, at their discretion, to modify nationwide permits by adding regional conditions applicable to certain activities or geographic areas. Further, individual permits may be required if general

permits are not adequate to protect aquatic ecosystems.

While section 404 authorizes general permits for

activities similar in nature, the Corps also has authorized two general permits on a nationwide basis

for areas rather than activities. The Corps’ justification for this goes back to its history of using general

permits on an areawide basis, before the 1977

amendments authorized general permits oficially.

The Corps also argues that the areas granted general permits (isolated waters and waters above headwaiters) have not been regulated in the past and that

the geographic scope and distribution of these waters make them impossible to regulate effectively

on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, granting a permit on an areawide basis, rather than on

an activity basis, allows activities and projects to

take place on wetlands, regardless of the scope and

magnitude of their impact.

Disadvantages

Despite these advantages, Blumm (5) has expressed the view: ‘‘Absent reporting requirements,

the cumulative impacts of general permits remain

largely a matter of speculation. ” He cites the

criticism by the General Accounting Office (GAO)

of cumulative impact assessment by the Corps in

a GAO 1977 report: “It is not clear that our foundation of knowledge about impacts can support the

premise that activities or discharges and conditions

specified under nationwide permits will necessarily ensure minimal adverse impacts, particularly

minimal cumulative adverse impacts. For example, minor road-crossing fills are permitted in nontidal wetlands if they discharge less than 200 cubic

yards below “mean” high water and do not extend beyond 100 ft past the ordinary high water

mark. Each such fill is required to be ‘‘part of a

single and complete project for crossing of a nontidal waterbody . . .‘‘g However, successive ‘ ‘minor’ crossings of a road over many isolated small

freshwater wetlands in the Great Plains or separated

narrow riverine wetlands in a coastal delta cannot

always be said to involve only minimal cumulative

impacts. While the Corps is required under section 404(e)(2) to review the status of nationwide permits every 5 years to determine if impacts have been

minimal, it is almost impossible to assess the impacts that have taken place as a result of the permit if reporting is absent. In light of this problem

some general permits now have reporting requirements and additional reporting requirements are

being considered for others.

Another difficulty with general permits is that

it is difficult for some developers and landowners

to determine if they meet the conditions of the permit. To meet the general-permit conditions, for example, that a discharge of fill in an isolated wetland

does not adversely modify the critical habitat of a

threatened wildlife species requires a high level of

‘Federal Rep”ster, vol. 45, No. 184, pp. 62, 776.
Ch. 6—Impacts and Mitigation ● 129

technical expertise. Parish and Morgan (40) discuss ly” maintained. Certain classes of activities will be

this problem: permitted if management practices are followed to

the extent “practical” and adverse effects are minLack of certainty is inherent in the language of imized. If the discharger incorrectly interprets any

the permit conditions. A discharge will be per- of these terms and an individual section 404 permitted if it consists of ‘‘suitable’ materials free mit is required, its issuance will involve the need

from toxic materials, and the fill will be “proper- for federal environmental assessment.

MITIGATING IMPACTS

In line with the definitions used by CEQ mitigation includes:

●

●

●

●

●

avoiding adverse impacts to wetlands altogether by denying a project permit;

minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or

magnitude of a project;

rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;

reducing or eliminating the impact on wetlands by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; and

compensating for the wetland losses by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." 10

For the purposes of the following discussion, a

basic distinction can be drawn between those actions taken to minimize the impacts of a project on

wetlands and those actions taken to compensate for

a project’s impact. Though the two may be used

in combination, the strategy to compensate is most

suited to situations where little can be done to

minimize project impacts. Typically, in such a case,

the project totally eliminates the wetland and compensation entails either restoration of wetlands or

creation of new ones at another site. Filling and

bulkheading of wetlands for real estate development

or draining and clearing of wetlands for farming

are good examples.

Under the 404 program, adverse impacts are reduced by conditioning individual permits or by

using “blanket conditioning” for general permits.

Conditioning usually entails either onsite design requirements and construction and management

practices to minimize impacts or requirements for

,OCFR, pt. 1 sO~.LO(a-e).

offsite compensation of unavoidable impacts. Like

the difficulties associated with assessing impacts,

the effectiveness of mitigation measures in ameliorating the impacts of a project sometimes can be

very uncertain or even speculative. Although the

Corps strives to tailor mitigation measures to individual permits, controversies may arise from requirements for expensive mitigation measures if the

benefits of these measures are questionable. In some

cases, the expense of mitigation can reduce the profitability of projects to a point where they are no

longer worthwhile to pursue, and developers complain that the agencies sometimes use permit conditions as leverage to discourage projects.

Current Corps policy does not give much guidance on the level of mitigation appropriate in cases

of great uncertainties, calling only for modifications

that are ‘‘commensurate in scope and degree with

the impacts of concern. However, the Corps currently is establishing a more specific policy: in the

interim final regulations issued July 22, 1982, the

Corps indicates that it is beginning to address the

problem of uncertainty. Whether permits may require mitigation of secondary impacts, for instance,

‘‘will depend on whether the impact is at least probable, rather than speculative."11 In its May 12,

1983, revisions of the 404 regulations, the Corps

proposed expanding authority of the district engineer to provide for either onsite or offsite mitigation.

In the following sections, the feasibility of these

strategies is evaluated, and opportunities for and

limitations of using them are explored.

jlFeder~ Register, vol. 45, No. 184, PP. 62, 657.
130 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Feasibility of

or Offsite

Creation

Compensation

Mitigation

Producing a new wetland usually involves falling

an open-water or upland ecosystem, which may,

in itself, possess important values. Developing a

new wetland entails providing the proper substrate

level and type, assuring chemical compatibility, and

providing erosion control during establishment of

vegetation. The complexity of these factors introduces considerable risk of failure; however, the

historical record shows that creation of wetlands can

be successful, given proper site selection and

preplanning.

Marsh creation has occurred mainly in coastal

waters or along shorelines that are not exposed to

large storm waves or the wakes of ships (20,39,60).

Planting aquatic plants predates the 1940’s.

Marshes of various sizes have been developed along

the Mississippi River since the 1930’s, in Utah in

the 1930’s and 1940’s, and in Wisconsin and other

States since the 1940’s. Although some projects

range up to several hundred acres in size, marsh

creation by means of artificial plantings tends to

be on a smaller scale (0, 1 to 10 acres) owing to high

costs for establishment.

The largest concentration of projects has occurred

in brackish and saline environments along the midAtlantic and Southeastern coastlines. Wetlands also

have been created successfully in New England,

along the Gulf Coast, particularly in Texas (57),

and along the west coast [e. g., San Francisco Bay

and the Columbia River estuary (51)]. Some

freshwater marshes have been established on rivers

(55), on the Great Lakes (59), in isolated ponds as

part of surface-mine reclamation (1 1), and in sewage lagoons, to assist with wastewater treatment

(16).

Restoration of Wetlands

Restoration involves taking an existing marsh

from a poor, unhealthy, or degraded state to the

level of productivity and habitat value associated

with undisturbed natural wetlands occurring in the

vicinity. This process often can be accomplished

by changing surrounding water inflow or drainage,

eliminating erosion and siltation, and reducing

pollution from adjacent areas (6,29,46). Restored

areas generally will have at least some semblance

of the natural elevations and substrate unless erosion or sediment deposition has been severe. Residual populations of natural plants usually are present to serve as seedstock for widespread regeneration. However, re-creation of wetlands has occurred

from seed remaining in the soil for decades.

Restoration, although not widely reported, has

been practiced in estuarine systems where diking

has degraded coastal wetlands (33,47), in areas

where normal sediment input or hydrologic patterns

have been disrupted (48,49), and in brackish or

saline marshes that have been modified heavily by

construction activities or exposed to different types

of pollutants (55). In some cases, freshwater wetlands have been restored, as in the case of Florida’s

extensive freshwater ecosystems (50,52). Marsh-restoration projects tend to be small-usually 20 acres

or less.

Costs of Creation and Restoration

Any successful marsh-creation or marsh-restoration project must involve costs for project planning, site investigation, careful seasonal scheduling, and postproject monitoring. Total project costs

typically range from $250/acre for a small, relatively

simple marsh-creation project (57) to over $6,000/

acre for a marsh established for sewage treatment

(16). Transport of substrate material by barge,

truck, or dredge, and subsequent site preparations

usually account for the largest single cost wherever

the site requires extensively raised elevations. In

most newly created wetlands, artificial plant propagation is also a necessary and significant cost,

Scheduling of project operations within natural environmental constraints, such as the periods of

tides, plant germination time, and limits of the

growing season can increase costs in the short term

but will contribute greatly to project success over

the long term. In general, it is far less costly to

restore degraded wetlands than to create new wetlands.

Prospects for Success

The success of efforts to create or restore wetlands depends on many factors, including wetland

type and location, project scope and size, materials
Ch. 6—Impacts and Mitigation ● 131

and methods used, and good project planning and

management, especially during the first two or three

growing seasons. However, even a properly developed wetland will require an extended period of

time for the functions of a natural wetland to evolve.

For example, hydrological values and the ability

of manmade wetlands to enhance sedimentation of

suspended material are achieved within a relatively short time; wetland ability to assimilate nutrients

and toxic substances takes somewhat longer. The

diversity of a site and its ability to support more

wildlife also generally increase over time. However,

there is insufficient data at this time to say how long

it takes for all the biological functions of a natural

wetland to develop.

WETLAND PRESERVATION VS.

RESTORATION OR CREATION

Some States may call for protecting wetlands

equivalent in biological value to the wetlands filled

or diked. Others, such as Oregon, prescribe that

no net loss of existing wetland values should occur: “Oregon’s mitigation requirement . . . is that

areas of similar biological potential must be created

or restored, not simply protected (25). The mitigation goal is to replace lost wetlands with restored

or new wetlands similar in quantity and quality of

flora and fauna. Recently, the concept of “no net

loss” has been criticized. The skepticism arises from

a concern over whether new marsh creation really

compensates for losses of natural wetlands. Race

and Christie (42), for instance, write:

A reevaluation of data from manmade marshes

is necessary before there can be a determination

of whether coastal salt marshes are truly being

replaced or expanses of marsh vegetation that persist temporarily are merely being planned . . . a

newly created marsh is not the functional equivalent of a 1,000-year-old marsh,

These authors warn that mitigation should not

be offered as justification for the development and

destruction of wetlands. The assumed ability to

‘‘create’ wetlands, they say, creates the perception that wetlands are a renewable resource, a

perception that could lead to more widespread development. Regulators, they feel, should be “judicious” in allowing mitigation by marsh creation.

Race and Christie conclude that:

Marsh creation in suitable situations can be an

effective tool to minimize onsite damage at postconstruction sites, to abate shoreline erosion, and

to return degraded wetlands to tidal influence by

means of restoration. However, because of the limited scientific evidence on the development and stabilization of important biotic and physical characteristics of manmade salt marshes, managers must

be cautious in the widespread adoption of marsh

creation as a mitigation strategy.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WETLAND

MITIGATION BANKING

The Statewide Interpretive Guideline for Wetlands and Other Wet, Environmentally Sensitive

Habitat Areas, adopted pursuant to the California

Coastal Act, provides for the payment of a fee to

a public agency for purchase and restoration of a

degraded wetland to a productive value at least

equivalent to that of a wetland being filled. The

payment to a ‘‘mitigation bank’ would be in lieu

of dedicating or restricting the use of a comparable

wetland provided directly by the permitholder (36).

This feature relieves the burden on landowners and

developers of searching out suitable mitigation sites.

It also promotes a cohesive rather than a

fragmented approach to wetland-impact mitigation,

with significant opportunity for economy of scale.

A Federal wetland bank, as suggested by the

Corps, would operate as in California except that

creation of replacement wetlands would be emphasized (54). In fact, Congress has authorized use of

a wetland mitigation bank associated with the Tensas project in Louisiana.

Onsite Mitigation to Minimize

Impacts

Site-Specific Requirements

Many development activities produce primary,

secondary, and cumulative impacts in or adjacent

to wetlands that can be minimized feasibly when

fully understood. Thus, successful control of the primary impact, in turn, will reduce subsequent secondary and cumulative impacts. Further mitigation efforts may be necessary, however, where an

activity is known to produce significant indirect or
132 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

compounding adverse effects. An areawide wetland

review may uncover further unforeseen impacts.

One of the major problems in mitigating project impacts is the difficulty of mitigating cumulative

and secondary impacts. The lack of reliability in

impact prediction complicates the mitigation process. As an example, a short-term, isolated, primary

impact of a dredging operation is suspension of sediment in the water column. The narrow approach

toward mitigating this effect might include avoiding

periods of fast tidal currents and deploying silt curtains. However, secondary impacts may include the

release of excess nutrients and toxic contaminants.

Long-term cumulative impacts from repeated

dredging and other excavation at many sites

throughout a single estuary might include low-level,

but widespread, bioconcentration of metals and

synthetic organic compounds, with consequent

chronic, sublethal effects within the food chain.

Mitigative measures designed merely to minimize

the direct, localized effects of separate dredging

operations may fail to address systemwide, indirect

effects.

General Requirements

Mitigating impacts on wetlands may take the

form of standard conditions attached to individual

dredge or fill permits, conditions incorporated into

general nationwide and regional permits, and the

best management practices (BMP’s) prescribed for

activities exempted from any permits. While the

nature of general prescription has eased the regulatory burden of issuing individual permits covering site-specific situations and has set approximate

standards for common development practices, it

overlooks the likelihood of environmental damage

that may occur because specific wetland functions,

values, and sensitivities are not considered. As an

example, disposal of spoil from maintenance dredging might be required under a regional general permit to avoid discharge in or near active currents.

This practice could lead to several shallow-water

spoil sites in a wetland area with long-term effects,

such as chronic resuspension of sediments from

wind and waves, periodic disruption to bottomdwelling populations, and possible bioaccumulation

of toxic chemicals (37). Under an individual permit, however, site-specific conditions might stipulate long-term disposal within a diked containment

site to avoid contamination of a nearby wetland

heron rookery or of a municipal ground water

supply.

BMP’s are applied to common activities such as

minor road construction for maintenance of natural

surface and subsurface drainage or pipeline installation for sediment control. A representative BMP

for a minor road might be to install culverts through

the causeway fill with spacing, elevation, and

capacity needed to maintain lateral drainage, including stormflows and the passage of fish and other

aquatic animals (37). The application of BMP’s on

an indiscriminate basis can reduce the effectiveness

of mitigation measures by overlooking limiting, sitespecific conditions. To ensure their effectiveness,

adequate site investigations are necessary to show

that critical or sensitive wetland values and functions are not jeopardized and that local environmental conditions will not negate normal BMP effectiveness. For example, where there is unchanneled sheet flow in a marshland, the required number and spacing of culverts will be quite different

than where surface flow is already channeled; otherwise, the usual BMP approach could cause adverse

hydrologic impacts by promoting channeling. In

conclusion, BMP’s generally are appropriate where

impacts from a specified activity are localized, consistent, and predictable; the mitigative measures

are highly standardized and proven effective; and

the landowners or developers responsible possess

the necessary technological and management capabilities to use these practices effectively.

Controversy over mitigation arises over application of blanket stipulations of mitigation requirements as opposed to case-by-case tailoring of permit conditions. Blanket stipulations greatly increase

the uncertainty over the effectiveness of mitigation

requirements, and developers complain that they

are required to meet blanket stipulations that are

not applicable to their specific permit situation.

Because it lacks resources to undertake the extensive site investigations or studies to determine the

effectiveness of different mitigation measures, the

Corps has been forced to use stipulations recommended by its staff and staff from other resource

agencies. GAO, in a report to the Congress on improving wetlands permit processing in Alaska,

concluded:
Ch. 6—Impacts and Mitigation • 133

(The) Corps imposes controversial and costly

permit conditions without assuring that these conditions are, in fact, needed. The need for these conditions, which are frequently proposed by various

Federal and State agencies, is not substantiated by

site-specific data and research findings (12).

GAO recommended increased site-specific investigation to prescribe impact controls adapted to

unique site characteristics instead of blanket stipulations. This recommendation was aimed at the uniform application of particularly costly measures that

may burden the oil companies, such as seasonal

drilling requirements in wetlands. However, GAO

admitted that without more research to substantiate such restrictions, neither their imposition nor

the removal of blanket restrictions could be justified.

Uncertainty of Mitigation Cost Effectiveness

In the Corps’ proposed regulations for processing

of section 404 permits, special conditions may be

attached ‘‘only to respond to effects and impacts

of the permit which are at least probable rather than

speculative. 12 Banta and Nauman (2) believed that,

‘‘While ideally (mitigation) involves an objective

judgment by scientific standards . . . , it has frequently become the last ounce of environmental

quality that can be injected into a project within

legally and politically acceptable limits. ” For example, a standard mitigation criterion in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) section

404(b)(l) guidelines is to minimize adverse effects

by “selecting sites or managing discharges to prevent or avoid creating habitat conducive to the development of undesirable predators or species which

have a competitive edge ecologically over indigenous plants or animals. This much sophistication actually applied to the conditioning of permits

would entail considerable subjectivity and speculation.

Clearly, there is more objectivity and accountability where mitigation is prescribed in more specific

terms tailored to local conditions, or at least to

regional situations. On the other hand, a total sitespecific approach would impose an inordinate regulatory burden on both the permitters and permitholders. Mitigation may not be cost effective where,

as GAO has pointed out, costly measures for wet12 Feder~ Register, VO]. 45, No. 184, PP. 629 757 ”

land protection are requested without a site examination to ascertain the need in each case. Also,

requesting untested or (experimental) practices for

impact mitigation may be insupportable in view of

the proposed regulation to eliminate conditioning

of permits for speculative impacts. Unfortunately,

the followup evaluation of actual cost effectiveness

for classes of mitigative measures has been very

deficient.

Management Plans

To design a mitigation plan covering secondary

and cumulative impacts in an area subject to significant development activities, a systemwide impact

assessment such as that provided by the Corps’

‘ ‘wetland review’ must be undertaken prior to developing an estuary management-and-mitigation

plan. The offsite, cumulative effects of many wetland fills within an estuary on basinwide tidal circulation and water levels could be controlled by limiting the siting, uses, and overall amount of landfills. Through this approach, appropriate resourcebased constraints to development projects can be

identified based on an inventory of physical, biological, esthetic, social, and economic resources.

Objectives of the plan are linked consistently with

all project proposals, and the costs are shared equitably.

Management plans are initiated generally by

groups that have responsibility for local planning

and development. To help ensure that the plan will

be implemented, the sponsoring group may seek

the participation of the Corps and other agencies

with regulatory responsibilities. Management planning efforts can be particularly useful for specific

areas where pressures for development are intense,

there are constraints to development, and inconsistent policies and plans for an area make decisionmaking especially difficult.

Management plans can be used to define which

areas are to be protected or developed. For example, the Anchorage Wetland Plan classifies areas

into four categories: preservation, which precludes

any development; conservation, which allows limited development with mitigation measures; developable, which allows complete draining and filling;

and special study, which requires additional environmental data to determine status. The plan is be-
134 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ing implemented through local planning and control mechanisms and includes a provision for Federal consistency with local coastal-management policies. The Corps currently is preparing to issue a

general permit to the city for development activities

that occur in wetlands covered by the plan (18).

Management plans also can be used to restrict

certain development activities and establish standards for other types of development. For example,

the East Everglades Management Plan prohibits

road construction in permanent wetlands, allows

agricultural use in some drier areas (particularly

those that were disturbed previously), restricts the

density of residential development, and defines

BMP for three basic management areas. To implement the law, the local government must develop

some new mechanisms, including a site-alteration

overlay ordinance and a system of transferable development rights; establish new zoning districts;

and continue to regulate obstructions to surface water flows under an existing ordinance. State government also has the responsibility of continuing to

regulate dredge and fill in the area to the extent

authorized under State law and of revising waterquality standards for the area.

Continued regulation of section 404 by the Corps

is also an important element in the implementation of the plan, particularly in cases of violations.

Corps jurisdiction is broader than the State’s, and

the Corps has acted more quickly than the county

in enforcement actions (9).

Management plans also have been used to resolve

the conflicts and inconsistencies between the policies

of the numerous agencies with jurisdiction in an

area. For example, an objective of the Grays Harbor (Washington) Estuary Management Plan is to

set guidelines that offer some assurance that activities permitted by the plan would have general concurrence from all the agencies involved. This planning process is described in detail below.

The Grays Harbor Estuary Planning Task Force

was formed in 1975 with representatives from all

the agencies responsible for plans and regulations

in the area. In 1976, funds were acquired from the

Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) for

development of the plan, which began with the

development of a comprehensive data base delineating the physical and biological resources, ownership, land use, comprehensive plan designations,

areas of conflict, and other data. Development of

the actual plan occurred during a series of workshops in which the task force determined planning

areas, established specific management units, and

developed policies to direct development activities

in the estuary. The draft plan underwent extensive

review, and a final plan recently has been completed.

The Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission is the lead agency for the plan but has no authority to adopt or enforce the plan. Instead, the

plan is recognized as a recommendation from the

task force to the numerous agencies involved in the

planning process and in development activities in

the estuary. At present, an environmental impact

statement (EIS) on the plan is being prepared by

OCZM.

Each of the agencies involved has been asked

also to prepare a memorandum of understanding

(MOU) to explain how it perceives the plan, and

how it will be used. To date, none of the MOU’s

have been completed and probably will not be until

the EIS is finished. Unofficially, several agencies

have indicated that the plan probably will not be

considered binding; however, it will be given serious consideration in evaluation of local concerns

and the public interest. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) notes that it supports the plan; it has accepted some major environmental losses in exchange for long-term protection of other portions

of the estuary. FWS also observes that the plan does

not make decisions but will serve as a guideline and

should streamline permit review. The Corps also

generally supports the plan. The Corps has been

asked to give serious consideration to issuing general permits for some activities in the area; in particular, the disposal of dredge or fill material in

unvegetated and vegetated intertidal areas designated in the plan for industrial development. To

date, no decision has been made on these general

permits.

A major issue in the plan is the predesignation

of dredged-material disposal sites within the estuary. The Regional Planning Commission and the

Port of Grays Harbor have expressed a strong desire for predesignation by EPA; to date, EPA has

not made a decision on this issue. Since some of
Ch. 6—Impacts and Mitigation • 135

the areas are vegetated and unvegetated wetlands

of significant environmental value, EPA has expressed some concern about whether such a predesignation is legal.

State and local concerns about Federal involvement in the plan also have been expressed in another manner. The plan is viewed as an attempt

to create a regional plan for shoreline management

that will provide consistency and predictability for

both development and conservation interests.

Through the planning process, least damaging alternatives and compromise solutions were investigated and pursued.

Greater legal commitment of different Federal

agencies to the results of any planning efforts of this

sort are very much needed. If the Federal agencies cannot commit to the final components of the

plan, then case-by-case permit evaluation will replace long-term planning. Not only will predictability and shortened permit processes be precluded,

but other local jurisdictions will be discouraged

from pursuing comprehensive shoreline planning,

an outcome perceived to thwart the goals of

OCZM.

In spite of the concerns described above, the plan

is considered by many to have been a successful

exercise. Representatives from most of the jurisdictions involved felt it was a good idea and have committed time and effort for almost 6 years. The port

often has been able to maintain momentum when

other agencies lost enthusiasm or became mired in

the process. Furthermore, many areas of ‘predictability’ have been identified. Development interests can learn which are controversial locations and

which are acceptable. At least some regulatory

agency personnel already are using the plan to assist

them in making decisions, even if they have not

firmly acknowledged its authority (45).

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Allen, K. R. and Hardy, J. W., “Impacts of Navigational Dredging on Fish and Wildlife: A Literature Review, ’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Prog., FWS/OBS-80/07, 1980.

Banta, J. and Nauman, J., “Mitigation in Dredge

and Fill Permits, ” Coastal Zone ’78, vol. II, Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone

Management, San Francisco, American Society of

Civil Engineers, New York, N. Y., 1978, pp. 1316-

1332.

Barclay, J. S., ‘ ‘The Effects of Channelization on

Riparian Vegetation and Wildlife in South Central

Oklahoma, Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian

Ecosystems, proceedings of the symposium, Dec.

11-13, 1978, Callaway Gardens, Ga., U.S. Forest

Service, GTR-WO-12, 1978.

Benforado, J., “Ecological Considerations in Wetland Treatment of Wastewater, Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values

and Management, B. Richardson (cd.), St. Paul,

Minn., 1981, pp. 307-323.

Blumm, M. C., “The Clean Water Act’s Section

404 Permit Program Enters its Adolescence: An Institutional and Programmatic Perspective, Ecology

Law Quarterly, vol. 8, 1980, pp. 409-464.

6.

7.

8

9.

10.

Boss, T. E., personal communication, 1982.

Cairns, J., Jr., Bunson, M. M., Johnson, R. L.,

Parker, W. B., Turner, R. E., and Winger, P. V.,

“Impacts Associated with Southeastern Bottomland

Hardwood Forest Ecosystems, ” Wetlands of Bottomland Hardwood Forests, J. R. Clark and J. Benforado (eds. ), Proceedings for Workshop on Bottomland Hardwood Forest Wetlands of the Southeastern United States, June 1-5, 1980 (Lake Lanier,

Ga.: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1981. )

Canter, L. W., Klehr, E. H., Laguros, J. W.,

Streebin, L. E., Miller, G. D., and Cornell, D. R.,

“An Assessment of Problems Associated with Evaluating the Physical, Chemical and Biological Impacts of Discharging Fill Material, ” Technical

Report No. D-77-29, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C., 1977.

Center for Governmental Responsibility, “Wetlands Loss in South Florida and the Implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, ’ University of Florida, College of Law, contract study

for OTA, September 1982, pp. 80-81.

Center for Wetland Resources, ‘ ‘Wetland Trends

and Factors Influencing Wetland Use in the Area

Influenced by the Lower Mississippi River: A Case

Study, ” Louisiana State University, contract study

for OTA, September 1982, p. 1-51.
136 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

11,

12.

13

14

15,

16,

17,

18.

19.

20

21

22

Clewell, A. F., “Vegetational Restoration Techniques on Reclaimed Phosphate Strip Mines in Florida, ” Journal of Wetland Scientists, September

1981, pp. 158-159

Comptroller General of the United States, “Report

to the Congress of the United States, Developing

Alaska’s Energy Resources: Actions Needed to

Stimulate Research and Improve Wetlands Permit

Processing, General Accounting Ofice, GAO/

EMD-82-44, 1982.

Craig, N. J., Turner, R. E., and Day, J. W., Jr.,

“Wetland Losses and Their Consequence in Coastal

Louisiana, ”J. Geomorph., M. F. Suppl.–Bd 34,

1980, pp. 225,241.

Darnell, R. M., Pequenat, W., James, B. M., Benson, F. J., and Defenbaugh, R. A., ‘‘Impacts of

Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United

States, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA 600/3-76-045, 1976.

Deegan, L. A., Kennedy, H. M., and Costanza,

R., “Factors Contributing to Marshland Loss in

Louisiana’s Coastal Zone, ” presented at the 3d International Conference on State-of-the-Art in Ecological Modeling, Colorado State University, Fort

Collins, Colo., 1982.

Demgen, F. D. and Nute, W. J., “Wetlands Creation Using Secondary Treated Wastewater, Mt.

View Sanitary District, Calif., AWWA Research

Foundation, Washington, D. C., 1979.

ESA/Madrone, “Wetlands Policy Assessment: California Case Study, ” contract study for OTA, September 1982, p. 265.

ESA/Madrone, “Wetlands Use and Regulation:

Alaska Case Study, ’ contract study for OTA, January 1983.

Fredrickson, L. H., “Floral and Faunal Changes

in Lowland Hardwood Forests in Missouri Resulting From Channelization, Drainage and Impoundment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ” Eastern

Energy and Land Use Team, FWS/OBS-78/91,

1979.

Garbisch, E. W., Weller, P. B., and McCallum,

R. J., “Salt Marsh Establishment and Developmerit, ” Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels,

Md., Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort

Belvoir, Va., 1975.

Giese, G. S. and Mello, M. J., “Effects of Inlet

Dredging on a Small Estuary, ” In: Proceedings of

the Third Annual Meeting Society of Wetland Scientists, Wrightsville Beach, N. C., 1982.

Great Plains Office of Policy Studies, “Wetland

Trends and Protection Programs in Nebraska, ”

University of Nebraska, contract study for OTA,

September 1982, p. 25.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Guntenspergen, G. and Stearns, F., “Ecological

Limitations on Wetland Use for Wastewater Treatment, Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management, June

17-19, 1981, B. Richardson (cd.), St. Paul, Minn.,

1981.

Herrgesell, P, L., Kohlhorst, D. W., Miller, L. W.,

and Stevens, D. E., “Effects of Freshwater Flow

on Fishery Resources in the Sacramento-San

Joaquin Estuary, ” Proceedings of the National

Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries, R.

D. Cross and D. L. Williams (eds. ), U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service National Coastal Ecosystems

Team, FEW/OBS-81-04; NTIS No. PB 82-131434,

1981.

Hershman, M. and Ruotsala, A., “Implementing

Environmental Mitigation Policies, Coastal Zone

’78, vol. II, Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of

Coastal Zone Management, San Francisco, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, N. Y.,

1978, p. 1333.

Hicks, D. B., Cavendar, T. R., Carroll, B. J.,

Raschke, R. L., and Murphy, P. M., “Finger-fill

Canal Studies, Florida and North Carolina, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Ga.,

EPA 904/9-76-017; NTIS PB-265-645, 1975.

Hirsh, N. P., Di Salvo, L. H., and Peddicord, R.,

“Effects of Dredging and Disposal on Aquatic Organisms, ” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report No. DS-78-5, 1978.

JACA Corp., “A Case Study of New Jersey Wetlands Trends and Factors Influencing Wetlands

Use, ’ contract study for OTA, September 1982,

pp. 1-12.

Lahti, T., “Restoration of a Small Suburban

Southern Wisconsin Wetlands, ” Wetlands: Ecology, VaZues and Impacts, Proceedings of the

Waubesa Conference on Wetlands, Madison, Wis.,

1977.

Longley, W. M., Jackson, R., and Snyder, B.,

“Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Coastal Environments, ” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Coastal Ecosystems Team, FWS/OBS-78/54,

1978.

Maki, T. E., Weber, A. J., Hazel, D. W., Hunter,

S. C., Hyberg, B. T., Flinchum, D. M., Lollis, J.

P., Rognstad, J. B., and Gregory, J. D., “Effects

of Stream Alteration on Bottomland and Swamp

Forest Ecosystems, ” University of North Carolina,

Water Resources Research Institute, Raleigh,

N. C., UNC-WR1l 80-147, 1980.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

“Manual for Wetland Evaluation Techniques, ” op-
Ch. 6—impacts and Mitigation ● 137

33.

34.

35

36

37

38.

39.

40.

41

42,

43

erational draft, Division of Land Resource Programs, 1980.

Mitchell, D., “Restoration of a Salt Marsh on the

Salmon River Estuary, “Estuarine Research Federation Conference, Salishan, Ore. , 1981.

Myhrum, C. B., “Federal Protection of Wetlands

through Legal Process, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, vol. 7, No. 4, 1979,

pp. 567-628.

National Waterfowl Management Plan for the

United States, Cooperators: U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Pacific Flyway Council, Central Flyway

Council, Mississippi Flyway Council, Atlantic Flyway Council, 1982.

National Wetlands Newsletter, “California Wetlands; California Wetlands Guidelines; California

Tidelands: Public or Private?; California Wetlands

Banking; California’s Coastal Conservancy, ” vol.

3, No. 3, 1981, pp. 5-11.

Nelson, R. W., Shea, G. B., and Logan, W. J.,

‘ ‘Ecological Assessment and Reduction of Impacts

from Inland Dredge and Fill Operations, ” U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Energy and Land

Use Team, Kearneysville, W.Va., FWS/OBS82/19, 1982.

Nelson, R. W., Logan, W. J., and Weller, E. C,,

Playa Wetlands and Wildlife of the Southern Great

Plains: A Characterization of Habitat, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Western Energy and Land

Use Team, in press.

Newcombe, C. L., Morris, J. H., Knutson, P. L.,

and Gorbics, C. S., “Bank Erosion Control with

Vegetation; San Francisco Bay, California, U.S.

Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort

Belvoir, Va., 1979.

Parish, G. E. and Morgan, J. M., “History, Practice and Emerging Problems of Wetlands Regulation: Reconsidering Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act, ‘‘ Land and Water Review, vol. 27, No. 1 ,

1982, pp. 43-84,

Parker, J. C., Holcomb, H. W., Jr., Klussman, W.

G., and McNeill, J. C. IV, “Distribution of Aquatic Macro-Fauna in a Marsh in West Galveston

Bay, Texas, and Possible Effects Thereon Resulting

from Impoundments for Shrimp Culture, ” Texas

A. & M. University, Sea Grant Prog. Rep. No.

TAMU-SG-71-208; NTIS-PB 199-196, 1971.

Race, M. S. and Christie, D. R., “Coastal Zone

Development: Mitigation, Marsh Creation, and

Decision-Making, Environmental Management

~ourna.1, vol. 6, No. 4, 1982, pp. 317-328.

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,

“Wetland Trends and Policies in North and South

Carolina, Duke University, contract study for

OTA, August 1982, p. 99.

44<

45

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

Schuldiner, P. W., Cope, D. F., and Newton, R.

B., “Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on Wetlands—User’s Manual, ” National Cooperative

Highway Research Program Reports 218A and

218B, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., TRB/

NCHRP/REP-218A and 218B, NTIS No. PB 80-

142094, 1979.

Shapiro and Associates, Inc., “An Analysis of Wetlands Regulation and the Corps of Engineers Section 404 Program in Western Washington, ’ contract study for OTA, September 1982.

Shea, G. B., ‘ ‘Rain River Preserve Management

Plan, ” The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Ore.,

1977.

Shea, G. B. and Boss, T. E., “Rain River Preserve Management Studies, Final Annual Report,

Western Eco-Systems Technology, Bothell, Wash.,

1981.

Shea, G. B., “Hydrologic and Biological Studies

for Restoration of the Storkan Marsh, Oak Bay,

Washington, Western Eco-Systems Technology,

Bothell, Wash., 1981.

Shea, G. B., “Hydrologic and Biological Studies

of Finel Swamp, Maryland, Western Eco-Systems

Technology, Laurel, Md., 1981.

Teas, H. J., “Ecology and Restoration of Mangrove Shorelines in Florida, Environmental Conservation, vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 51-58.

Ternyik, W. E., “Salt Marsh Creation in the Pacific

Northwest: Criteria, Planting Techniques, and

costs, ‘‘ Wave Beach Grass Nursery, Florence,

Ore., Rehabilitation and Creation of Selected

Coastal Habitats: Proceedings of a Workshop,

Sapelo Island, Ga., 1976.

Tolman, A. J., “Florida’s Water Resources Restoration Program, ’ Florida State Department of

Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Fla. Lake

Restoration, report No. EPA 440/5-79-001, 1979,

pp. 39-40.

Turner, R. E., Costanza, R., and Scaife, W.,

“Canals and Wetland Erosion Rates in Coastal

Louisiana, unpublished report, Center for Wetlands Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton

Rouge, La., 1982.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water

Resources, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis, ’ unpublished report, Fort Belvoir, Va., 1982.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester

Point (VIMS), “Habitat Development Field Investigations, Windmill Point Marsh Development Site,

James River, Virginia, ” app. D, Environmental

Impacts of Marsh Development with Dredged Material, Botany, Soils, Aquatic Biology, and Wildlife,

1978.

25-415 0 - 84 - 10
138 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

56.

57.

58.

Water Resources Research Center, “Regional Assessment of Wetlands Regulation Programs in New

England, ” University of Massachusetts, contract

study for OTA, September 1982.

Webb, J. W. and Dodd, J. D., “Shoreline Plant 59.

Establishment and Use of a Wave-Stilling Device,

paper No. 78-1, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering

Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., 1978. 60,

Wigham, D. R. and Simpson, R. L., “Sewage

Spray Irrigation in a Delaware River Freshwater

Tidal Marsh, ” Freshwater Wetlands and Sewage

Efluent Disposal, Proceedings of National Symposium May 10-11, 1976, University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Mich., NSF/RA-760251; NTIS No. PB

259305, 1976.

Wile, I., Miller, G., and Black, S., “Design and

Use of Artificial Wetlands, ” unpublished paper,

1981.

Woodhouse, W. W., ‘‘Building Salt Marshes Along

the Coasts of the Continental United States, U.S.

Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort

Belvoir, Va., 1979.
Chapter 7

The Effects of the 404 Program

Photo credit. OTA staff, William Barnard
Contents

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . .

Effects on Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Program Effects Not Reflected in Permit Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Program Effects Reflected in Program Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effects on Development Activities . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . ...

Benefits of the 404 Program to Regulated Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Objections to the Program by Regulated Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specific Impacts of the 404 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Processing Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... .... ....

Modification Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........

Delay Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage of Permits Delayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Length of Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sources of Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Opportunity Costs.... .. .. .. .. .. .. ................ . ..... .

Distribution of Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......

Chapter 7 Technical Notes... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....

Page

141

141

142

143

145

146

147

152

154

155

156

156

157

157

159

160

161

TABLES

Table No. Page

23. Corps of Engineers’ Wetland Acreage Survey, 1980 to 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

24. Estimated Effects of Technology Transfer on Financial Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Chapter 7

The Effects of the 404 Program

CHAPTER SUMMARY

According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates for 1980-81, Corps districts (excluding

Alaska) processed permits for projects that, if completed as requested, would have resulted in direct

and indirect conversion of approximately 100,000

acres of wetlands per year. The Corps authorized

projects that, if completed in accordance with the

conditions of the permits would involve the conversion of approximately 50,000 acres of wetland

or about half the acreage applied for. National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) data for the

coastal wetlands (in the lower 48 States) indicate

that the 404 program, in combination with State

regulatory programs, reduced the conversion of

coastal wetlands by 70 to 85 percent in 1981. Thus,

several thousand acres of coastal (saltwater) wetlands are probably being converted to other uses

each year. Moreover, each year about 5,000 acres

of vegetated wetlands either are created or restored

for mitigation purposes as a direct result of the

‘‘conditioning’ of 404 permits.

There are probably numerous cases where regulatory costs or delays to developers have been

substantial-in some cases, millions of dollars. But

little verifiable data are available to document the

overall impacts of 404 on development activities,

especially as they relate to other costs imposed by

other policies and programs (such as sec. 10, the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), State

programs; and local ordinances) and general

economic conditions. Information collected by this

study suggests that 404, for the most part, minimizes or compensates for impacts rather than prevents development.

All permit applicants bear at least some 404-related costs resulting from permit denials, modifications of projects, permit processing, and/or processing delays. Of approximately 11,000 project applications per year, slightly less than 3 percent are

denied; about one-third are modified significantly

to reduce wetland impacts; and about 14 percent

are withdrawn by applicants. About half are approved without significant modifications. From

1977 to 1981, the average processing time for nonEIS (environmental impact statement) permits was

about 130 days; in 1983, the average processing

time was about 70 days. Less than 1 percent of all

projects permitted by 404 require an EIS, which

may take several years to complete. Delays in processing permit applications for the relatively few

large-scale projects that represent the bulk of the

economic value of all proposed development activities probably

the total costs

program.

account for a substantial portion of

to industry associated with the 404

EFFECTS ON WETLANDS

In many areas of the country, the 404 program

is the only Government program controlling the

use of wetland resources. This chapter discusses the

effects of the 404 program on wetlands; however,

it does not evaluate the effectiveness of the program.

Analysis of effectiveness requires judgments about

how the program should optimally or realistically

perform to reach both specified goals and measurements of the actual performance against the ideal.

This chapter presents evidence of how the 404 program actually has affected wetlands.

Theoretically, the effect of the 404 program on

wetlands use can be quantified from permit data

by tallying the acreage of wetlands that are not converted as a direct result of the permit evaluation

process, or the acreage on which the impacts of development have been lessened, and the acreage of

141
142 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

wetlands that have been created or restored as a

result of the program. In practice, it is very difficult to present an accurate picture of the effects

of the program. Very little quantitative information has been compiled detailing what the program

has accomplished.

Although many sources were consulted, the following are the only available sources of hard data

on the effects of the program nationwide:

●

●

●

The Corps’ Regulatory Functions Branch

summaries, covering basic information such

as number of permit applications, denials, and

withdrawals.

The Corps’ Institute for Water Resources

(IWR) report, Impact Analysis of the Corps

Regulatory Program. The major source of

data for the IWR report was a ‘‘regulatory impact assessment” (RIA) questionnaire, sent to

all Corps districts by the Regulatory Functions

Branch in 1981. This report only appeared in

draft form and has not been released officially (1)$

OTA survey of Corps districts. OTA sent all

Corps offices a questionnaire designed to supplement information available from other

sources. Of 38 offices, 37, including all 36

Corps districts, responded. (The Honolulu office did not respond to the survey.)

These sources were supplemented by other materials, such as an OTA survey of the 50 States,

case studies of21 States conducted by contractors

for OTA, data on NMFS Southeast region permit

recommendations, and interviews conducted by

OTA staff.

While adequate data are available on such basic

indices as the number of permit applications and

issuances, information is far more sketchy concerning permit modifications, mitigation, and other

things necessary to assess the impact of the program

on wetlands. Few districts compile the permit information necessary for an evaluation of the program.

Usually, Corps personnel have been forced to make

unverifiable estimates when asked to provide quantitative data on the program. Composites of such

approximations probably convey an accurate overall picture but make the accuracy of resulting statistics open to question. In the absence of firm data,

estimates from different sources must be weighed

against one another.

Interpretation of data from the above materials

is complicated further by several factors. First,

Corps districts have great independence and flexibility in how they interpret the requirements of the

404 program and often differ considerably in the

types of wetlands and development activities encompassed within their boundaries. Many of the

conclusions of most studies of 404-program effects

are based on information from a limited sample of

districts.

Second, it is extremely difficult to separate the

effects of the 404 program from the effects of other

influences on the use of wetlands. It is likely that

general economic conditions, such as interest rates,

and conditions specific to particular development

activities or areas have much greater effects upon

wetland development than do governmental regulations.

Third, while reduction of wetland loss rates cannot be exclusively attributed to the 404 program,

it is clear that in the great majority of States, the

program plays a crucial role in regulating the use

of many wetlands. When States were asked by

OTA to evaluate the relative importance of the 404

program in comparison with State programs, 10

States asserted that the 404 program is redundant

and relatively unimportant in management of both

coastal and inland wetland areas and that their State

programs play the dominant role. However, separation of the effects of the 404 program from those

of State programs is possible only where State programs do not exist or do not cover activities or areas

dealt with by the 404 program.

Program Effects Not Reflected

in Permit Data

The 404 program has been successful in reducing damage to wetlands through actions not reflected in permit data and which are difficult to

quantify. The greater the number of projects submitted to the 404 process and the more environmentally damaging those projects are, the more permit modifications and denials are likely to be required by the Corps. Measures taken by the Corps
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program ● 143

to improve the program have reduced the number

of permits submitted and made those that are reviewed less environmentally damaging, thus masking the quantifiable effects of the 404 program,

The expanded use of general permits has reduced

the number of permit applications by an estimated

90,000 cases annually.1 While these permits may

decrease control over the use of wetlands (as is discussed elsewhere in this report), other general permits benefit wetland protection when best management practices (BMPs) are required as part of permit conditions.

Preapplication consultations” also lessen project

impacts; they may result in applicants changing a

planned activity so that it requires less wetland acreage or no longer occurs on a wetland—i. e., either

transferring the activity to an upland area or canceling it. Better management practices may be suggested that limit the impacts on those wetlands that

are used. The activity also may be altered so that

it falls under a general permit, thereby presumably

having an acceptable impact on the wetlands of a

particular region (2).

Consultations also may result in savings to applicants. Permit application requirements can be clarified, reducing the chance that applications would

have to be resubmitted, for example, to make up

for gaps in information. On the other hand, Corps

suggestions may entail additional costs to the applicant or reduce the benefits expected from a project.

According to district estimates in the OTA survey, a range of 5 to 90 percent (with a mean of 30

percent) of applicants consult with the Corps prior

to submitting an application. A much higher percentage of parties planning large projects consult

with the Corps. Several districts reported that nearly all applications for major projects entailed preapplication consultations, and most industry associations and firms responding to another OTA survey

said that they routinely set up appointments with

the Corps to discuss planned activities, particularly if the activities are large scale.

‘Pacific Legal Foundation, ‘‘A Report to the Presidential Task Force

on Regulatory Relief, Mar. 18, 1982, p. 28.

“This term refers to advice given by Federal personnel to those inquiring about activities that might require a 404 permit.

Results of consultations are more difficult to summarize. Most consultations take place at an early

stage in project planning, before applicants have

detailed plans that specify the acreage of wetlands

potentially involved. Still, most districts believe that

such consultations have had significant benefits for

wetland protection. Because of the lack of data, very

few estimates were made of reductions of amounts

of dredged and fill material or of alterations of

wetland acreage that were achieved by consultations. Instead, more qualitative estimates were

given, sometimes in terms of the percentage of permits that were modified in the course of consultations. These estimates can be categorized as follows:

9 districts said they could not estimate the effects

of consultations; 4 indicated that results were insignificant (e. g., ‘‘very few’ projects were modified); 10 indicated that results were good (e. g., consultations had a ‘‘good’ effect; 10 percent of applications were modified); and, 14 said results were

very good (e. g., consultation results were ‘ ‘substantial; 50 percent of applications were modified).

A last form of program success not reflected in

permit data stems from the increased public

knowledge that has arisen about wetland benefits

and about regulations that require the developer

to apply for a permit to develop many wetlands.

This awareness has meant that an unknown number of projects have been initiated than might otherwise have been, that many projects affect wetlands

less than they otherwise might have, and that fewer

permits, therefore, are denied or modified by the

Corps.

Program Effects

Program

Reflected in

Data

Reduction of Wetland Loss

The major effects of the 404 program are the

reduction of wetland conversions through permit

denials, modification of permits to reduce the number of wetland acres affected, and conditions attached to permits that lessen the impact of activities

on the wetlands that are used.

Only a small number of section 404 and section

10/404 permit applications are denied; (291 out of

10,718 applications received in fiscal year 1981,
144 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

about 2.7 percent). It should be noted that districts

vary greatly in the percentage of permits denied.

Twelve reported on the OTA survey that they deny

1 percent or less of permit applications, while ten

deny more than 5 percent. About 14 percent of permit applicants (1 ,545) withdrew their applications

before the Corps rendered a decision,

A much greater number of permits are modified

in the course of the permit process. The IWR report

estimated that one-third are ‘‘substantially modified.” 2 Another source estimated that more than

half have conditions attached.3 Information collected by OTA supports these estimates. OTA

asked districts to estimate the percentage of permits requiring a 404 review that were substantially modified. Several districts separated their estimates into permits that were modified substantially

and those that received more minor modifications,

saying that almost all permits were conditioned or

modified to some degree. Two districts said they

did not require substantial modifications to any permit in the period considered. One of these, however, denied a large percentage of 404 applications.

Two others did not make percentage estimates, saying that many or most permits were modified substantially. The estimates of the remaining districts

varied from 3 to 95 percent. The majority of districts gave estimates ranging from 20 to 40 percent,

and the mean of all districts was 31 percent.

The effects of the 404 and State regulatory programs on potential wetland conversions can be estimated using two main sources of data: NMFS

Southeast region figures and results of a Corps

survey. The NMFS Southeast region, has jurisdiction over coastal areas from Texas to North Carolina including about 90 percent of all coastal (saltwater) wetlands in the lower 48 States (according

to FWS trend data). The Southeast region made

recommendations that, if implemented, would have

had the following effects: During fiscal year 1981

NMFS reviewed projects that would have resulted

in the conversion of about 14,000 acres of vegetated

wetlands. NMFS recommendations, which were accepted in about 98 percent of the cases, could have

‘Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

“Impact Analysis of the Corps Regulatory Program, ” unpublished

report, November 1982, p. 62.

‘Jeffrey A. Zinn and Claudia Copeland, ‘‘Wetlands Management,

Congressional Research Service, July 1982, p. 125.

resulted in the potential preservation of about 85

percent of these wetlands proposed for conversion.

Since about 20 percent of the projects were in violation of permit conditions, the actual acreage of wetlands saved from conversion by Federal and State

permitting programs in coastal areas probably

ranges from 70 to 85 percent.4 Thus, several thousand acres of coastal (saltwater) wetlands are probably being converted to other uses each year.

According to recent estimates compiled by the

Corps for 1980 and 1981 (table 23), its districts (excluding Alaska) processed permits for projects that,

if completed as requested, would have resulted in

direct and indirect conversion of approximately

100,000 wetland acres per year. However, the

Corps authorized projects that involved converting

approximately 50,000 acres of wetlands. In other

words, the 404 program, in combination with State

programs, was responsible for preserving about

50,000 acres of wetlands if there is compliance with

all permit conditions. This is a 50-percent reduction in potential conversions from modifications,

withdrawals, and denials of 404 permits. Actual

compliance with permit conditions in NMFS Southeast region is about 70 percent. The acreage saved

by the 404 program is probably less than 50,000;

how much less is uncertain. In addition, some conversions may have been deterred simply by the

existence of the regulatory programs; other conversions may have been prevented through preapplication consultations with the Corps.

Creation of New Wetlands/Restoration of

Degraded Wetlands

New wetlands are created and degraded wetlands

are restored or enhanced as a result of the 404 program. In some cases, 404 permit applicants create

or restore wetland acreage as compensation or mitigation for acreage degraded or converted by a permitted activity. In other cases, persons who have

altered wetlands under the scope of the Corps’ regulatory program without a permit, or who have violated permit conditions, have been required to miti4Figures from W. N. Lindall and G. W. Thayer, ‘ ‘Quantification

of National Marine Fisheries Device Habitat Conservation Efforts in

the S.E. Region of the United States, ” vol. 44, No. 12, 1982, pp.

18-22. During a conversation in June 1983, Lindall estimated that

75 to 80 percent of the acreage in columns 2, 3, and 4, table 1 from

this paper were vegetated wetland; 90 percent of acreage in columns

8, 9, and 10 were vegetated,
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program ● 145

Table 23.–Corps of Engineers’ Wetland Acreage Survey, 1980 to 1981

Total acreages (in thousands)

Exclusive of Including

Alaska and Hawaii Alaska

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Total acreage of “technical” wetlandsa. . . . . . . . . .

Total acreage of wetlands regulated under

individual permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland fill requested, past 2 years:

Direct (smothered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indirect (flooded, drained, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland fill authorized, past 2 years (direct only) .

Wetlands created for mitigation, past 2 years . . . .

Wetland dredging requested, past 2 years:

Direct (dredged) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indirect (sidebank, slumping, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland dredging authorized past 2 years (direct

only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64,100

46,700

56.0

124.9

30.2

9.6

13.4

15.0

3.3

287,100

209,700

63

124.9

36.7

9.6

14.4

15.0

4.3

aTotal wetland acreage estimates based on the Corps’ “technical” definition of wetlands. They are therefore leSS than the

average of wetlands estimated from the FWS National Wetland Trends Study.

SOURCE: Army Corps of Engineers.

gate impacts through wetland creation or restoration.

IWR reported an estimate that “less than 5,000

acres’ of wetlands are created annually,5 presumably as a result of the 404 program. While several

individual cases of restoration were listed, IWR did

not estimate the total acreage of wetlands restored

annually.

The NMFS Southeast region office recommended that 2,493 wetland acres be created and

1,469 be “generated/compensated” in that area

from July 1981 to June 1982.6

Based on the OTA survey, 25 Corps districts estimated that 1,200 to 1,700 acres were created and

2,300 to 2,800 acres were restored annually (3).

These amounts do not include two cases in which

Florida phosphate mines have or will “re-create"

about 3,500 acres of wetlands ‘‘to obtain the required State and Federal permits’ or to satisfy State

requirements. A Corps survey of districts and

Corps responses to OTA’s questionnaire indicated

that about 5,000 acres of wetlands are created

annually.

51nstitute for Water Resources, op. cit., p. 114.

‘Lindall and Thayer, op. cit.

EFFECTS ON DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Although many development activities benefit

from wetland protection, the 404 program also imposes costs on development from the processing,

modifications, and delays entailed in the 404 permitting process. Aside from financial costs, more

general objections to the program voiced by such

parties as industry trade associations include questions about the need for the program to protect wetlands, congressional intent regarding wetlands and

the 404 program, the value of wetlands versus the

value of their development, and possible inefficient

or inequitable program administration.

Some firms state that they have borne major 404-

related costs, in some cases millions of dollars, and

it is evident that all firms that go through the permitting process bear at least some costs. However,

although many individual firms have abundant material on their own experiences, very little data are

available that aggregate individual experiences into
146 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

industrywide estimates. Very few trade associations

have collected detailed statistics from their membership.

The desire to reduce costs brought by the 404

program to permit applicants has been a major factor in many or most efforts to change the 404 program through legislative and regulatory revision.

Many industry associations and firms have voiced

their unhappiness with the current program. In particular, the program is said to be unnecessary, or

at least overly restrictive and cumbersome, and to

cause large financial losses to permit applicants

through modifications and delays to projects imposed by Federal agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated that its suggested

reforms to the program could save $1 billion annually. 7 On the other hand, defenders of the program argue that it is not costly, either in absolute

terms or in comparison with the benefits it brings,

and that many sectors of society, including several

major industries, are aided by the program.8

This section discusses perceptions of the 404 program held by regulated sectors and the costs and

benefits to permit applicants of this program. There

is a paucity of data on the costs and benefits of the

404 program and of other Federal and State wetland

programs to regulated sectors. OTA examined previously published estimates, surveyed industry associations, and collected data from other sources

(4). OTA also surveyed States about whether they

had made estimates of the costs to permit applicants

of State or Federal wetland permitting programs.

No State had collected information on such costs.

Massachusetts officials estimated that, assuming

that the average bank carrying cost “to hold option on raw land, assuming an average 20-acre subdivision, single-family homes, ” of a project is

$2,000/month, and the average decision time for

State permitting is 2.5 months, the average cost to

the project would be $5,000, plus consulting and

legal fees. Several States gave data on permit fees

charged to applicants. Not including EIS costs, fees

ranged from zero (e. g., Maryland) to 0.5 percent

of construction costs with a minimum of $100 (New

7

0 f13ce of Management and Budget press release, May 7, 1982.

‘National Wildlife Federation and 13 other organizations, ‘ ‘Section 404: A Response to the Army-OMB Regulatory Reform Proposals, ” May 1982.

Jersey). Most fees ranged from $15 to $75. One

industry association, the Fertilizer Institute (FI),

reported that permit application fees in Florida now

are $100 for the short form, for more minor projects, and $1,000 for the standard fen-n, for relatively

major projects.

Benefits of the 404 Program to

Regulated Sectors

Environmental Benefits Captured by Industry

Many types of firms experience both costs and

benefits from the 404 program. For example, members of the housing-construction industry believe

that 404 program costs severely impact the industry’s operations; at the same time, land values adjacent to wetlands protected by section 404 often

increase, benefiting some builders as well as existing

homeowners.

The RIA questionnaire asked Corps districts to

rate the impacts of the regulatory program (including sec. 10) on 14 sectors (5). Districts unanimously

believed that the fishing industry benefited from

the program and were near unanimous that the

general public benefited. More than 80 percent

thought that government and public service and

land values adjacent to permit areas benefited, and

more than 60 percent saw benefits accruing to the

agricultural industry and to private individuals (6).

Technology Transfer

Advice given by Federal personnel to permit applicants prior to submission of an application, and

in the course of permit review after submission of

an application, may result in savings to applicants

as well as protection of wetlands. Small projects and

private individuals, in particular, may benefit from

information about current engineering and management practices that can make projects more efficient and less costly. Called “technology transfer”

by the Corps, these practices produce such benefits

as avoidance of erosion losses and stabilization costs

when natural vegetation and drainage features are

preserved and utilized.

Based on a telephone survey of 12 districts, the

IWR report estimated that for 15 to 30 percent of

issued permits, the projects approved are more ef-
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program • 147

ficient or less costly to develop than those originally proposed. Average savings were estimated to be

15 percent of total project costs. (However, in a

table showing calculations, savings were estimated

to be 15 percent of ‘site development costs, ’ which

in turn were thought to be 25 percent of the total

project cost.) Using an estimated total financial cost

of over $217 billion for all projects and an amortization factor of 10 percent for 25 years for the ‘‘social value’ of projects, IWR estimated total benefits

from technology tranfer to range from $135.5 million to $271 million.9

Many projects undoubtedly experience benefits.

However, the IWR estimate appears to be overstated greatly. The methodology used for the IWR

report has serious flaws (7), and does not correspond to the responses received by OTA from Corps

districts.

The OTA survey of Corps districts asked respondents to estimate the proportion of permitted

projects that have benefited from technology transfer, and the average percentage of savings in terms

of project development costs. Most districts do not

keep any records on technology benefits. As stated

by one, “As project costs are seldom, if ever, provided with permit applications, it is impossible to

estimate savings in project costs without loss of benefits. * Thus, answers to the survey questions were

estimates rather than calculations from data.

As with all aspects of the 404 program, districts

vary tremendously in how they perceive technology

transfer. Owing to lack of data, 14 districts did not

make any estimates of technology transfer benefits.

Seven districts said that the program did not result

in savings to projects. Five of this latter group

thought that costs were increased rather than decreased to applicants. Four districts said that ‘‘few”

or ‘‘very few’ projects experienced savings. One

district said that “a number” of modifications to

projects resulted in “potential savings. ” Finally,

11 districts gave numerical estimates of technology-tranfer benefits.

Estimates of the percentage of projects gaining

savings from technology transfer and the percentage of those savings, in order of magnitude of estimated savings, are shown in table 24.

‘Institute for Water Resources, op. cit., pp. 135-36.

● Response from the Corps’ Detroit District,

Table 24.—Estimated Effects of Technology Transfer

on Financial Costs

District Percentage of projects Percentage of savings

1 . . . . . . . . No estimate

No estimate

3::::::: : 5 10

4 . . . . . . . . 5 20

5 . . . . . . . . 5-1o 5-1o

6 . . . . . . . . 10 5

10-15 5-1o

7::::::: : 15-20 10-20

9 20 10

10 : : : : : : : : 25 20-30

11 . . . . . . . . 40-45 20-30

SOURCE: Data from Corps district responses to OTA’s questionnaire.

While the means of these estimates (13 to 15 percent of permitted projects benefiting; 12- to 16-percent savings) are more or less in the range given

by IWR, the view of most Corps districts is that

technology transfer benefits are infrequent or cannot be documented. As stated by several districts

in response to the survey, the goal of permit modifications is not to reduce costs to applicants but

to reduce or avoid environmental impacts of projects on wetlands.

OTA also asked industry associations to estimate

technology transfer benefits to their members. The

associations involved generally have strong objections to aspects of the 404 program and may not

be representative of the experience of other industries with respect to such benefits.

Of the eight associations or groups of firms responding specifically to this question, seven said

that such benefits do not accrue. One association

said that its members benefited from Corps advice

on water-related projects (e. g., building of structures in waterways and the design of dams and impoundments). The percentage of projects that were

estimated to experience such benefits was less than

5 percent; the amount of savings less than 1 percent of total project costs. *

General Objections to the Program

by Regulated Sectors

The major concern of regulated sectors about the

404 program are the costs suffered as a result of

the program processing, delays, modifications, and

*Response from the American Mining Congress.
148 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

opportunity costs—and related effects on national

interests, such as energy supply. How these costs

are evaluated depends not only on their absolute

magnitude but also on how the observer evaluates

the 404 program itself. A strong supporter of the

objectives of the 404 program could find even large

costs in all categories acceptable if it could be shown

that these goals were met as a result. Conversely,

even relatively small costs in a single category could

be regarded as unacceptable if the 404 program

were judged unnecessary or of low priority. In addition, the evaluation of costs is affected by how

the administration of the 404 program is viewed—

whether the program is seen as efficiently and equitably implemented or needlessly costly and time consuming to applicants. Before discussing specific

quantifiable costs, some of the more important objections to the rationale and administration of the

program are summarized.

The Need for the 404 Program to

Protect Wetlands

Although most industries agree that at least some

wetlands provide important benefits to society, * a

number of sources contend that the 404 program

is not essential for protecting wetland resources.

One argument is that conversion rates were only

0.5 percent per year between the 1950’s and 1970’s

and are probably less now. Since wetlands are not

under great threat from the activities regulated by

the program, the scope of the 404 program may

be reduced without great harm to wetlands. One

source, using the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) information, stated that annual creation of new wetlands

exceeds wetland destruction. 10 Another source, interpreting IWR figures, contended that annual wetland conversion is small relative to the total wetland

acreage in the United States—about 300,000 acres

per year out of more than 148 million acres regulated by the program, or 0.2 percent. If the 404

program prevents a similar amount of wetland acreage from being converted annually, as claimed by

IWR, abolition of the 404 program would result

“This was stated by several industry representatives in talks with

OTA staff, and no association has explicitly challenged this notion

in its public statements on the 404 program.

‘“Julian Simon, “Are We Losing Our Farmland?, ” Public Interest,

No. 67, spring 1982, p. 53.

only in approximately doubling this conversion

rate, which in the eyes of this source would represent an insignificant amount of wetland converted.

Similar arguments are made with respect to the

impacts of development activities in specific areas.

For example, according to one estimate, oil company operations on the North Slope of Alaska have

resulted in the ‘‘disturbance’ of approximately

7,300 acres of tundra.12 Depending on the frame

of reference used—whether this acreage is compared with the total tundra acreage of all of Alaska,

the North Slope region alone, or just the area within

the oilfield where the disturbance is concentrated—

this area represents from considerably less than 1

percent to 4.5 percent of tundra. It is argued that

the impacts of oil extraction should be considered

in relation to the far greater number of acres left

undisturbed.

Last, many sources favoring relaxation of the 404

program contend that States are capable of providing adequate wetland protection and, indeed, are

better suited to do so, both in terms of knowledge

about their own resources and in terms of what observers see as the desirable amount of power States

should possess vis-à-vis the Federal Government.

Some of the above arguments can be viewed from

a different perspective. Between the mid-1950’s and

the mid-1970’s, about 500,000 acres of wetlands

were converted to other uses each year. Also, conversion rates differ for different types of wetlands

and for different areas of the country. Some wetlands are under much greater pressure than the national figure indicates. For example, conversion

rates for the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain between the mid-1950’s and the mid-1970’s were

three times higher than the national average. Conversion rates for freshwater emergent wetlands in

this period were four times greater than those for

freshwater scrub/shrub.

I lpaci~c Leg~ Foundation, “A Report to the Presidential Task

Force on Regulatory Relief in Support of the Army-OMB Regulatory

Proposals for Clean Water Act Section 4U4, ” Mar. 18, 1983, pp. 11-12.

This reasoning is rather unfair, as IWR was only considering losses

in the approximately 90 million vegetated wetland acres of the continental United States.

1 z~aska Corps District, as reported in ESAIMadrone, ‘‘Wetlands

and Regulation: Alaska Case Study, ’ contract study for C)TA, January

1983, pp. 2-11.
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program • 149

In addition, it is very difficult to estimate what

conversion rates would be without the program. Although efforts are being made to reduce duplication between State and Federal programs, substantial duplication exists in some States, increasing

costs to applicants in various ways including, for

example, in added filing fees and in time spent in

preparation and discussion of applications. Permit

applicants must sometimes explain their projects

to different sets of governmental personnel or endure one agency denying a permit after another has

approved it. Whether these drawbacks are warranted depends on how the results of duplication

are judged. Many observers, including many States

where duplication is present, believe that the positive general results of duplication outweigh the disadvantages to applicants, such as increased assurance that violations missed by one level of government will be dealt with by another. In addition,

duplication is less common than lack of duplication—the 404 program is the only available means

of wetland protection in many areas of the country.

Congressional Intent

Some sources contend that the current jurisdiction of the Corps under the 404 program, the 404

program’s presumption in favor of wetlands, and

its protection of wetlands for reasons other than the

narrow grounds of water quality, were not intended

by the Congress when the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act was passed and amended .13 In support

of these contentions, the following arguments are

made:

● Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)

does not mention wetlands. Wetlands are mentioned in the report supporting the 1977

amendments to the CWA. It also is argued

that Congress originally intended historically

navigable waters to be regulated. Certain

Federal court decisions and agency discretion

in rulemaking, rather than congressional action, have expanded the program into its curIJFor ~xample, pacific Legal Foundation, op. cit., PP. 8-9; Gary

E. Parish, J. Michael Morgan, “History, Practice and Emerging Problems of Wetlands Regulation: Reconsidering Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act, ” Land and Water Law Review, vol. 17, No. 1, 1982;

Washington Legal Foundation, “The Feds: Even Dry Land is

Wetlands, ” 1982. See also statements by Assistant Secretary of the

Army Gianelli in National Journal, Mar. 6, 1982, pp. 412, 413.

●

●

●

●

rent form. This extension is held to constitute

unwarranted Federal involvement in land-use

decisions.

The appropriateness of regulating wetlands

that do not conform to popular definitions of

swamps, marshes, and so forth is especially

controversial. Wetlands that are only infrequently under water or that are the byproduct

of manmade activities (e. g., drainage ditches

or structures) have been the subject of several

battles between the Corps and developers (8).

Regulation of Alaskan tundra, playa lakes, and

several other specific types of areas as wetland

also is controversial.

Because section 404 has obvious deficiencies

in the protections it offers to wetlands, as explored later in this report, it can be argued that

it should not be seen as a wetland-protection

statute. If Congress had wished to protect wetlands, it would have written more explicit language to that effect.

The intent of Congress in passing CWA was

to safeguard water quality, narrowly interpreted to refer to water pollution. If wetlands

are to be protected under the act, it is argued,

this protection should only be extended when

the water quality benefits of wetlands are endangered. Further, it is believed that only interstate water quality benefits of wetlands

clearly fall under the purview of the act.

The current mode of operation of the 404 program is held to conflict with more clearly expressed congressional intent to encourage agriculture and other types of development activities.

Opposing these contentions, environmentalists

and other sources have argued that Congress has

strongly recognized wetland values and has at least

implicitly approved the current scope of the program by not excluding wetlands, adopting a narrow navigable-waters standard, or restricting the

program to water quality, when it passed amendments to the act in 1977. Parties favoring the current geographic scope of the program also can point

to language in the legislative history of the act calling for a broad interpretation of its scope. Environmentalists also believe that the objective of CWA—

to ‘ ‘restore and maintain the chemical, physical,

and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters’
150 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

(emphasis added)14 justifies the protection of wetlands for other than water-quality reasons, in particular, to safeguard wildlife habitat.

The Presumption of Wetland Value

Prior to the suggested regulatory revisions of July

1982 put forward by the Corps, the Corps reviewed

permit applications with the presumption that,

‘‘Wetlands are vital areas that constitute a productive and valuable public resource, the unnecessary

alteration and destruction of which should be discouraged as contrary to the public interest.15

In this view, the benefits of proposed projects must

outweigh the damage to wetlands, and the proposed

wetland alteration must be necessary to realize the

14c]ean Water Act, sec. Iol(a).

1533 CFR, sec. 320.4(b)(l).

benefits. If a proposed activity is not water-dependent—if a feasible alternate site is available—it normally will be denied. Further, all appropriate and

practicable steps must be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge in question. Parties opposed to these provisions have the

following arguments against the above presumptions:

● The benefits of wetlands often are difficult to

discern and measure. Not all wetlands are of

equal value, and many wetlands are regarded

by various sources as being of little value to

society. In particular, the water quality values

of many wetlands protected by the program

are questionable; as mentioned, some sources

believe that only protection of water quality

is mandated by CWA.
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program . 1 5 1

● In specific permit decisions or in general, parties seeking to change the program hold that

development values outweigh the benefits of

natural wetlands. Employment, balance of

payments, energy supply, and so forth are contrasted to the less quantifiable benefits of wetlands. Development values are held to be of

national importance, while wetland values

may be seen as having only local applicability. 16

● Wetlands also may be contrasted to other lands

in terms of their environmental benefits. For

example, while some environmentalists see

wetlands as the most valuable type of undeveloped area, others prefer upland environments.

Many State resource agencies support schemes

that create upland environment for nonwetland game species.

In summary, it is argued that, at most, section

404 should cover only wetlands of clear benefit to

society. There should be no presumption that all

wetlands are valuable. Secondly, a more explicit

balancing of the values of conversion with the values

of preservation of wetlands should be made. Some

proposals would reverse the presumption of wetland

value to a presumption of development value and

would hold that unless an application can be demonstrated to injure the wetland, or even more narrowly, water quality, the application should be

granted without the imposition of modifications.

In contrast, defenders of the program argue that

all wetlands are valuable, albeit to varying extents.

A presumption of value therefore is appropriate and

necessary to reverse what some view as a disastrous

rate of wetland conversion. Under treaties, conventions, and agreements, the United States has public

trust responsibilities for resources, including migratory birds, anadromous fishes, and threatened

and endangered species. Destruction of upland environment to protect wetlands is the result of a lack

of comprehensive planning and poor coordination

between agencies rather than an inherent flaw of

the 404 program.

The July 1982 revisions changed the strength

with which the presumption of wetland value is applied, i.e., by removing the provision that wetland

alterations must be necessary to realize project benLcparish and Morgan, op. cit. , p. 79.

efits. The presumption that

areas . . , ‘‘ was changed to

vital areas . . . “ (emphasis

Program Administration

‘‘wetlands are vital

‘‘some wetlands are

added).

The administration of the 404 program has been

criticized by a number of sources for three reasons:

●

●

●

Those planning to conduct activities in wetland

areas, especially individuals and small firms,

often are unaware of or confused by program

requirements. There often is uncertainty

whether a particular area is a wetland. Definitions of wetlands used by State and Federal

agencies often differ and may be difficult for

nonspecialists to use to verify whether their

land is covered by a regulatory program. For

example, many plant species are found in both

wetlands and nonwetlands. Determinations of

whether wetland species are ‘ ‘prevalent’ in

an area under consideration can be controversial. There is much desire that the Corps publish easy-to-use guidelines on how to identify

wetland areas.

Some firms claim that the modifications imposed by Federal agencies are unreasonable—

e.g., that the activity applied for is not overly

impacting wetlands or water quality-or that

the firm’s own planned mitigation practices

are adequate, and there is no need for the additional mitigation often required by Federal

agencies (9).

In the eyes of many permit applicants, delays

resulting from agency permit processing seem

unreasonable. Requests for additional information about projects often are seen as unnecessary. Some Corps districts are also thought

to be unwilling to take a strong role in resolving disputes if any local, State, or Federal

agency has any objections to the proposed development. Permit applicants and agencies are

left to fight out problems among themselves,

a situation seen as favoring agencies (10). On

the other side, defenders of the program argue

that while some exceptions may exist, the modifications required and the amount of time

taken by Federal agencies have not been unreasonable considering the need for caution in

dealing with project impacts.
152 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Specific Impacts of the 404 Program

Costs related to the 404 program maybe divided

into two categories: national costs and costs to individual permit applicants.

National Costs

Overall, the greatest potential impact on development activities from the 404 permitting process is

the prevention of activities. In some cases, resources

cannot be extracted, facilities built, and so forth,

because of denials of permit applications (assuming that alternative means of conducting the activity

cannot be found) or if delays, modifications, or

other costs make the planned activity uneconomical

or otherwise infeasible to undertake. Activities that

are not prevented may be made more expensive,

thus increasing costs to users of the products produced. These general types of impacts can have

broader effects than just the costs to the permit applicants.

Potential national costs include reductions of production and price increases in regulated industries

and other industries dependent on regulated firms.

One oil company argued, for example, that 404

regulation is economically unproductive, adds no

resources to the Nation, and creates many millions

of dollars in costs that are ‘‘inevitably passed on

to consumers and contribute to America’s current

economic malaise."17

In addition, if regulatory restrictions make wetland portions of a resource base impossible or more

expensive to use, the remaining nonwetland portions also may become more valuable as a result

of the diminished supply of the resource in question. While this outcome may not increase costs to

the firms exploiting the resource, it could result in

increases in the prices charged to consumers of the

products derived.

Some industry associations and individual firms

contend that the macro-level effects of the 404 program are of a different type than are direct effects

on the gross national product (GNP) or consumer

prices. They argue that a deleterious effect of the

404 program on the operations of various industries

adversely affects vital national interests. For example, petroleum industry members have stated that

the 404 program has seriously interfered with the

ability of the oil industry to explore and develop

Alaskan North Slope oil reserves, which comprise

roughly 40 percent of U.S. domestic reserves. They

state that Alaskan reserves are ‘‘of obvious and crucial importance to America’s domestic oil supply,

and thus to American national security interest. 18

OTA does not have sufficient information to determine the impacts of the 404 program on any sector of industry, on national indicators such as GNP,

or on national interests in general. At least some

individual firms have borne major costs as a result

of the 404 program, and industry associations

brought to OTA’s attention instances in which costs

ran into millions of dollars. The significance of these

costs beyond the impacts to the firms concerned is

difficult to assess. To some industry associations,

the 404 program is one of the major sources of regulatory costs. *

OTA asked associations to estimate the significance of 404-related costs—e. g., the proportion of

the total burden of Federal and State regulation entailed by the 404 program—and the importance of

404 program costs relative to other factors, such

as high interest rates. Several associations said that

the significance of program costs varies with the

project. Two associations made more specific estimates. The range of the responses received by the

FI from 2 firms in North Carolina was 10 percent

and 50 percent; from 14 firms in Florida, 1 to 40

percent, with a median of less than 5 percent. The

American Paper Institute/National Forest Products

Association (API/NFPA) responded as follows:

The significance of section 404-related costs to

our members has decreased steadily since the mid1980 publication of the regulations implementing

section 404(f). As a consequence, it may now be

less significant than requirements imposed by

other Federal or State programs.

1

7Sohio, “Briefing Paper for Regulatory Changes to Corps of

Engineers Regulations Governing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

and Sections 9 and 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, ” 1981.

It was claimed that in one project alone, 404 problems caused tens

of millions of dollars in costs.

InIbid.

● For example, API listed section 404 permitting second in a list

of 10 highest priority issues submitted to the Reagan administration,

May 4, 1981.
Ch. 7—The Effect of the 404 Program ● 153

Immediately after the expansion of the section

404 program to nonnavigable waters in 1975, we

anticipated over 180,000 permit requirements per

year for forest management activities. As the result

of the passage of section 404(f), this problem has

decreased to 0.1 percent of our original projection.

We would currently estimate section 404 as representing a relatively small proportion of the total

burden of Federal and State regulation that our

industry faces.

With respect to the importance of section 404,

compared to general economic conditions; high interest rates (to use the example cited) have resulted

in the poorest forest products market since 1930.

Consequently, compared to current economic conditions section 404 is a relatively minor concern.

The IWR report found that changes in the national economy caused by the 404 program are difficult or impossible to measure (e.g., using the GNP

or consumer price index (C PI) figures). It concluded that while impacts on individual firms could

be significant, such impacts are unlikely to have

any major effect on the national economy. 19

The impacts of the 404 program on national security concerns are unclear. For example, Alaskan

energy development appears to be subject to permitting delays more from State agencies than from

the Federal agencies involved in the program. It

could be contended also that the development activities affected by section 404 are not constrained

to such an extent that national security is threatened. For example, it could be argued that sufficient amounts of the resources in question can be

obtained from nonwetland areas to meet U.S.

needs.

One study of the effect of section 404 on the deepening of coal ports concluded that 404 reviews have

1 glnstitute for water Resources, op. cit. , p. 184. The IWR report

concluded that it is likely that all Federal environmental regulation

combined has had a very small effect on the GNP and CPI, and the

404 program is only a small part of this regulation. See also the Western

Governors’ Policy Office, ‘ ‘Permitting and Siting of Energy Projects:

Causes of Delay, and State Solutions, “ Denver, 1981, which concluded

that cnvironrnental regulations constituted a relatively minor source

of dela} to energy projects in Western States, as compared with

equipment- and labor-related problems.

not and are not likely to constrain either such deepening or the development of U.S. coal exports. Delays in port dredging are attributable to other

sources .20

Environmentalists are quick to point out that

there may be national costs associated with degradation and conversion of aquatic habitats required to

sustain wildlife. National estimates for 1980 show

that commercial and noncommercial activities associated with fish, wildlife, and associated outdoor

activities are worth many billions of dollars per

year. Some of these economic values are described

in chapter 3. Maintenance of the habitat base required to perpetuate wildlife resources is important

for economic as well as other purposes.

Costs to Permit Applicants

Major categories of costs to applicants for 404

permits involve processing, modification, delay,

and opportunity. 21 These costs are borne not only

by permit applicants but also by people who would

otherwise benefit from the activities permitted.

Projects that are abandoned, made less profitable,

or never initiated mean potential losses in job opportunities, economic development, and tax revenue. On the other hand, protection of wetlands has

its own set of benefits that may include higher returns in some areas. In addition, losses both to project initiators and potential beneficiaries will be offset

if, as is likely, the resources that would have been

used in a wetland-related project are used in some

other fashion. From the standpoint of the national

economy, there might be no net change. However,

great changes in which areas experience benefits

could result.

Finally, there are nonquantifiable costs to the

permit process, such as the energy and aggravation entailed in filling out forms and meeting with

agency officials.

‘OM ichael Rubino, “Dredge or Fill, Section 404, and Coal Port

Development, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1983, pp. 6-7.

21 Inst itute for Water Resources, op. cit. , pp. 144-145. Categories

are modifications of categories listed.

25 - _ 415 0 – 84 ~ – 11
154 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

PROCESSING COSTS

Processing costs are those costs incurred by applicants to produce information needed for the permit process. Such information may include application fees, maps, project plans, and EISs.

Private individuals are charged a $10 application fee for a 404 permit. Permit applications for

commercial purposes cost $100. A set of drawings

showing the location of the proposed project and

the work to be performed must be submitted. Many

applicants employ engineering firms to produce

such drawings. According to IWR, some firms will

handle all procedural details of applications, with

fees ranging from $100 to $500.22

Applicants may be required to submit additional

information beyond what is required normally,

however. Applications that appear to have major

environmental impacts, for example, often must be

accompanied by detailed EISS.

23 The fees paid by

applicants to environmental consultants preparing

ElS’s often are substantial, costing tens of thousands of dollars and representing a major share of

permitting costs. * The costs of EM preparation,

however, cannot always be attributed to the 404

program. Authority to require a developer to submit an EIS comes from NEPA, not from section

404. In many cases, if the Corps did not require

an EIS for 404 considerations, another Federal

agency with permitting authority over the project

could require it or be sued by an outside group seeking to make the agency exercise this prerogative.

Another major difficulty in estimating the costs of

404 application and preparation is that some, or

even most, of the environmental analyses undertaken by firms (which can constitute the greatest

source of expense) may be required in any case by

ZZInstitute for Water Resources, op. cit., p. 146.

Z~The Washin@on Pos(, Sept. 13, 1982. The numlxr of NEPA suits

filed for “projects affecting wetlands or bodies of water’ constituted

almost 13 percent of all suits filed in 1980, tying for second place among

18 categories.

“The Fertilizer Institute claimed that in one instance fees totaled

$3 million.

States with strong environmental programs and

may be undertaken not only for wetland-related

concerns but also for other environmental considerations. Also, many firms engage in advance

planning and environmental programs of their own,

the results of which are used in 404 applications.

The OTA survey asked associations to estimate

the costs of application and processing of 404 permits. Most associations said that costs vary with

the scope and controversy of the proposed permit.

Only a few associations gave quantified estimates.

The FI estimate was $1,000 to $3 million. Of the

three firms making up the American Waterways

Operators, Inc. (AWO), response, one estimated

such costs as $500, another’s estimate was $20,000

to $25,000, and one said that ‘‘costs can run into

the tens of thousands of dollars. For the two ports

answering this question on the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) response, one said

that “preproject paperwork’ increased by 20 to 50

percent for small projects. The other said that costs

can vary from $25,000 to over $100,000.

The response from API/NFPA said that significant costs are experienced occasionally when Federal agency evaluation is necessary to assess the applicability of 404(f) exemptions to a project. In one

instance, a firm devoted 120 staff hours to preparing support for its view that planned activities fell

under 404 exemptions.

IWR estimated that processing costs in fiscal year

1980 totaled $17.3 million, averaging $911 per application, or $1,226 for government, $652 for individual, and an implied $1,179 for commercial applications.24 The assumptions and methods by which

IWR calculations were made were not explained,

and the resulting estimations may be inaccurate

(11).

zqInstitute for Water Resources, op. cit. , p. 173. IWR did not give

an average for commercial applications. The figure listed here was

calculated using IWR figures for the cost borne by different types of

applicants and for the number of commercial applications.
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program ● 155

MODIFICATION COSTS

Project modifications made in response to Federal agency requirements or pressure as a condition for permit approval may entail additional outlays by applicants—i. e., to restore or create wetlands, transport material to more expensive upland

sites, or use more expensive technology or management practices. In addition, such modifications may

reduce the profitability of a project, for example,

by making the project smaller. There also may be

modification costs not directly required by agencies. Applicants may modify projects before an

agency objects to them in expectation of permit

denials if modifications are not undertaken.

Rough estimates indicate that one in three permits is modified. The figure is probably lower for

small projects and higher for large projects. Many

projects undoubtedly were modified in anticipation

of comments by Federal agencies; many others were

modified as a result of preapplication consultations

(12).

According to one supporter of the program, 90

percent of recommendations made by Federal resource agencies to permit applicants during permit review are ‘‘accepted’ by applicants,25 meaning that few such suggestions result in the applicant withdrawing a permit application or refusing

to make the change. However, the requirement of

modifications often has an element of coercion.

Apart from the threat of denial of a permit by the

Corps or the Environmental Protection Agency,

(EPA), Federal agencies without the power to deny

a permit could, before the regulatory changes proposed by the administration in 1982, threaten to

elevate a decision on a permit to higher levels in

the Government, with the concomitant delay entailed in processing. As stated by OMB, the threat

of elevation often has caused applicants to ‘‘accede

to unnecessary and unreasonable changes in their

plans’ to avoid agency objections.26

The cumulative amount of outlays for modifications and the average cost per permit applicant are

almost entirely unknown, given present data. IWR

estimated that the cost of modifications equals the

amount of savings to permit applicants through

‘‘technology transfer. ’27 These savings were estimated to be 15 percent of site development costs,

or an annual amount of $135.5 million to $271 million. 28However, no basis was given for the assumption that sums for modifications and technology

transfer are the same. Further, as previously discussed, the IWR estimate of technology transfer

savings is extremely uncertain.

The OTA survey asked associations to estimate

the ranges of costs for modifications. Very few

quantitative estimates were made. The American

Mining Congress (AMC) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) said that modifications range

from minor, relatively inexpensive changes to major

modifications costing millions of dollars. AAPA said

that costs for riprapping increased by 10 to 20

percent.

An example of increased costs was given by API,

which said that drilling a 12,000-ft oil or gas exploratory well may cost $2.5 million for a straight

hole and $7.5 million when directional drilling is

employed. Out of the API survey sample of 40

firms, representing a total of 794 permits from

August 1978 to October 1981, 53 cases of increased

costs from ‘‘the adoption of stipulations or special

conditions’ were noted, totaling $17 million, an

average of about $320,000 per case. However, this

average is not representative, one permit alone accounted for $10 million in costs. Secondly, not all

firms submitted all of their past permitting experiences to API: some firms gave only examples where

problems were encountered, possibly biasing the

overall picture presented. API also gave an alternate figure: averaging the $17 million figure across

all 794 permits, API determined the average cost

to be about $22,000.

Among the nonquantitative estimates, API/

NFPA said that “with respect to specific project

ZsNat iona] Wi]d]ife Federation, op. cit.

ZGOffice of Management and Budget, op. clt.

ZTInstituIe for Water Resources, op. cit., P. 153

‘* Ibid., p. 135.
156 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

modifications, forest-access road construction usual- outfall structures must be undertaken in a fashion

ly requires certain modifications (e. g., adequate that does not involve unnecessary disruption of wetculverts) to insure flow and circulation when cross- land areas. This has not generally proven to be difing waters or wetlands. This is not a major difficul- fiult.‘‘

ty. The construction of water intake and effluentDELAY COSTS

Delays in processing applications past “normal’

processing time can result in costs to applicants,

such as payments to idle workers and contractors,

possible increases in interest rates and prices for

raw materials, labor, machinery, and the like. Unanticipated delays are especially costly.

OMB stated that the 404 program has been

‘‘plagued by severe delays that have generated complaints and imposed heavy economic burdens on

the public’ and ‘‘has introduced long delays into

a substantial number of major permit applications. ’29 Such delays are contrary to statutory

language in section 404, which requires that memorandums of agreement be concluded among agencies to minimize delays. The major source of delays

was said to be the multiple layers of review or elevations of permit decisions possible if another agency disagrees with the Corps.

As the OMB letter did not define “long delays, ”

or ‘‘substantial number of major permits, it is difficult to assess the accuracy of its criticism. Opinions differ about what constitutes normal processing time. A coalition of environmental groups believes that 131 days, the average period for processing non-EIS permits from 1977 to 1981, is a

reasonable figure. 30 Following the figure employed

by RIA, IWR used 120 days. The General Accounting Office (GAO) says 105 days.31 Some industry spokesmen have used a 90-day figure (13).

OMB recommended that 60 days be the normal

processing time.

Statutory and regulatory language on processing deadlines provides that the Corps must issue

a public notice of a permit application within 15

days of receipt of a complete application .32 Applications lacking required information must be resubmitted. CWA requires that memorandums of

agreement be concluded among the Federal agencies involved such that ‘‘to the maximum extent

practicable, ’33 decisions about permits can be made

not later than 90 days after public notice. This deadline allows for some deviation. Federal agencies are

given 30 days from the issuance of public notice

to forward comments to the Corps; however, they

may request extensions of up to 75 days under what

are supposed to be unusual circumstances. Section

404(m) directs the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

to submit comments within 90 days of receiving the

public notice.

In addition to the time allowed for Federal agency action, States are given up to 1 year to perform

water quality certifications, which apply to practically all 404 permits. Without such certification,

the Corps cannot grant a permit, As discussed below, according to IWR, much of the time involved

in processing permits stems from the length of time

it takes States to grant 401 certifications. Most

States claim, however, that they issue such certifications within 90 days. Arrangements have been

made between some Corps districts and State agencies to set time limits on State certifications, after

which certification is considered to be de facto

granted.

Percentage of Permits Delayed

OTA calculations based on RIA material are that

if only issued permits are considered (i. e., not including permit withdrawals and denials), 43 percent of commercial, 29 percent of private, and 33

Zgoffice of Management and Budget, op. Cit. , P. 28

3oNation~Wi]d]ife Federation, Op. Cit.

31Genera1 Accounting OfIice (Tech. Note No. 9), p. 28.

Szclean Water Act, sec. 404(a).

ttclean Water Act, sec. 404(q).
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program • 157

percent of governmental permits, or 34.5 percent

of all permits, took longer than 120 days to process in fiscal year 1980 (14). As described earlier,

RIA data include non-404 permits. While it is not

certain that these percentages would hold if 404 and

10/404 permits were considered, it is likely that

these figures for delay do represent minimum estimates: 404-related permits constituted 54 percent

of permits issued in fiscal years 1980 and 1981, and

it is reasonable to assume that 404-related permits

were, on average, more controversial, and thus

more subject to delay, than were non-404 permits.

If these percentages are accepted, a substantial

number of permit applicants do appear to suffer

delays, especially for commercial projects.

Taking all oil- and gas-related 404 permits in

Alaska from February 1980 to September 1981,

GAO found that approximately 76 percent took

more than 105 days to process, that length of time

being GAO’s definition of normal processing time.

Even using the more generous standard of 130 days,

more than half of such permits were delayed.34

Length of Delays

According to IWR, the average Corps processing time for routine permits (permits to which agencies have not raised objections) has been reduced

from 84 days in 1977 to 70 days in 1981.35 As mentioned, another source estimated that average processing time for all permits except those requiring

an EIS was 131 days.36

By a great margin, permits take longest to process when EISs are required. Based on fragmentary

data, IWR estimated that processing such permits

takes an average of815 days.37 The percentage of

all 404 permits that require an EIS, however, is

very small, about 0.03 percent. Large-scale projects are affected disproportionately. If permits requiring EISs are not considered, the average length

of time to process permits is much less.

The OTA survey asked associations to estimate

how long, on average, it takes to receive a final decision on a permit. API reported that processing takes

J+Gener~ Accounting Office (Tech. Note No. 9), p. z~.

351nstitute for Water Resources, p. 39.

~cNation~ Wildlife Federation, op. cit.

sTInstitute for Water Resources, OP. Cit.

an average of 131 days (median time, 106 days).

Routine permits are processed in under 4 months;

permits to which objections are made average over

a year. These totals factor in permits for which EISs

are required. For Alaskan oil and gas permits alone,

according to GAO, the average permitting time was

150 days.38 AMC found average processing time

to be 8 months, with routine permits usually processed within 90 days and controversial permits taking an additional 5 or 6 months. FI did not provide an average figure, saying that application approvals take from 2 months to over 3 years. The

three firms making up the AWO response reported

that processing takes from 3 to 8 months, 4 to 7

months, and ‘‘at least’ 12 months, respectively.

Finally, the three ports making up the AAPA response reported that processing takes 4 to 9 months

for routine permits, and several years for more controversial permits.

Sources of Delays

It is difficult to determine what percentages of

delays are due to the various possible sources of delay. OMB focused on delays caused by elevation

procedures and found that between March 24,

1980, and an unspecified date, there were 281 cases

in which a district engineer proposed to issue a permit over the objection of another Federal agency.

Seventy cases, or 25 percent of such cases (and

about 0.6 percent of all 404-related permits processed), were elevated. Of these, the division engineer resolved 55 (about 79 percent), for an average delay time of 150 days. Five cases were resolved

by the Office of the Chief of Engineers for an average delay time of 320 days. Five cases were resolved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil

Works) for an average delay time of 650 days, and

five cases were pending. (It is unclear if these delay

times represent additional days over what is considered normal processing time [ 120 days], or

whether they are total processing times. ) The average delay for the 70 cases was 202 days. OMB

also stated, without listing a source, that the threat

of elevation fleeted an additional 1,700 cases, causing an average delay of 75 days. Of the 70 cases

in which permits were elevated as described by

OMB, requests for elevation were made in 50 days

jBGener~ Accounting OffIce (Tech. Note No. 9).
158 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

by FWS, 36 by NMFS, and 16 by EPA (elevation

requests are sometimes made by more than one

agency).

It has been argued, however, that these agencies have steadily reduced processing delays and

only rarely elevate permits. According to FWS statistics for the period July 1 to December 31, 1980,

average processing time was 17.2 days for routine

permits and 22.5 days for all permits. FWS requested the elevation of 42 out of the 6,376 received

404 and 10/404 public notices, about 0.7 percent.

Of these, resolutions in the permit applicant’s favor

were made in 15 cases; in FWS’ favor, in 2 cases;

and a compromise was made in 25 cases. Of the

four cases elevated as high as the Washington level,

two resolutions were made in the applicant’s favor,

with two compromises. 39 In the NMFS Southeast

region, which handles about half the NMFS 404

workload, 97 percent of the 5,240 permits reviewed

were handled within 30 days in 1980.40

According to IWR, elevation requests and handling by Federal agencies are not the only, or even

the primary, source of delays. In order of importance, the following sources of delay were mentioned by Corps districts in response to the RIA

questionnaire:

Applicant Behavior

Many permit applicants fail to provide sufficient

information on applications, leading to requests for

additional information by Federal agencies and delay for the applicant. One possible reason for this

problem, suggests IWR, is that application requirements are complicated and beyond the capability

of many applicants.

State Water Quality Certification

As mentioned, section 401 of CWA requires all

404 applicants to obtain a certification or permit

from the State in which the discharge of a pollutant may take place to the effect that the discharge

will comply with applicable State standards. States

are given a period not to exceed 1 year to make

a decision on whether to give such certification,

after which this requirement is considered to be

‘

gU. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Fact Package, ” Feb. 26, 1982.

40Natur~ Resources Councti of America, ‘‘Statement on 404, Mar.

5, 1982.

.

waived. In the absence of 401 certification, a 404

permit will not be granted by the Corps. A number

of States use 401 requirements as a way of gaining

concessions from permit applicants without having

to establish explicitly a separate wetland-protection

program.

Manpower

Corps district personnel responsible for processing applications are unable to keep pace with the

number of permit applications received. Manpower

was not expanded when the Corps expanded its activities from phase I to phase II and III waters.

FWS Comments

Although FWS actually elevates relatively few

permits, it has exercised considerable influence by

threatening to elevate permits unless applicants implement changes in their applications. To avoid the

greater delay of elevation, applicants accept the

lesser delays entailed in revising applications to

meet FWS concerns.

Other sources of delay were not judged by Corps

districts to be nearly as significant as the above four

causes .41

The relative importance of these sources of delay

varies with the Corps district, State, and project

involved. For example, in most cases, State certifications become factors in delay only when projects are controversial, large in size, or otherwise

difficult or complex to evaluate. Many States say

that delays come from poor applications and poorly

planned projects: time is taken to assist applicants

in resubmitting or even redesigning applications

and projects. Most States responding to the OTA

State survey claimed that they process routine 401

and 404 permit applications and applications for

State permits within 2 months, with more major

applications taking longer (6 months, or in exceptional cases, even years). While there are few data

on the proportion of projects that are delayed by

41 Ibid,, pp. 180-183. corps delays in issuing public notices in Alaska

were ascribed by GAO to Corps manpower problems. Rather than

the 15-day period mandated, the Alaska district averaged 21 days,

with two-thirds of the notices late in issuance in fiscal year 1981 (down

from 28 days and 71 percent delayed in 1980). GAO made a similar

finding in 1980 for three other Corps districts. GAO (Tech. Note No.

9), p. 30.
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program ● 159

State processing, several States said that only a

small percentage are delayed (e. g., Massachusetts

stated that 90 percent of its projects are processed

within 2 months).

Estimates of Delay Costs

Very little information is available bearing on

the monetary costs of permit processing delays.

OMB, evidently using the IWR analysis, put such

costs at ‘‘over $1.5 billion. ’42 The IWR estimated

delay costs, including opportunity costs due to delay, to total $1.7 billion. The extremely complicated

formula used by IWR to calculate delay costs entailed many assumptions for which no basis was

provided. Some data that went into the calculation

almost certainly were inaccurate. For these reasons,

the IWR estimate is of uncertain reliability (15).

Only one industry association made a specific

monetary estimate of delay costs: FI put the range

of such costs at $17,000 to $2.2 million. The $2.2

million estimate was based mostly on opportunity

+Zoffice of Management and Budget, OP. Cit

costs: according to one firm, delay made it necessary to cancel a mining project, thereby negating

previous sums spent on environmental studies and

foregoing the value of the resource. Individual accounts of increased costs from delays are frequent.

One application in Alaska by an oil company to

construct a drilling mud pit took 225 days to process, mostly as a result of repeated extensions granted

to an Alaskan State agency. The company involved

claimed that project costs more than doubled, mostly because construction was moved from summer

to. Winter.43 Two other estimates from the petroleum

industry also indicate substantial costs: API stated

that 55 permit delays in southern Louisiana cost

firms $19 million (with “lost or deferred production” totaling 428,000 barrels of oil and 14.9 billion

cubic feet of gas as a result) .44 Another industry

study claimed that 57 out of 89 oil- and gas-related

permit applications experienced delay-related economic losses .45

+sGener~ Accounting Office (Tech. Note No. 9).

441bid.

+sMid.Continent Oil and Gas Association, 1979, quoted in Institute

for Water Resources, op. cit., p. 175.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

Opportunity costs are created when the permitting process denies applicants the use of capital,

labor, and machinery that could otherwise produce

an investment return. For example, modifications

to projects that require additional outlays by the

applicant may create opportunity costs, assuming

that the funds going into modifications could be

used in other ways that would generate more revenue than that produced by the modification. Similarly, delays could mean that investments sunk in

project planning and kept in reserve for project implementation remain idle rather than produce revenue when expected. In some cases, delay produces

opportunity costs when the opportunity to exploit

a resource is withdrawn, owing to delay (e. g., if

time-based leasing arrangements are not fulfilled).

Even normal processing of permits produces opportunity costs in time and money that conceivably

could be used elsewhere to produce a greater return.

Denials and withdrawals of permits presumably

create opportunity costs greater than those of normal processing, as no return is realized from the

resources spent on such permit applications. Opportunity costs in terms of the value of lost raw

materials also are created when permit denials prevent a resource from being exploited if an alternate plan of resource extraction subsequently cannot be worked out.

An even more speculative category of opportunity costs is costs related to planned projects that never

were submitted as permit applications out of fear,

perhaps based on meetings with Federal officials,

that they would be denied or modified in a way unacceptable to the applicant.

Opportunity costs are the most difficult of all the

costs listed to estimate. It is possible to approximate

roughly the number and proportion of projects sub-
160 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ject to such costs beyond the opportunity costs associated with normal processing. In fiscal year 1981,

291 permits were denied to section 404 and 10/404

projects, about 2.7 percent of total permits processed. About 14 percent, or 1,545 permits, were

withdrawn. As stated in the IWR report, not all

withdrawals can be attributed to the regulatory program. Other factors, such as changed economic

conditions, can cause applicants to change their

plans. However, the majority of withdrawals probably stem from difficulties encountered in the course

of agency review of permit applications. As discussed earlier, roughly one-third of issued permits

are modified substantially; about the same percentage are delayed. Some overlap probably exists in

these last two categories. It also is likely that of permits not issued, some proportion were in processing for over 120 days; however, no estimate is available of what this figure might be. At minimum,

the percentage of delays/modifications, withdrawals, and denials can be added together, resulting in a figure of at least half of all permits that

experience opportunity costs beyond those associated with routine processing.

A large part of the problem in estimating opportunity costs is the difficulty of getting objective information. Investments are not necessarily idle,

even if ‘‘sunk’ in a project. For example, machinery may be contracted out to other firms. In

some industries, some periods of the year normally are slack, and permit delays cannot justly be

regarded as the source of idle labor and machinery.

However, few 404 program critics volunteer such

information. To give a more common example of

the difficulty in making estimates, modifications of

permits often require changing the timing of a

planned activity so that it will have less impact on

various wetland species of animals (e. g., not performing the activity during spawning season).

Delays also will affect project timing. The cost of

the impact depends on the extent to which the applicant already has committed resources to the time

originally asked for in the permit. This will only

be known to the permittee. According to Corps personnel, consultations before permits are submitted

will make it known to prospective applicants what

generally can be expected; hence, to commit large

amounts of time and money in advance to a project before submitting an application is not prudent,

and delay costs, if they occur, thus are not entirely

due to Corps actions.

Few estimates of opportunity costs were given

by associations. According to FI, the value of 33.5

million tons of phosphate rock underlying 2,862

acres not approved for mining in permit applications from 1975 to the fall of 1982 totaled between

$804 million and $838 million per ton at 1982

prices. The IWR’s estimate of opportunity costs—

apparently including only such costs that are related

to modifications—was $409 million, with median

costs of $13,523 for commercial projects, $8,000

for government, and $263 for individuals.46 As with

other IWR estimates, these figures suffer from more

or less serious methodological difficulties (16).

+bInstitute for Water Resources, op. cit., p. 174. See pp. 153-157

for methodology.

DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS

As highlighted by IWR, the manner in which

the costs of a regulatory program are distributed

across different sectors of society is of interest.

Respondents to the RIA were fairly consistent in

their classification of those sectors of industry and

society that they rated as being negatively affected.

The great majority of responses rated residential

development, small business, the manufacturing industry, and the mining industry as suffering adverse

impacts from the Corps regulatory program. Oil

and gas development was highlighted specifically

by several respondents. Somewhat less but still large

majorities also saw negative impacts occurring in

the ‘ ‘business-commercial-industrial sector’ and

in the construction industry .47

+TInstitute for Water Resources, op. cit., p. 175. ‘‘Transportation

Utilities” were also rated by IWR as being negatively affected; however, responses to the RIA questionnaire were divided almost evenly.
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program ● 161

Some costs are borne by taxpayers. IWR estimated that the regulatory functions program of the

Corps had a budget of $41 million in 1980. IWR

accepted an estimate that other agency support

totaled one-fourth of the Corps’ effort, an additional

$10.25 million. These figures may be high, as they

encompass activities outside of 404 administration.

On the other hand, the budget maybe understated.

For example, Corps employees from branches other

than regulatory may work part time on permitting

matters but are not counted as regulatory branch

employees. It is difficult to get exact estimates,

because the Corps districts apparently do not keep

separate records for 404 expenditures. The fiscal

year 1982 Corps budget for 404 and section IV was

approximately $50 million, with 800 people on the

regulatory staff nationwide.

CHAPTER 7 TECHNICAL NOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Much of the quantitative information presented in the

IWR report is of questionable quality. Where this information is used in this report, the limitations of the data

are examined. In many cases better data were available

or collected for this study. For example, the IWR report

is quoted often as evidence that the 404 program is responsible for ‘ ‘saving’ about 300,000 acres of wetlands that

otherwise would be developed if the 404 program did not

exist. However, it is unclear how this IWR estimate was

made. Since the Corps now is regulating those activities

that were responsible for the conversion of about 175,000

acres of wetlands per year between the mid- 1950’s and

the mid- 1970’s, it is highly unlikely that the 404 program

could be saving almost twice this acreage, even if all permits were denied. In fact, data recently collected from all

Corps districts and presented in this chapter suggest that

this IWR estimate is about six times too high.

Activities also may be altered to fall under nationwide permits or exemptions, with benefits to applicants but with

less clear benefits in terms of wetland protection.

Many districts did not separate estimates on a yearly basis,

instead giving totals for 1980 to mid-1982. These were divided by 2.5 to derive a yearly figure.

OTA mailed surveys to 20 industry associations. The

following associations provided responses: American

Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), American Farm

Bureau Federation (AFB), American Mining Congress

(AMC), American Petroleum Institute (API), American

Paper Institute/National Forest Products Association

(API/NFPA), American Public Power Association (APPA),

American Waterways Operators, Inc. (AWO), The Fertilizer Institute (FI), National Cattlemen’s Association

(NCA), National Association of Conservation Districts

(NACD), and National Association of Home Builders

(NAHB). Not every association answered every survey

question.

Sectors considered were: business-commercial-industrial,

agricultural, fishing, mining, construction, manufacturing, transportation utilities, wholesale trade and retail

trade, residential development, lnd values adjacent to permit areas, small businesses, general public, private individuals, government, and public serv.

6. The IWR report said that wholesale and retail trade also

7

benefited. However, OTA’sexamination of RIA responses

shows that a slight majority of districts believed that this

sector was negatively affected by the program.

In its unpublished and quickly prepared report, the IWR

used what in effect were educated guesses by Corps personnel to calculate savings to applicants. These percentages were applied to the number of permits processed

(18,939 in 1980) rather than the number of permits issued

(16,286)–a 16-percent difference (the number of sec. 404

and sec. 10/404 issued permits was 8,013; the remainder

were sec. 10 permits). It is possible that permit applications denied or withdrawn experienced similar amounts

of benefits as those submitted. For example, as a result

of discussions with agencies, projects could be reconfigured

to fall under general permits or be conducted on nonwetland areas with savings over original plans. On the other

hand, it is likely that at least some applications were

withdrawn, owing to the expense of complying with potential requirements, and that alternate projects were not initiated or were more expensive than those originally envisioned.

Site development costs were assumed to be 25 percent

of the total costs of projects; no rationale was given for

this percentage. Further, no basis was given for the figure

of total costs ($217,619 million) of projects. Even if these

estimates were accepted, IWR calculations of benefits

almost certainly are overstated, due to two factors:

1.

2

Large projects represent an overwhelming share of the

total costs of projects (in the first IWR draft, 20 percent of applications were said to account for 95 percent of economic impact [ 1 -7]), yet these are the least

likely to benefit from technology transfer. It is likely

that large firms planning large projects already will have

discovered the least expensive way (though not necessarily the least environmentally damaging way) to develop such projects without benefit of Federal advice,

According to the IWR, report itself, at least some sectors are negatively affected by the program. Based on

responses to the RIA questionnaire, these sectors include the business-commercial-industrial sector, the

mining, construction, and manufacturing industries,
162 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

8.

9.

residential development, and small business. These sectors clearly encompass a large share of the total project

cost figure given by IWR, yet logically should not be

included in a calculation of benefits.

Last, the rationale for the amortization factor is not explained. If annual benefits are amortized so that only a

small proportion is calculated to appear yearly, the total

yearly benefits of the program would consist logically of

not only the amortized figure for that particular year, but

also the amortized benefits from previous years. This is

not shown in the IWR estimate. The flaws in the IWR

estimate are brought out more clearly when the amortization factor is eliminated. Accepting the IWRs figures

without amortization, the annual benefits of technology

transfer would be from $1.2 billion to $2.4 billion.

“In the case of ‘Madrona Marsh’ in Torrance, California,

the Army Corps asserted jurisdiction over the area on February 27, 1980. The area known as the ‘marsh’ is located

approximately two and one-half miles east of the Pacific

Ocean and 15 miles southwest of the Los Angeles City

Civic Center in a heavily developed commercial area of

the City of Torrance. The ‘marsh’ is not a natural phenomenon, and in fact, did not exist until the late 1960’s

when it was ‘built’ as a sump by the City of Torrance to

solve a localized drainage problem. In 1981, a petition for

withdrawal of claim of jurisdiction was filed with the Army

Corps. Jurisdiction was subsequently withdrawn, but in

February of 1982, the Army Corps decided to review the

decision of the district engineer withdrawing jurisdiction.

It has been over two years since jurisdiction was originally asserted, yet under the current regulations and jurisdictional memorandum of understanding, there has been no

final determination by the Army Corps. ” Pacific Legal

Foundation, op. cit., p. 17. See also Washington Legal

Foundation, op. cit., pp. 2-3.

One industry response (API/NFPA) stated that in some

cases, permit reviewers required modifications to enhance

wildlife habitat even though the requested modifications

were not related to the habitat impact of the project concerned. This type of problem was said to be declining.

In Alaska, some permits prohibit drilling except during winter, require that pipelines reach certain heights at

animal crossings, and require that impermeable waste disposal pits be constructed. These stipulations are termed

controversial by a GAO report because they are costly and

their effectiveness has not been established. Often, stipulations requested by other Federal agencies are accepted

routinely by the Corps. For Alaskan oil and gas permits,

GAO found that 40 percent lacked “site-specific support”

from February 1980 to September 1981. (GAO, “Developing Alaska’s Energy Resources: Actions Needed to

Stimulate Research and Improve Wetlands Permit Processing,” June 17, 1982.)

Some Corps districts feel that other Federal agencies

act unreasonably. For example, the Charleston district

stated in its response to OTA’s questionnaire: ‘‘This District frequently sees applicants deferring in the interests

of more expedient application processing to somewhat

questionable project modification imposed as conditions

of ‘no objection’ by Federal environmental agencies. Many

10.

11.

12.

of these modifications serve no useful purpose and act to

increase project costs needlessly.

The Corps’ Pittsburgh District responded: “When dealing with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, all wetlands are determined

to be of the highest quality and any application for filling

wetlands, regardless of true quality, brings a recommendation for denial. ”

As with stipulations, GAO found that extensions of time

to Federal and State agencies to comment on permits often

were allowed by the Corps without sufficient documentation of the need for such extensions by the requesting agencies. Lack of documentation greatly decreased, however,

after March 1980 Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) were

signed between the Corps and other involved Federal agencies. Problems continue with State agencies. Further

restrictions on reviewing times were contained in 1982

MOAs.

To give several examples of problems with IWR

calculations:

The IWR gave average costs to applicants for routine

permits (those taking under 120 days to process) as $250.

No basis was given for this figure, which is not even the

midpoint between $100 and $500, the range given by IWR

for fees charged by firms assisting permit applicants.

To estimate total costs, IWR multiplied $250 by the

number of permits estimated as taking 120 days or less

to process. For permits taking over 120 days, IWR listed

the average processing time for permits not requiring an

EIS as 251 days and for permits requiring an EIS as 815

days. To calculate additional processing costs for these

cases, IWR multiplied $250 by 2 and 7 to arrive at $500

and $1,750, respectively. Apart from the questionable

validity of including EIS costs and the problems of using

the $250 figure, no evidence was presented justifying the

estimates of average processing time. Estimates evidently were based on a question on the RIA questionnaire that

asked each Corps office to describe three permit cases,

which would produce a nonrandom sample of small size

(114 examples) when compared to the thousands of permits in various categories (e. g., total issued, total delayed,

total processed).

Even if IWR assumptions are accepted, the calculations

of total cost and of average processing costs to applicants

presented by IWR appear to be incorrect. IWR did not

present an explanation of how estimates were made. Using

IWR figures of average cost and RIA questionnaire figures

on numbers of permits handled in various categories

(which also were used by IWR), OTA arrived at different

estimates. For example, IWR gave a figure of $4.8 million

for the cost borne by all applicants for routine permits.

The RIA questionnaire listed a total of 10,688 permits falling in this category, an amount which multiplied by $250

totals $2.67 million.

In response to a question on the OTA survey on how often

modifications are required, only 1 association made a numerical estimate: FI said that 7 out of 14 projects had

modifications requested of them. Nine out of seventeen

projects incorporated modifications in anticipation of agency objections.
Ch. 7—The Effects of the 404 Program . 1 6 3

13.

14.

15.

American Petroleum Institute representative before

NACOAA meeting, December 1981. Some industry association staffers also have suggested that the time at which

the permit process can be said to begin should be pushed

back to the preapplication consultation stage, not so much

to include this time in statutory limits on processing, but

to give a better sense of the total length of time spent by

industries in processing.

As far as overall percentages are concerned, the inclusion

or exclusion of EIS permits makes an insignificant difference as so few EISs are required by the Corps: 47 in

fiscal year 1980, including non-404 permits.

IWR estimates of the percentage of permits delayed

were 36.3, 24.7, and 29.8 percent, respectively, for commercial, private, and governmental permits. However,

these estimates are inaccurate, even if RIA figures on

which IWR based its estimates are correct. IWR used the

total number of permits, including denials and withdrawals, in its percentages, but the RIA survey only calculated

the number of issued permits that were delayed.

The IWR did not write down the calculations it performed

to arrive at its estimate; therefore, it is impossible to

validate the figure of $1.6 billion. Many unproven assumptions were employed (e. g., projects costing $50 million and

under were postulated to take 1 year to complete and be

one-third complete at 120 days; projects over $50 million

were to take twice as long). Heavy reliance was placed

on the small, nonrandom sample of 114 cases described

earlier (footnote 13), e.g., to derive median cost figures.

Problems with the IWR methodology are exemplified

in the use of one key piece of data. To determine the costs

of projects subject to delay and to apply calculations of

delay costs for different types of projects, IWR employed

an RIA table giving percentages of how many projects fall

into different categories of dollar cost (e. g., it was estimated

that 46 percent of all projects are under $25,000; 17 percent from $25,000 to $100,000). This table may be inaccurate. It was based on estimates from Corps personnel

from each district who were not asked to supply hard data

justifying estimates. The question generating the table was

worded such that respondents were asked to estimate projects according to their “potential economic impacts on

your region and/or nation, ’ a far different basis than project cost alone. In addition, each district was treated equally

for the purpose of calculating mean percentages for each

category. However, as detailed earlier, districts are far

from equal in the number of permits they handle. This

disparity would not be serious if districts had responded

in similar ways to this question. However, districts had

widely varying estimates. For example, for the first category of project value, very few districts gave an estimate

close to the 46-percent figure used by IWR; many gave

estimates of over 75 percent or under 20 percent. Compounding the problems of using this table, IWR divided

the cost categories of the table into commercial, individual, and government permits, although the RIA data gave

no basis for doing so. (See IWR pp. 161-166 and RIA.)

16. It is very difficult to follow the methodology IWR used

in calculating opportunity costs. Evidently, estimates of

the cost of modifications, the amount of yardage of fill

denied by districts, and increased costs in placement of

fill were factored into IWR calculations. Some IWR assumptions on these items are questionable. As discussed

earlier, IWR assumed, without a justification given, that

the cost of modifications equals the amount of benefits from

technology transfer (see footnote 4). IWR estimated that

an average of 4 million yd3 of fill are requested annually

by applicants in each district and that reductions of 33 percent of this figure are achieved by each district. The 33-

percent figure, while higher than the average of estimates

given by districts to OTA, is not unreasonable. However,

the figure of 4 million yd3 is extremely high. Of the nine

districts giving figures to the OTA Corps survey of cubic

yardage of fill requested and approved—in five cases,

listing totals for 1980-82 year to date, and in at least one

case, combining dredged with fill material-only one district estimated that as much as 4 million yd3 was requested.

The average amount requested per district was 1.5 million

yd3. Rather than eliminating 1.32 million yd3, as can be

derived from the IWR figures (33 percent of 4 million),

all but one of the districts giving yardage figures estimated

that they removed 500,000 yd3 or less. This indicates that

IWR estimates of opportunity costs may be high.
Chapter 8

Limitations of the 404 Program

for Protecting Wetlands
Contents

Page

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Scope of Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Unregulated Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Exempted Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Nationwide Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

General Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Decisionmaking Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Corps Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Regulatory Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

District Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Monitoring and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Chapter 8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Chapter 8

Limitations of the 404 Program

for Protecting Wetlands

CHAPTER SUMMARY

There are fundamental differences in the way

Federal agencies and various special interest groups

interpret the intent of section 404 of the Clean

Water Act (CWA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers views its primary function in carrying out the

law as protecting the quality of water. Although

wetland values are considered in project reviews,

the Corps does not feel that section 404 was designed specifically to protect wetlands. In contrast,

the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and environmental groups contend that the mandate of CWA

obliges the Corps to protect the integrity of wetlands, including their habitat values.

In terms of comprehensive wetland management,

404 has major limitations. First, in accordance with

CWA, the 404 program regulates only the discharge of dredged or fill material onto wetlands.

Projects involving excavation, drainage, clearing,

and flooding of wetlands are not explicitly covered

by section 404 and not usually regulated by the

Corps. Yet such activities were responsible for the

vast majority of inland wetland conversions between

the mid-1950’s

these activities

Federal, State,

and the mid-1970’s. Rarely have

been halted or slowed because of

or local wetland regulations.

Second, the Corps does not have adequate resources to regulate activities effectively in ‘‘all

waters of the United States. Instead, the Corps

uses “general” (or nationwide) permits for isolated

waters and headwater areas. Because there are few

application or reporting requirements for activities

within areas covered by general permits, the Corps

has limited regulatory control over the use of wetlands covered by general permits.

Third, several administrative problems presently

limit the program’s effectiveness. These problems

include significant variations in the way different

districts implement the 404 program, the lack of

coordination between some districts and other Federal and State agencies, inadequate public awareness efforts, and the low priority given monitoring

and enforcement,

Finally, Federal water projects planned and authorized by Congress prior to environmental protection policies of the last dozen years are generally

not considered to pose a significant threat to wetlands, even though they may be exempted from 404

requirements. However, projects authorized 10 to

15 years ago that are now being undertaken often

cause significant impacts to wetlands.

INTRODUCTION

There is widespread agreement that the 404 pro- It is important to point out that wetlands sub-

. . . . . . gram has major limitations m terms of providing ject to section 404 can be destroyed in a number

comprehensive wetland protection. As stated by of ways without any requirement for a Corps perWilliam R, Gianelli, Assistant Secretary of the init. They can be destroyed by excavating, drainArmy (Civil Works), before the House Committee ing, flooding, clearing, or even shading without the

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on section 404 need for a Corps permit as long as those activities

of CWA, August 10, 1982: do not include the discharge of dredged or fill ma167
168 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

terial. So, it is clear that section 404 does not serve

as the Nation comprehensive wetlands protection

law.

This chapter addresses these and other limitations of the program under two parts: ‘‘Scope of

Coverage’ and ‘ ‘Corps Performance. The first

part discusses activities that may adversely impact

wetlands and areas that are not addressed by section 404 because of either legislative or regulatory

language. The second part discusses the implementation of section 404 by the Corps, including regources of information for this chapter include

OTA surveys of States and Corps districts as well

as information provided in OTA’s regional case

studies and OTA interviews. The analysis of coverage of the program was prepared by reviewing the

language of the legislation and regulations and considering the evaluations provided by these various

information sources. The analysis of Corps performance, however, was limited by a lack of quantitative data.

ulatory policies, district implementation, and monitoring and enforcement.

SCOPE OF COVERAGE

With respect to comprehensive wetlands protection, a number of gaps exist in the 404 program’s

geographical coverage of wetlands, types of development activities on wetlands that require permits,

and the standards for determining if a permit will

be granted. Resource agencies also contend that

gaps have been widened by recent regulatory

changes in the 404 program that were made in response to the regulatory reform initiatives of the

administration. Because of inadequate data on the

404 permitting process prior to 1982, it is impossible to quantitatively document any changes in the

quality of decisions about wetlands use in terms of

environmental protection due to these administrative changes.

Unregulated Activities

Several development activities that cause direct

wetland conversions or significant impacts on wetlands but do not involve the disposal of dredged

or fill material on wetlands are not included in section 404 and thus not regulated by the Corps. They

include drainage of wetlands, dredging and excavation of wetlands, lowering of ground water levels,

flooding of wetlands, deposition of material other

than dredged or fill, removal of wetland vegetation,

and activities on nonwetland areas.

Drainage of Wetlands

Removal of water from wetlands through drainage ditches, tiles, and canals is the primary source

of wetland conversion in some parts of the country, such as south Florida (l), prairie potholes (2),

North Carolina (9). Drainage of wetlands is not

covered under the existing 404 program unless the

material removed from the ditches or canals is deposited back in the wetland area. Reasons for drainage include: bringing new areas into agricultural

production or improving productivity on existing

agricultural land (e. g., prairie potholes (2),

Nebraska (4), Florida (l), North Carolina (9),

South Carolina (9)); allowing harvest and reforestation of timber stands (which generally requires only

partial drainage during critical time periods, e.g.,

North Carolina (9)); providing sites that can be developed for urban or industrial use (e. g., Florida

(l)); and enhancing the use of areas for nonwetland

purposes such as lawns (e. g., Washington State

(lo)).

Dredging and Excavation of Wetlands

While dredged or fill material may not be placed

on a wetland covered by the 404 program without

a permit or exemption, wetlands themselves may

be dredged or excavated without a permit as long
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wetlands . 169

as the resulting dredged material is disposed of on

a nonwetland site. The wetland area may be excavated to provide a source of fill, to provide greater

storage area for drainage of other wetland areas,

or to create reuse pits or dugouts to store water and

improve irrigation efficiency (e. g., Florida (1),

Nebraska (4)).

Lowering Ground Water Levels

Reducing the supply of water to wetlands

through pumping is not covered under 404. This

is an important activity for irrigation of cropland

in some regions, such as the Central Platte River

Valley and the Sandhills of Nebraska (4). It also

may impact wetlands in a few isolated locations,

such as the California desert, where limited water

supplies are in demand for mining, agriculture, and

ranching (3). Pumping to drain wetlands is also a

technique that has been used in conjunction with

excavation and fill projects by developers to improve the quality of a site prior to construction (1).

Flooding of Wetlands

Flooding wetlands or creating reuse pits for irrigation is not covered under the 404 program. These

practices, which occur in places like the prairie-pothole region (2) and the Rainwater Basin in Nebraska (4), may significantly change the character of

a wetland and alter its habitat values. Flooding of

wetlands involving construction of an impoundment most likely would involve the discharge of fill

material and would require 404 review unless the

project was exempted from coverage for some other

reason, such as exemption for farm ponds, nationwide permit for headwaters, and exempted Federal

construction projects.

Deposition of Material Other Than Dredged

and Fill Material

The Corps regulates the discharge of fill material

if ‘ ‘the primary purpose is to replace an aquatic

area with dry land or change the bottom elevation

of a water body. 1 The Corps’ authority to regulate

the disposal of waste materials, such as wood waste,

construction rubble, and household garbage in wetlands is not clear. The Corps has asserted that these

133 CFR 323.2 (m).

materials should be regulated by EPA under section 402 of CWA because the primary purpose of

the activity is to dispose of waste. EPA contends

that the Corps should regulate these activities under

section 404, This controversy, which is apparently

close to resolution, has been an issue in cases involving disposal of logging slash and expansion of

landfills into wetlands.

Removal of Wetland Vegetation

Activities resulting in a gradual transition of an

area to nonwetland can take place without 404 review in most regions of the country. For example,

during the dry season in western Broward County,

Florida, sawgrass has been mowed and chopped

into the soil (1). Grass seed and fertilizer are then

spread by aerial application. When the sawgrass

sends up new shoots, cattle are introduced. Since

they feed on the sawgrass preferentially, the seeded

grass becomes the dominant species. The area is

then no longer a wetland as defined by the Corps,

and jurisdiction is lost for regulating development.

In other circumstances, removal of vegetation involving the incidental discharge of dredged or fill

material from activities with the purpose of bringing an area into a new use may require a permit

under section 404(F)(2).

Activities on Nonwetland Areas

Activities on nonwetland areas also can injure

wetlands. For example, in the Platte River Valley

and the Sandhills, land-use changes from ranching

to irrigated cropland result in seasonal and longterm ground water drawdown and the subsequent

conversion of wetlands. Upstream withdrawals of

surface water can have adverse impacts on downstream wetlands. Diversions for irrigation and other

uses, especially when accompanied by impoundments, reduce peak and average annual flows,

which are important for maintaining some wetlands, such as the wet meadows along the Platte

River in Nebraska (4). Erosion from land-disturbing activities and runoff containing pesticides and

herbicides used on agricultural land can all impact

wetlands.

These development activities cannot be viewed

in isolation from other gaps in the 404 program for

providing wetland protection. A development activ25-415 0 - 84 - 12
170 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ity not involving disposal of dredged or fill material

in a wetland may take place above the headwaters

or be part of an existing farming operation and

therefore be excluded from individual permit review

under the nationwide general permit or be exempted from 404 jurisdiction entirely under 404 (F)(l).

These exemptions are discussed below.

Exempted Activities

Some development activities are exempted specifically by C WA from coverage by the Corps: normal

farming, silviculture, and ranching activities such

as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage,

harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and

forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices; maintenance of ‘currently serviceable’ structures such as dikes, dams, levees, and

transportation structures; construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches,

or the maintenance of drainage ditches; and construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest

roads, or temporary roads for moving mining

equipment where such roads are constructed and

maintained in accordance with best management

practices (BMPs).2

According to Edward Thompson, Jr. (1 1),

“Congress clarified its original intention to exclude

routine earth-moving activities of agriculture, forestry, and related industries . . . from case-by-case

review under section 404, with the understanding

that their water-quality effects will be controlled by

the States through the prescription of BMPs, under

section 208 of the act. However, during the congressional deliberations on this point, Senator

Muskie explained, ‘‘It is not expected that section

208(b)(4)(c) exemptions (from sec. 404) will be

available for whole classes of activity, such as silviculture (i. e., forestry). Activities would have to

be “appropriate’ for BMP regulation. Congress

decreed under section 404(f)(l)(E) that farm, forest,

and mining roads required BMP control apart from

many other exempted activities, such as constructing irrigation ditches.

‘Clean Water Act, sec. 404(~(1)

Normal Farming, Silviculture,

and Ranching Activities

Some routine or normal activities, * can lead to

wetland conversion or deterioration. Agricultural

activities were identified by the National Wetland

Trends Study (NWTS) as being responsible for

about 80 percent of the conversions of inland wetlands from the mid-1950’s to the mid-1970’s; case

study information indicated that normal farming

activities were responsible for some of these conversions. For example, in the Central Valley of California, many farming practices actually contribute

to the maintenance of some wetlands (3). Changes

in these farming practices may impact wetlands.

For example, rice cultivation provides a major

source of water to wetlands. Conversion of the land

to other crops, such as orchards, could eliminate

this water source and alter timing of water availability. More efficient farming practices, such as

land-leveling techniques and herbicide use, can reduce wetlands acreage and available food for

waterfowl.

Normal agricultural activities may also lead to

wetland conversions and to other adverse impacts

on remaining wetland areas. For example, in the

prairie-pothole region, changes in farming methods, increased specialization in crop production,

decreased number of farms with livestock, and increasing machinery size were identified as major

causes of wetland drainage. These changes in farming methods have decreased the relative value of

“The definition of normal activities is ambiguous and, depending

on its interpretation, may result in wetland conversions. The Corps

regulations issued on July 22, 1982, state that ‘‘to fall under this exemption, activities must be part of an established (i. e., ongoing)

farming, silviculture, or ranching operation” (33 CFR 323.4 [a][l ][i]),

Many wetland areas in the Rainwater Basin of Nebraska and similar

areas throughout the prairie-potholes region, for example, are periodically cultivated and farmed before they are more permanently drained. The regulations are not clear as to whether alteration of this sort

(even if a discharge of fill material was involved) would come under

the normal farming exemption. Another example of this ambiguity

problem is whether clearing wooded ponds for aquiculture is an exempted activity.

Ambiguity in the term ‘‘normal’ has been recognized by the forestry

industry in at least two Corps districts. Local forestry associations are

working with the Corps’ Vicksburg and Wilmington districts and EPA

to define normal silvicuhure activities and to clarify which practices

require review under section 404. Forestry practices of concern include conversions of mixed bottom land hardwood stands to hardwood

plantations and conversions of pocosins to pine plantations.
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wetlands . 171

wetlands as a source of forage and have increased

soil erosion, which gradually causes filling of the

wetland, decreasing its wildlife value. The increase

in machinery size simultaneously has provided the

horsepower to perform much of the drainage activity and increased the nuisance of farming around

potholes (2).

Farm Ponds/Irrigation Ditches/

Drainage Ditches

The farm pond exemption is of potential concern, given the freshwater wetland acreage that has

been converted to open water, as shown by NWTS.

OTA’s New England case study(15) cites more detailed analysis of wetland change in 15 Massachusetts towns and notes that impoundments are the

most important single cause of man-induced wetland change in inland areas (48 percent). Agriculture-related pond construction on existing wetland

sites may be related to the transition of shallow to

deepwater wetlands. The New England study further notes that although many of the impoundments

are farm ponds, others, probably increasingly, are

recreational ponds. This exemption is also of concern in regions (e. g., Playa Lakes and Nebraska)

where the creation of irrigation reuse pits has resulted in wetland conversions or a transition to

deeper water habitats.

Construction of Farm, Forest, or Temporary

Mining Roads

These activities are probably not a major cause

of wetland conversion, provided BMP’s are actually

implemented. In the past, road construction was

a major factor responsible for wetland conversions

in some parts of the country, and today it continues

to encourage wetland conversions indirectly. For

instance, exempted logging roads built through

wooded coastal swamps near river channels have

provided access to areas that were then illegally

filled for housing. Road construction may result in

wetland drainage by roadside ditches. Also, road

construction in or near wetlands often increases

pressures for further urbanization and commercial

development.

Federal Construction

Federal construction projects specifically authorized by Congress and entirely planned, financed,

and constructed by a Federal agency are also exempted from 404 permitting requirements. However, before such an exemption may apply, the Federal agency involved must prepare an adequate environmental impact statement (EIS) and make it

available for congressional review prior to authorization or appropriation of funds. That EIS must

consider the impact of the project in light of the

section 404(b) guidelines that embody the principal

404 permit standards (404(r)). The exemption for

Federal construction, which includes congressionally authorized Federal water projects, is not considered to be a significant threat to wetlands because

the requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) must still be met.

Other Federal water projects that are not specifically authorized by Congress, such as the

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) small-scale

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) watershed projects, still require section 404 permits, compliance

with principles and standards of NEPA, and compliance with agency policies on wetlands stemming

primarily from Executive Order 11990. In general,

these projects are considered to have less impact

on wetlands now than they did in the past, owing to

all of these environmental protection policies. However, there are many projects, authorized prior to

the development of environmental protection policies but now under construction, that are a source

of frustration for resource-protection agencies.

Flood control and drainage projects of the Corps

that are not specifically authorized by Congress do

not require 404 permits; however, the public interest review is still required. These projects may result

in the conversion of some wetlands (e. g., fill of bottom land hardwoods); however, the rates of conversion are much less than they were prior to the

public interest review.

Nationwide Permits

Activities in some wetland areas are covered by

nationwide permits, thus eliminating the necessity
172 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

for individual permit review. Discharges of dredged

or fill material in these areas may occur without

the need for specific authorization from the Corps.

Before the 1982 changes, these areas included:

. wetlands adjacent to nontidal rivers and

streams located above the headwaters (headwaters being defined as less than 5 cubic feet

per second (ft3

/s) average annual flow);

. natural lakes and adjacent wetlands under 10

acres that are not part of a surface or river

stream, or fed by a river or stream above headwaiters; and

. isolated wetlands not part of a surface tributary

system to interstate or navigable waters.

The 1982 changes (9) broadened these permits

to encompass all isolated wetlands (removing) the

10-acre limit. Several States, opposed to nationwide

permits, have denied 401 certification for certain

permits. In its May 12, 1983, proposed regulatory

changes, 3 the Corps reinstated the 10-acre limit.

Nationwide permits have been criticized on various grounds. First, some sources claim that the

Corps has no authority to exempt areas, as opposed

to activities, from coverage; some States have sued

the Corps on these grounds.

Second, discharges of dredged and fill material

under nationwide permits are supposed to meet the

following criteria: they cannot threaten endangered

species or be discharged into a component of a State

or National Wild and Scenic River System; they

must be free of more than trace amounts of toxic

pollutants; and falls must be maintained to prevent

erosion and other nonpoint sources of pollution.4

Discretionary authority, regional conditioning, and

other measures also improve permit effectiveness.

However, various parties contend that nationwide

permits prevent the 404 program from stopping or

mitigating destruction of much wetland acreage (9).

Because there is little monitoring of activities for

compliance, neither point of view could be verified

with documented evidence.

Third, the Corps does not regulate activities occurring in headwater areas when waterflow is less

than 5 ft3

/s, a standard that has been criticized as

being inexact and injurious to wetlands, especially

‘Federal Register, vol. 48, No. 93, pp. 21, 466-21, 476,

‘Clean Water Act, 323.4 -2(b)(l -4).

in areas of seasonal rainfall and in areas with low

relief (e. g., Atlantic coastal plain). Higher relief

areas subject to intense development pressure (e. g.,

the lowland creeks of western Washington) are also

of concern with respect to the 5-ft3

/s standard.

In areas with seasonal rainfall, wetlands mayor

may not be covered by individual permits, depending on whether mean or median flow is used to define the 5-ft3

/s boundary. Also, in areas with low

relief, the 5-ft3/s boundary is difficult to determine

and can be changed artificially by diverting streamflows in areas with an existing network of drainage

canals.

Corps policies for determining the 5-ft3/s boundaries vary among districts, depending on the availability of hydrologic information. More detailed information provided by applicants has been used to

change a jurisdictional determination made by the

Corps in at least one case in California (3).

Activities taking place in wetlands upstream of

the 5-ft3

/s limit for individual permit jurisdiction

that might impact wetlands include, among others,

depositing fill for a variety of reasons, including

urban development, instream dredging, peat mining, and agricultural conversions. Also, such upstream activities may reduce flows downstream so

that the 5-ft3/s boundary moves progressively downstream, exposing new areas to coverage under nationwide permits.

Finally, some isolated wetlands are only covered

by a nationwide permit. According to the OTA case

studies, isolated wetland types that experience controversial regulation under the nationwide permit

include vernal pools, isolated mountain wetlands,

pocket marshes, and closed basins (including diked

areas) in California (3); pocosins and bays of North

and South Carolina (9); swamps of southern New

Jersey (6); and wetlands of the prairie-pothole region (2); and Nebraska (4).

Regulations allow the district engineer discretionary authority to require individual permits in areas

covered under nationwide permits. This authority

has been used in a few cases. For example, at the

request of FWS and after discussions with the local

governments, wildlife agencies, conservation

groups, and others, the Los Angeles District of the

Corps agreed to accept discretionary authority for

the vernal pools of San Diego County because of
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wetlands . 173

the presence of endangered species (3). It must be

noted, however, that individual permit review does

not always result in the preservation of the wetland.

In the San Diego case just mentioned, the individual permit process under the Corps’ discretionary

authority has not preserved as many pools as the

city expected. In another case, the New York District considered using discretionary authority to

regulate a planned-unit development project next

to a national wildlife refuge. The threat of section

404 requirements prompted the developers to avoid

the wetlands (6).

General Permits

Some development activities are given limited

coverage by regulations in the form of general permits, which are developed within each district and

may apply to all or part of the district. (General

permits that apply to all districts are called nationwide permits. ) Most general permits are for activities that cause little or no impact on wetland areas

(e.g., mooring buoys) and do not require individual

project permits. While some general permits provide some protection to wetlands, through the use

of BMPs, the lack of monitoring of permit conditions means that many such activities may have

greater impacts than officially allowed.

Some districts provide greater protection to wetlands than do other districts through language in

their general permits designed to protect wetlands.

For example, Wilmington District general permits

for discharges into diked disposal areas; maintenance and repair of private bulkheads; and maintenance, repair, construction, or use of boat ramps all

include language for the specific protection of vegetated wetlands. General permits for similar activities

in the Charleston District do not include such explicit language for avoiding vegetated wetlands (9).

Criticisms of general permits include:

● the general-permit process eliminates both the

normal public interest review and the opportunity for other agencies to comment on a project-by-project basis;

● public notice is not required, which eliminates

a means for informing State and local agencies of activities that may require non-Federal

permits;

●

●

general permits may lead to cumulative conversion of wetland habitat to small-scale development; and

general permits are not closely monitored to

ensure that BMPs are followed.

Since there are no reporting requirements for

most general permits, many projects covered by a

general permit can be undertaken without checking

with the Corps. If someone reports a suspected violation, the Corps will investigate and determine if

an individual permit is necessary. To avoid potential violations, letters of authorization for specific

projects can be obtained from the Corps. In fact,

some communities in New Jersey, for example, require such a letter from the Corps before local

approvals are obtained for construction.

General permits can reduce regulatory requirements for both applicants and the Corps. The most

frequently noted successful use of the general permit was in reducing regulatory overlap between the

requirements of the North Carolina Coastal Area

Management Act and the Wilmington District.

This general permit has broad support by applicants, the Corps, and other resource agencies. The

permit covered 80 percent of all major projects in

1981 and still involves review by the NMFS, FWS,

and the Corps (9).

Current efforts to grant general permits for State

programs that do not have as stringent or encompassing review requirements as the Corps program

are being met with resistance. Also, EPA has been

reluctant to agree to general permits that would

allow disposal of fill material in wetlands covered

by special area management plans, such as the one

developed for Grays Harbor, Washington (10).

General permits have been adopted in some cases

that explicitly allow fill in wetlands. For example,

the Wilmington District has a general permit for

vegetative fill in wetlands from selective snagging

operations by the Government. Exceptions include

endangered or threatened species habitat, structures

in the National Register of Historic Places, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wilmington

District also currently is working to develop a general permit for the discharge of dredged and fill materials for drainage systems and for land clearing

to convert lands to agricultural use. Stringent conditions (yet to be developed) would have to be met,
174 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

and probably would meet all conditions. However,

such an effort could potentially prevent the extensive delays and costs associated with the permit process for large agribusiness operations (9).

Cumulative Impacts

Generally, permits are not denied unless substantial individual impacts can be shown; the combination or cumulation of minor impacts of many small

projects is extremely difficult to evaluate in making permit decisions. It is difficult to deny a project for reasons of cumulative impacts alone, especially if it is in an area where similar projects already

have been approved. These cumulative impacts are

overlooked in many districts.

No clear nationwide guidance exists on how,

where, and when to deny applications, and there

is no legal basis for denying permits based on cumulative impacts of possible future projects. Most

Corps districts try to minimize the impacts of specific projects. The result appears to be an incremental conversion of wetlands, without projections

of cumulative impacts based on good scientific

studies that entail adequate field investigations.

Decisionmaking Criteria

Corps regulations state that the unnecessary alteration or destruction of important wetlands should

be discouraged as contrary to the public interest.5

The regulations state that no permit will be granted

that involves the alteration of important wetlands

unless the district engineer concludes that the benefits of the proposed alteration outweigh the damage

to the wetlands resource. This guidance is considered by some to be inadequate and leads to variability in the degree of protection provided to wetlands.

Although the water dependency test (described

on p. 2 of ch. 3) is considered to be well implemented in tidal wetlands, decisions based on the

test are controversial for projects where permits are

awarded for nonwater-dependent projects on the

5Clean Water Act, sec. 320.4(b)(l).

basis of no practicable alternatives. For example,

the New York District recently granted a permit for

townhouses in a wetland area in the Passaic River

Basin (3). Under the permit, 8 wetland acres will be

converted, while 15 manmade wetland acres will be

required as compensation. Before this was agreed

to, the New York Corps of Engineers required the

applicant to study all possible alternative sites of

a similar size within 5 miles of the proposed project. (Alternative sites do not need to be on property

owned by the applicant. ) For various reasons, the

applicant ruled out all alternative sites. The Corps

agreed after conducting its own verification process. The reasons cited were unfavorable zoning, inability to market the expensive townhouses, sewer

bans, unavailability of the land, and large incremental developmental costs. Another district engineer could have used a different standard to define

what was practicable. Lack of guidance on applying

the practicable alternatives test was also noted as

a problem when evaluating agricultural conversions

of bottom land hardwoods by the New Orleans

District.

In its proposed changes to the existing regulations published on May 12, 1983,6 the Corps stated

its desire to include property ownership as a factor

in its decisionmaking process. As stated in the

Federal Register,

Section 320.4-(a)(l): “Considerations of property

ownership’ would be explicitly expressed as a factor of the public interest. This has always been a

basic tenet of Corps policy and has been implicit

in previous regulations. The statement that ‘‘No

permit will be granted unless its issuance is found

to be in the public interest, would be changed to

“A permit will be granted unless its issuance is

found to be contrary to the public interest. The

intent of this change is to recognize that within the

context of the public interest review, an applicant’s

proposal is presumed to be acceptable unless demonstrated by the Government not to be.

This provision in essence would shift the burden

of proof from the applicant to the Federal Government.

‘Federal Re~”ster, vol. 48, No. 93, op. cit.
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wetlands . 175

CORPS PERFORMANCE

As described elsewhere in this report, the 404

program has protected wetlands in many areas.

Evaluations of the performance of different Corps

districts by sources consulted by OTA varied greatly, however. Some districts were singled out by

States for being outstanding in their implementation of the program, while some others were consistently criticized, especially for lack of action. *

This lack of action may be a result of unclear regulatory policies and guidance established by the

Corps leadership in Washington, D. C., or ineffective implementation of policies at the district level.

Monitoring and enforcement also are important because no regulatory program can be effective without adequate monitoring of compliance with regulations and enforcement of sanctions against violators.

Regulatory Policies

Three major aspects of Corps policy are criticized

with respect to the degree of protection provided

to wetlands under the 404 program: interpretation

of the intent of section 404, interpretation of interstate commerce, and jurisdiction over incidental

discharges related to clearing and excavation.

Interpretation of the Intent of Section 404

The extent to which section 404 can be used to

protect biological systems is at the heart of the controversy over the Corps interpretation of water

quality. The objective of CWA is to protect the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the

Nation’s waters. 7 The interpretation of biological

integrity is the major issue. Broad interpretation

of the concept of biological integrity and the objective of CWA would include protection of wetland habitat values. Federal resource agencies and

environmental groups believe that the mandate of

CWA obliges the Corps to protect the integrity of

*For example, ‘ ‘The C .0. E. (Corps) offers minimal protection to

wetlands with the 404 Program. The degree of concern and quality

of the 404 Program varies with each C. O. E. District Office. For example, the Omaha C.O. E. District appears not to be concerned about

protecting anything, and runs an inefficient program; while the Salt

Lake City Regional Unit of the Sacramento District Office is very

active and concerned about all the acti~it ies (Wyoming),

‘Clean Water Act, sec. IOl(a).

wetlands, including their habitat values, and not

just the quality of the water.

The Corps, following a narrower interpretation

of CWA, views its primary function in carrying out

the law as protecting the quality of water; protecting other wetland values is a secondary concern.

The Corps does, however, consider fish and wildlife

habitat values under its general public interest review that is part of the overall balancing process

used to determine whether to grant a permit. However, habitat values are not afforded any special

status over other factors that are also considered

in the public interest review except to the extent

that Corps regulations state that the unnecessary

alteration or destruction of important wetlands

should be discouraged.

Interpretation of Interstate Commerce

The Corps interpretation of the scope of interstate commerce issues that arise when a district engineer considers whether to use discretionary authority and to require individual permit review for

an isolated wetland has been criticized as too restrictive. One source stated that the Corps leadership

is pressing districts to apply section 404 only where

interstate commerce issues, narrowly defined, are

involved. In response, some districts are not considering impacts on migratory waterfowl from filling of inland wetlands and are only sparsely regulating such activity. * Other aspects of interstate

commerce that are not considered but could provide greater opportunities for wetland protection

under section 404 include water withdrawal for interstate industry, crop production, visitation by

interstate and international visitors, mining and oil

extraction (regardless of whether the activity is

wetland-dependent), and land development for interstate purchases (3).

Jurisdiction Over Incidental Discharges

In the past, the Corps has been generally reluctant to exert authority over land-clearing and excavation activities that involve discharges into wetlands from the drippings of dragline buckets, bull-

*California response to OTA’S questionnaire.
176 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

dozers, and the like, even though such jurisdiction

has been authorized through court decisions (14).

CLEARING

The Corps clarified its position on vegetation

clearing in Regulatory Guidance Letter 82-11. The

policy states that the removal of vegetation is not

a discharge of dredged or fill material (except in

the Western Judicial District of Louisiana). The

placement of vegetative matter into waters of the

United States requires a 404 permit if the “primary

purpose” is ‘ ‘replacing an aquatic area with dry

land or changing the bottom elevation of a water

body. “8 Incidental soil movement related to the

planting or removal of vegetation is not considered

to be a discharge. However, if accompanied by land

leveling that alters topographic features of ‘waters

of the U.S. through significant soil movement,

it is subject to section 404.

The variation in this policy for the Western Judicial District of Louisiana is a result of the court

decision for Avoyelle’s Sportsmen League v. Alexander. 9 The court determined that the clearing of

bottom land hardwood trees for agricultural use and

the removal of their roots by plowing was held to

be a discharge of dredged or fill material within the

scope of regulation under section 404(f)(2). This

section states that, if the discharge of the dredged

or fill material is incidental to an activity (except

those specifically exempted by sec. 404) designed

to bring an area of water of the United States ‘‘into

a use to which it was not previously subject, where

the flow or circulation of navigable waters (waters

of the United States) may be impaired or the reach

of such waters be reduced, a section 404 permit

is required. The U.S. Fifth Court of Appeals in

New Orleans recently upheld the lower court

ruling.

Prior to this decision by the appeals court, Corps

leadership held that the district court decision would

be adhered to only in the portions of the Corps districts that are within the Western Judicial District

of Louisiana, where the lower court decision was

made. The rationale for this position is that the

judge’s decision in the case was not a broad-based

decision attacking the validity of section 404 regulations (as has been the case in other Federal district

court decisions recognized nationally by the Corps),

but that the Avoyelles Sportmen’s League case was

an action to force the Corps to regulate (under section 404) the specific activities occurring on the

specific tract involved. Also part of the rationale

is the idea that, in a similar situation, a judge in

another Federal judicial district might decide differently.

Actual implementation of this vegetation-removal policy in the Western Judicial District of Louisiana is also being criticized. These criticisms relate

to the issues discussed previously regarding the

Corps’ interpretation of water quality. Although

404 permits are required, they are generally being

issued because significant incremental water quality

degradation relative to existing levels cannot be adequately demonstrated (12).

EXCAVATION

Drainage of wetlands by excavation can seldom

be accomplished without directly or incidentally discharging dredged or fill material into the wetland

area. However, the Corps rarely regulates drainage

that occurs during the conversion of wetlands to

agricultural or urban use.

District Implementation

Because of the nature of the Corps’ organization,

there is a great deal of variability in the manner

in which the 404 program is implemented among

the semiautonomous districts. Of the 33 States that

described weak inland wetland protection in response to OTA’s questionnaire, 7 said that the 404

program is ineffective in providing additional coverage. Most of the problems were related to Corps

resources and attitudes. Several States commented

that some districts are hampered by lack of manpower and funding—for monitoring of violations,

for instance. In many cases, only a few field personnel are available to cover large areas. *

The Corps would agree with this assessment of

manpower/funding constraints. After the 1975

court decision requiring the Corps to expand its jurisdiction, the Corps requested additional funding

63 CFR, sec. 323.2(m).

’473 F. Supp. 525 W. D. La., 1979.

● States commenting on Corps resources include Alaska, Vermont,

and Wyoming.
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wef/ands • 177

and manpower. This request was denied by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Thus, the

Corps had to reallocate resources to comply with

the court order. According to some States, a few

districts place a low value on wetland protection

and are inactive by choice. For example, some districts favor a broad interpretation of nationwide and

general permits and are reluctant to assert discretionary jurisdiction for individual permits. *

The case studies revealed two major styles used

by Corps districts to deal with objections to 404 permit applications. In some districts, the Corps plays

an active role as mediator in disputes between applicants and resource agencies with wetland-protection

concerns. Resource agencies are positive about this

approach in districts where it is used. Although the

process can be time-consuming, there is general

agreement by the agencies that better decisions and

better working relationships have resulted. In fact,

one Corps regulatory chief commented to OTA that

regulatory reform measures that limit the time

available for this kind of decisionmaking may result

in more permits being denied. Other districts suggested these time limits would result in more “rubber-stamp’ approvals of permit applications.

In other districts, the Corps plays a more passive

role in resolving the objections of resource agencies

to permit applications. The applicants are directed

to work out the objections of other agencies on their

own. The Corps generally will approve the permit

when differences are resolved. Two problems were

noted in the case studies that can make this approach difficult. First, the applicant may be faced

with conflicting recommendations from different

agencies. For example, a compensation measure

“Several States responding to the OTA survey made comments

along these lines: ‘ ‘Permitting by the Corps of Engineers under section 404 has had no importance in the control of wetlands in the State

of New Hampshire. The State program issues between 1,000 and 2,000

permits a year and has for the last 8 years. Federal permits in New

Hampshire are currently running at a level of approximately 100 per

year. One of the significant reasons for this difference is that the State

permit program has no exemptions for any type of applicant (government agencies, agriculture, etc.), and has issued no general or statewide

permits for any size projects. The 404 program administered by the

Corps of Engineers lacks publicity in New Hampshire and eliminates

half of the projects in New Hampshire by national permits” (New

Hampshire). Also, ‘ ‘Freshwater wetlands in the coastal zone could

be better protected by the Corps of Engineers than by the Coastal

Council because of differences in authority, but the Corps uses the

general permit to let all freshwater wetlands be filled unless the Coastal

Council objects very strenuously” (South Carolina).

to enhance fish resources may conflict with one to

enhance wildlife resources. These conflicts generally

are resolved by negotiation and compromise between the agencies and project proponents before

permits are issued; however, this does little to avoid

frustration for applicants. The second problem is

that of finalizing agreements that were made

without the presence of the Corps, the major decisionmaker. The results of meetings between objecting agencies and permit applicants are often interpreted differently, especially if the decisionmaking

agency is not present to verify compromises or

changed permit conditions.

The OTA case studies also noted problems that

reviewing agencies have had with the Corps. Inadequate information on public notices was noted

with respect to at least one district. Incomplete or

inaccurate information necessitates requests for additional information and prolongs the review process. Poor communication with review agencies,

especially on unauthorized activities, was noted as

a problem in two studies (3,6).

Finally, some States see Corps offices as making

inadequate efforts to publicize the program. * Other

districts are considered to have effective programs

for public awareness. A well-publicized program

can accomplish several things. First, it can help ensure that project proponents apply for necessary

permits. Publicity on what will or will not be permitted under 404 can help ensure that projects submitted for review are designed so that the permit

can be obtained readily. Some districts have cited

a marked improvement in the quality of permit applications, noting that the majority of applicants

no longer request filling coastal wetlands for nonwater-dependent uses. In addition, increased

publicity leads to better monitoring and enforcement, as discussed in more detail below.

Monitoring and Enforcement

The Corps has authority under section 404 to

monitor and enforce the conditions of its permits.

But the 404 program has experienced many problems in monitoring permitted activities and enforcing permit conditions. Owing to inadequate fund-

*“The Corps efforts to inform the public of permit requirements

are also limited and haphazard’ (Vermont).

25-4 I 5 0 - 84 - 13
178 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ing and manpower, and in some cases, reflecting

internal priorities, many districts cannot or do not

effectively monitor the areas under their jurisdiction for violations. In particular, relatively few projects are field-checked in many districts for compliance with permit conditions after a permit is

granted. The Corps authority to take action against

unauthorized activities is also limited. Because EPA

has greater enforcement authority to take action

against unpermitted and therefore illegal discharges

of dredged or fill material under sections 301, 308,

and 309, the Corps is often forced to rely on EPA

and the Justice Department for obtaining injunctions against illegal activities,

Compliance With the Program

Two basic types of violations of the 404 program

occur: discharge of dredged or fill material without

a permit and discharge in violation of conditions

placed on permits. According to the Corps, 3,724

violations of sections 404 and 10/404 were reported

or detected during fiscal year 1980 (13). This figure

was not broken down by type of violation. OTA

asked districts to estimate the number of violations

detected annually involving: 1) permit conditions,

and 2) discharging material without a permit.

Though percentages varied greatly among districts,

more than 80 percent of estimated violations overall

were of the second category, unpermitted activities.

Because there are no requirements to demonstrate

that a project qualifies for permitting exemptions,

the use of general and nationwide permits may contribute to this high percentage of violations from

unpermitted activities.

It is difficult to establish the percentage rate of

compliance from this information. If 20 percent of

violations concerned violation of permit conditions

and the figure given by the Corps is correct, then

about 745 such violations took place in fiscal year

1980. In that year, 8,013 permits and letters of permission were issued, giving a compliance rate of

roughly 91 percent. This rate is compatible with

the estimates of the four districts reporting percentages of compliance to the OTA survey. The percentage of violations estimated ranged from 1 to

15 percent, with a mean of 8 percent, giving a compliance rate of 92 percent. The Corps Institute of

Water Resources (IWR) report estimated that compliance with general permit conditions was 95 percent (5). The NMFS Southeast region found that

of the 80 individual permits that were completed

or under way (of 110 permits examined), at least

58, or 73 percent, complied with permit conditions

recommended by NMFS. Rates of compliance for

completed projects varied from 100 percent in two

districts (Charleston, Savannah) to 36 percent in

one district (Mobile) (7).

The degree of compliance also varies from year

to year within each district. For example, although

NMFS determined that in 1981 the Charleston District had achieved nearly 100-percent compliance

with permit conditions, in 1982 NMFS did a similar

analysis and discovered that applicants appeared

to have disregarded permit conditions in 33 percent of the completed, permitted projects that were

evaluated. On the other hand, according to the

Corps, the percentage of those permitted projects

in the Seattle District that deviated from what had

been permitted declined from 15 percent in 1980

to 8 percent in 1981 and to 4 percent in 1982. This

increase in compliance has been attributed to increased public awareness of the program and the

knowledge that it is being implemented more consistently and completely.

It is not enough, however, to compare the results

of such analyses to evaluate the performance of the

different districts without knowing the nature of the

conditions that are included in the permit. Some

districts do not incorporate controversial conditions

such as mitigation and compensation measures into

the permit. Instead, agreements are made between

the applicant and concerned agencies. The Corps

does not evaluate whether the agreed-on mitigation has been implemented successfully (10).

Enforcing wetland regulations can be difficult.

In some districts, the Corps sends teams to investigate suspected violations because of threats made

to district personnel in wetland cases (4). The most

frequent types of noncompliance found by one observer were as follows:

●

●

Unpermitted activities: loose-fall projects (e.g.,

trash dumping), minor erosion-control projects

(bulkheads, riprap), and construction of boat

ramps and access roads. Major projects, such

as marinas and canal dredging, were rarely

undertaken without permits.

Violations of permit conditions: failure to perform sedimentation control (e. g., revegetation,
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wet/ands . 179

turbidity screening), violation of size/dimension limits placed on structures, and placement

of dredged and fill material.

Inland States experienced greater problems than

coastal States, with more violations from dredging

than from fill or construction projects; more violations took place with individual permits than corporate permits.

Extent of Monitoring

Districts differ in the amount of time and expense

they devote to monitoring of permitted activities

and enforcing of permit conditions. Some districts

undertake site investigations of all permitted developments at least once during construction and again

after completion of work, and they frequently survey their jurisdictions for unpermitted activities.

Other districts are basically reactive in monitoring

and enforcement: if a violation is reported to district

personnel, it will be investigated; however, the district does not search for violations itself.

Corps districts were asked by the OTA survey

to estimate the percentage of permits field-checked

by Corps personnel and by personnel from other

agencies to monitor compliance with permit conditions after a permit is granted. Estimates of the

percentage checked by Corps personnel ranged

from near O to 100 percent, with an average of 56

percent. About a third of the districts said that they

check all permits. Several of these districts said that

a much smaller percentage are checked in detail,

however. Most major projects are checked periodicall y.

Of the 16 districts estimating the percentage of

permits checked by other Federal agencies, estimates ranged from 1 to 80 percent. All but three

districts estimated 10 percent or less, with most

estimates at 5 percent or below. 1

°

Districts also were asked by the survey how and

how often wetland areas are monitored for violations. Districts use combinations of aerial surveys

and photography, autos, and boats. The frequency

of inspections varies greatly with the district and

1 IJEPA funding levels have enabled EPA personnel to review only

a small percentage of permits (10 percent in 1979), from J. A. Zinn

and C. Copeland, ‘ ‘Wetland Management, ” Congressional Research

Service, CP1451, 1982, p. 95.

the type of wetland concerned. Roughly a third of

the districts do not have a specific program of monitoring. Instead, they rely on reports of suspected

violations from citizens, organizations, and State

and other Federal agencies. In addition, monitoring is done by Corps personnel in the course of performing other duties—e.g., during inspection of

permitted projects for compliance. Personnel flying over an area for other reasons may also check

to see if unpermitted development activities are

occurring.

About a fifth of the districts indicated that they

do not regularly monitor inland wetlands but do

follow a monitoring schedule for wetlands located

adjacent to coastal or major riverine waterways, the

areas in which most development regulated by 404

occurs. Last, about half of the districts indicated

that they monitor all the wetlands in their jurisdictions, often monitoring activities around coastal

areas or major streams more frequently. Frequency

of monitoring of the wetlands near major waterways

by those districts with a monitoring program varies

from daily to once every few years. Most districts

monitor such areas several times a year. Those

districts that regularly monitor inland wetlands usually do so on a yearly or multiyear cycle.

As mentioned above, districts rely heavily on

non-Federal sources (private citizens, conservation

groups, State agencies) to report violations. In fiscal

year 1980, about 18 percent of all violations discovered by the Corps were first reported by private

citizens and another 4 percent by environmental

groups (13). When asked by the OTA survey to

estimate the proportion of violations reported by

private citizens and organizations, estimates by districts ranged from 5 percent to 95 percent, with a

mean of 40 percent. With reductions in the budgets

of State and Federal agencies, reliance on citizen

input is likely to increase. Such reliance does not

necessarily mean that districts are negligent in monitoring. Citizen involvement varies according to

perceptions of wetlands and awareness of the 404

program. Different areas of the United States differ greatly in these respects.

One source found the most effective monitoring

and enforcement efforts took place when State agencies and Corps districts cooperated closely. ‘ ‘By

backstopping one another and by pooling resources,
180 . Wet/ands: Their Use and Regulation

the agencies make up for each other’s deficiencies

and create a more vigorous enforcement posture

that neither could establish alone (8). ”

The OTA prairie-pothole case study (2), for example, presents two contrasting State responses to

coordination with the Corps on monitoring and enforcement, which in part reflect these States’ capabilities to control wetland use. In Minnesota, the

State regional network of hydrologists and game

wardens detects and reports potential 404 violations. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources also sends the Corps notices of applications

for State permits, which gives the Corps an opportunity to determine whether 404 permits are also

required. North Dakota, however, has no regional

network of State agencies for reporting potential

violations, and North Dakota agencies do not inform the Corps of activities over which the State

has jurisdiction and that the Corps may also have

authority to regulate under section 404.

Problems in Monitoring

Many districts devote most of their efforts to wetlands in the vicinity of historically navigable waters.

While this is the area in which most permit applications originate and which has potentially the most

serious violations, such attention has resulted, in

some cases, in the lack of attention to permitted

activities in inland areas. Inland wetlands that are

only periodically innundated receive the least attention; in some cases, districts make little effort

to verify whether the area is a wetland (4,8). *

The Corps in Nebraska has been challenged in

at least one case on its determination about an area

as a wetland. Upon reevaluation, the Omaha District concluded that the area in question was indeed a type I wetland, and 404 authorization was

required, although the fill eventually was authorized under a nationwide permit,

Another State reported that, owing to the remoteness of the Corps offices, neither Corps nor FWS

personnel cover a large portion of the State and

therefore must depend on the State to supply information. “The Corps does not know if compliance with section 404 and section 10 is high or low

and is not attempting to increase compliance. Sev-

“Response of Washington State to OTA questionnaire.

eral States believe that Corps district resources are

insufficient to carry out adequate monitoring efforts (e. g., Rhode Island, Tennessee). A few districts indicated that monitoring efforts have been

curtailed as a result of budgetary cutbacks.

Another disincentive to conducting a vigorous

monitoring of permitted activities is the knowledge

that in most cases, the Justice Department is reluctant to prosecute violators, especially if permit violations only involve a few acres.

Enforcement

When a permit violation is discovered, Corps districts have several options. A cease-and-desist order

can be issued. For projects that have been initiated

without going through the permitting process, negotiations with violators to accept modifications are

common. If the project is deemed to be essentially

in compliance with environmental guidelines and

with minor impacts, it is often granted an after-thefact permit. Last, the violator can be taken to court,

the project dismantled, and fines imposed. Litigation is often favored in cases where permitholders

egregiously violate the conditions of their permit.

In less serious violations, the permitholder may be

required to stop the activity in dispute and to provide mitigation of some sort.

Generally, every effort is made to resolve violations short of actual prosecution. In many cases,

subsequent investigation determines that suspected

violations are, in fact, legal activities—e. g., falling under a general permit or not requiring a 404

permit. The Corps estimated that in fiscal year

1980, 2,273 such cases occurred—61 percent of the

number of violations listed. After-the-fact permits

are also common: 872 in fiscal year 1980, or 23 percent of violations (13). In many districts, after-thefact permits are far more common. Twelve districts

reported on the OTA survey that over 60 percent

of violations receive such permits, and five other

districts said that “most’ violations are permitted

after the fact.

Finally, violators are not prosecuted if voluntary

restoration is made, although restoration is often

made under the threat of prosecution. Voluntary

restoration or even offsite mitigation may be made

in the context of after-the-fact permitting. For example, in a case in North Carolina, a developer
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wetlands . 181

already had cleared approximately 30 acres of bottom land hardwood swamp and partially erected

a dam to build a lake before the violation was reported. In this instance, restoration was so difficult

that the developers were open to any other alternative. To avoid litigation, and at the suggestion

of the Wilmington District, the owner of the land

purchased a previously unregulated 60-acre Carolina bay and deeded it to the Nature Conservancy. The Corps agreed to take no legal action and

then granted an after-the-fact permit. The landowner could then claim a charitable contribution,

and the Nature Conservancy purchased a priority

site at less than one-third of its value. Although

some lauded this creative resolution of the problem, others in both public agencies and private conservation groups said the penalty was not appropriate. They point out that no wooded swampland

was restored, although 30 acres were converted. Replacement of one wetland type for another could

set a precedent for the conversion of one wetland

type with certain wildlife habitat values, while preserving another with different resource and habitat

values (9).

In many districts, most or all violators agree to

voluntary restoration. * Some Corps districts may

be more successful than others in obtaining voluntary restoration. One technique used by the Wilmington District is to coordinate closely with the U.S.

Attorney’s Office, which in turn sends a letter to

the violator stating that a file has been opened on

the case. Such measures add weight to the negotiations for voluntary restoration. In some cases, however, such agreements are not made in good faith

by violators, and further action must be taken by

districts. * * In some districts, voluntary restoration

takes place in less than a quarter of violations.

In the opinion of some observers, some Corps

districts have been too ready to grant after-the-fact

permits or dismiss violations in other ways and too

sparing in instituting litigation against violators.***

The Corps has experienced significant problems in

prosecuting violators. If violators do not respond

to Corps orders to cease projects that violate 404

standards, districts may request U.S. district attorneys to prosecute. However, district attorneys

are often reluctant to take on 404 cases, regarding

them as being of lesser importance than other

crimes and, as such, of low priority in the tens of

thousands of cases that are handled each year by

the Department of Justice. Corps districts file about

4 percent of violations with the Justice Department

for prosecution. However, outside observers say

that many additional cases are never forwarded,

in the knowledge that prosecution, especially in

small cases, is unlikely. *

Some cases referred to the U.S. Attorney are

never resolved, for example, when there is insufficient evidence to convict. According to the Philadelphia District, personnel turnover is also a big

problem in dealing with violations because new personnel may not be familiar enough with a violation to get it resolved.

Of the cases that are resolved through the U.S.

Attorney, penalties may consist of fines, restoration, or some combination of the two. One case

study revealed some variations in how penalties are

handled in two Corps districts. In negotiated settlements, the Wilmington District generally resolves

the violation with both fines and restoration. Fines

are assessed based on past violation records and the

degree to which restoration is possible. For example, after its fifth violation in 2 years, Texasgulf

Co. voluntarily restored 6.5 acres in the PamlicoAlbermarle estuary at a cost of approximately

$200,000 and paid a fine of $5,000. The Charleston

District noted that it seldom requires fines. In both

North Carolina and South Carolina, courts generally have been reluctant to impose fines. When the

restoration is costly, courts believe that this alone

constitutes an adequate penalty. Penalties and attorneys’ fees are typically viewed as a cost of do-

● As stated by onc district, ‘ ‘The majority of our violations arc resolved b} granting after-the-fact permits. We have not prosecuted any

~’iolators. All violators to date ha~e agreed to perform necessary restoration work without prosecution’ (Albuquerque).

* ● As put by another district, ‘‘Of those (}iolators) who agree to

rrstorc, a lar~c percentage really haic no intention of restoring and

will delay indefinitely if’ allowccl to, which cumbersome legal procedures

allow thcm to do (Little Rock).

* **‘ ‘l-he Corps seldom takes violators to court. Thus, there is little deterrent to noncompliance (Vermont).

*One stud}’ concluded that “A major finding of the Urban Institute

Study with respect to enforcement practice is that a substantial disjunction exists between detection of violations and effecti~e legal fol -

Iowup. The record of adrninistrative-prosecutorial cooperation re~’caled

by our study is quite poor. While there are a few well-known cases

of outstanding coordination between U.S. Attorneys and the Corps

.,. U.S. Attorneys have not accepted wetlands cases as a major priority many cases that can and should be prosecuted either fall

between the cracks or are handled b} default on an ‘after-the-fact permit’ basis. ” Roscnbaum (15).
182 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

ing business, according to another case study, and

restoration requirements are crucial to an effective

program. If restoration is imposed, then the violator

stands to gain nothing. Some districts are often reluctant to prosecute offenders. Because Corps personnel do not see themselves as policemen, the

monitoring and enforcement aspects of the program

are unattractive.

However, personnel from several agencies and

interest groups think that fines should be imposed

in addition, because restoration often doesn’t replace the original resource. They also think that

fines should be large enough to serve as a deterrent.

Districts differ markedly in the number of cases

they submit for litigation and in the results of prosecution. At least five districts said they did not submit any violations for prosecution in the 1980-82

period. A few districts said litigation produced good

results. * More districts were frustrated by lack of

action from the Justice Department, low fines or

lack of restoration ordered by courts, or slowness

in the legal process. As stated by one, ‘‘The legal

● “The results from prosecutions have been excellent. Consent

decrees have obtained restoration on numerous cases and civil penalties

from $500 to $10,000” (Norfolk).

1.

2.

3.

4.

system affords very low-priority service, and because of extensive delays and frustrations, we seek

other solutions.

One technique is for the Corps to coordinate its

enforcement efforts with those of a State program.

For example, the Baltimore District reported in an

interview with OTA that for cases in which voluntary restoration was not successful and after-the-fact

permits not appropriate, the State could prosecute

under the State wetlands law more readily than the

Corps could obtain court assistance under section

404, Coordination with the State is enhanced with

monthly enforcement conferences. State programs

with administrative law judges, as in New York, are

able to handle some 404 violations expeditiously.

However, State enforcement may also be problematic. The Philadelphia District had difficulties

when New Jersey took the lead on enforcement

because of slowness or reluctance by the State Attorney General. Florida is considered to be less

equipped than the Federal Government to prosecute some wetland cases owing to the lack of experience of the State’s legal staff and lack of funds to

hire expert witnesses and to conduct site-specific

fieldwork required to prepare solid professional

opinions.

CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES

Center for Governmental Responsibility, “Wet- 5. Institute of Water Resources, Impact Analysis of

lands Loss in South Florida and the Implementation of Section 404 of the ‘Clean Water Act, “

University of Florida College of Law, contract study 6.

for OTA, September 1982.

Department of Agricultural Economics, “Wetlands

in the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota, North 7.

Dakota, and South Dakota—Trends and Issues,

North Dakota State University, contract study for

OTA, August 1982.

ESA/Madrone, “Wetlands Policy Assessment: California Case Study, contract study for OTA, Sep- 8

tember 1982.

Great Plains Office of Policy Studies, “Wetland

Trends and Protection Programs in Nebraska, ”

University of Nebraska, contract study for OTA,

September 1982.

the Corps’ Regulatory Program, unpublished report, 1981, p, 215.

JACA Corp., “A Case Study of New Jersey Wetlands Trends and Factors Influencing Wetlands

Use , contract study for OTA, September 1982.

Lindall, W. N., Jr., and Thayer, G. W., “Quantification of National Marine Fisheries Service

Habitats Conservation Efforts in the Southeast

Region of the United States, Marine Fisheries Re

-

view, vol. 44, No. 2, 1982, pp. 18-22.

Rosenbaum, Nelson, “Enforcing Wetlands Regulations, ‘‘ in Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark,

and J. E. Clark (eds. ), American Water Resources

Conservation, Minneapolis, Minn., 1979, pp.

44-49.
Ch. 8—Limitations of the 404 Program for Protecting Wet/ands . 183

9,

10.

11

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 12.

“Wetland Trends and Policies in North and South

Carolina, Duke University, contract study for 13,

OTA, August 1982.

Shapiro & Associates, Inc., “An Analysis of Wet- 14,

land Regulation and the Corps of Engineers Section 404 Program in Western Washington, contract study for OTA, September 1982.

Thompson, E., Jr., “Section 404 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1977:

Hydrologic Modification, Wetlands Protection and 15.

the Physical Integrity of the Nation’s Waters, ’ Harvard Environmental Law Review, vol. 2, 1977,

pp. 264-287.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch,

personal communication,

Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Board, FY 1980

Regulatory Summary Report.

U.S. v. Holland, 373 F. Supp. 665 (M.D. Fla.

1974), U.S. v. Fleming Plantations, 12 E.R.C. 1705

(E.D. La. 1978), Weiszman v. Corps of Engineers,

526 F. 2d 1302.1306 (5th Cir. 1976), and Avoyelles

Sportsmen League v. Alexander, 473 F. Supp. 525

(W.D. La. 1979).

Water Resources Research Center, ‘ ‘Regional Assessment of Wetlands Regulation Programs in New

England, ” University of Massachusetts, contract

study for OTA, September 1982.
Chapter 9

Capabilities of the States in

Managing the Use of Wetlands

.

. .

“ e

* . &

moto cmllt: OTA staff, Joan Ham

Chapter 9

Capabilities of the States in

Managing the Use of Wetlands

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Almost all 30 coastal States (including those bordering the Great Lakes) have programs that directly

or indirectly regulate the use of their coastal wetlands. These programs often rely on Federal funding from the Department of Commerce’s Office of

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM).

Only a few inland States have specific wetland programs. Through a combination of the program to

enforce section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)

and State programs, most coastal wetlands are

regulated reasonably well; inland wetlands generally are not regulated by the States.

Representatives from most States with wetland

programs feel that State and Federal programs complement one another. Corps districts often let State

agencies take the lead in protecting wetlands, using

the 404 program to support their efforts. Other

States rely on Federal programs, State influence on

Federal programs, local regulation, and State programs that may indirectly affect the use of wetlands

in the course of performing other primary functions.

States can assume the legal responsibility for administering that portion of the 404 program that

does not cover traditionally navigable waters if certain Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements are met. Twelve States have evaluated

or are evaluating this possibility, and four are administering pilot programs to gain practical experience prior to possible program assumption. In general, most States have neither the capability nor the

desire to assume sole responsibility for regulating

wetland use without additional resources from the

Federal Government; some States would be reluctant to do so even with resources.

GENERAL STATE WETLAND CAPABILITIES

States may assume the legal responsibility for administering portions of the 404 program if certain

requirements established by EPA are met. The administration and the leadership of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers have also stressed the desirability of transferring a large proportion of the responsibility for regulating the use of wetlands to the

States. This could be done by decreasing the area

regulated by the Corps to historically navigable

waters, thereby de facto increasing the State role;

increasing funding for State regulatory programs;

granting additional powers to States to regulate

broad areas under general permits without formal

assumption of the 404 program; and easing the

standards for such assumption.

During the course of this study, OTA examined

the capabilities of the States in managing the use

of wetlands. Although a thorough review of the

capabilities of individual States was beyond the

scope of this study, OTA did examine many State

programs through a State survey, to which 48 States

responded, and 10 regional case studies, which

commented on 21 State programs.

Of all 30 coastal States (including States bordering the Great Lakes), the majority claimed high

State coverage of coastal wetlands. About 20 indicated that their programs are more dominant than

the 404 program in their State; half of these States

said the 404 program was completely redundant.

197
188 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Other coastal States indicated that 404 plays an important role in protecting coastal wetlands.

The coverage of inland wetlandsby coastal States

is varied: 17 coastal States indicated that their inland wetlands are not well protected by State programs; 7 indicated that they provide protection for

most such wetlands. For the 20 inland States, programs provide little coverage to wetlands outside

of small areas under direct State management.

Isolated wetlands generally are not well regulated

in most States.

Even for States with wetland regulatory programs, there may be gaps in wetlands coverage.

State programs often exempt some activities from

permitting requirements, such as agriculture, mosquito control, public utility projects, and actions

of local government (8). Florida provides a good

example of a State that does not regulate some of

the activities that threaten wetlands the most. Although the Florida dredge-and-fill laws do not regulate drainage activities, the South Florida Water

Management District does have some control over

drainage activities by requiring permits for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. However, exemptions are provided

for agricultural and silvicultural activities. Drainage

of lands for agriculture is often the first step in

destroying wetlands that are used eventually for urban development (l).

Some State laws encourage the conversion of wetlands. In particular, some drainage programs are

carried out by State agencies and some private

drainage is subsidized (by Kentucky, Ohio, and

Nebraska). For example, although State law in Nebraska charges one agency to protect wildlife habitats and another to protect water quality, a third

agency is required by law to plan for draining wetlands and county boards are required to drain areas

upon petition by owners. The 1975 Nebraska

Groundwater Management Act also states that all

irrigation runoff must be retained on the irrigator’s

property. This stipulation has increased the use of

dugouts and reuse pits in the Rainwater Basin,

leading to wetland flooding and creating opportunities for wetland drainage (6).

Expenditures and staffing for wetland-related

State regulatory activities are highly variable. Agency personnel with wetland responsibilities often

carry out other duties as well, although personnel

from other agencies may assist in monitoring wetland areas for unpermitted activities in the course

of other work. Asked by the OTA survey to list

numbers and types of personnel and budgetary allocations devoted to State wetland-protection efforts, most States listed programs and budgets without breaking out wetland-related components. The

number of employees working part time or full time

on wetland matters ranged from 1 to over 20. Of

States listing budgets that can be traced to wetlands,

figures range from $12,000 to over $100,000 in 10

States. Six States indicated almost no staffing and

budget allocations for wetland management.

Most States do not have permitting programs

solely concerned with wetlands. Instead, they rely

on Federal programs, State influence on some Federal programs, State wetland-acquisition programs,

and other State programs that incidentally cover

some development activities on some wetlands and

cover those activities that occur beyond the boundaries of wetlands yet may have an adverse effect

on them. State standard-setting for local regulation

also is present in many States.

Roughly half of the States without wetland programs listed State influence on Federal actions as

their most important means of controlling wetland

use. In some cases, State certification of projects

through section 401 of CWA and comments on 404

applications are used as substitutes for the creation

of State programs that would create political controversies. Requirements for Federal consistency

with State coastal-management programs are also

an important tool. For example, although South

Carolina does not regulate development activities

in freshwater wetlands, it does have a policy for

their protection in its Coastal Zone Act. Federal

actions in the coastal zone, including all 404 permitting, must be consistent with this policy (10).

States may also influence Federal actions (and

actions of other State agencies) by developing

resource information and preparing management

plans and guidelines. For example, the Resource

Agency in California prepared the Delta Master

Recreation Plan and Waterways Use Program, Although the agency has no direct authority to implement the plan, the management guidelines for

natural tidal and nontidal marshes and riparian
~

,

Ch. 9—Capabilities of the States in Managing the Use of Wetlands . 189

areas are used by the Corps in administering its

permitting programs (4).

A few States listed other State programs not directed specifically toward wetlands as being most

important for controlling wetland use, Such programs address water pollution control, endangered

species or game species protection, and natural-area

acquisition programs. These programs vary greatly

in the extent of protection they provide. In some

States, one or more of these programs appear to

have far-reaching effects on wetland protection. For

example, State flood plain regulations may limit

construction in large areas of wetlands located in

flood plains. However, flood plain regulations in

many States do not specifically consider the impact

of flood plain development on wetlands. Fill is

generally permitted, provided flood elevations are

not increased. On the other hand, in New Jersey,

the State Flood Hazard Area Control Act is used

to protect environmental values in some areas (e. g.,

trout streams and State wild and scenic rivers) (7).

State acquisition programs targeted at wetlands

are present in a few States. However, acquisition

may be expensive and can protect only a limited

number of wetlands. In addition, acquisition programs have been hit hard by the financial pressures

besetting State legislatures. Some States emphasize

nonwetlands in their acquisition programs out of

preference for upland values because of Federal

wetland-acquisition programs in the State (3).

The 20 States with programs specifically directed

at wetlands, whether programs stand alone or are

subsumed under other programs such as coastal

zone management, almost without exception assert

that their programs are better than the 404 program in protecting wetlands in the areas covered.

However, the OTA study indicated that some State

programs may look good on paper but have problems with implementation (3, 11). In other cases,

a State may have granted the authority to an agency

or local government to provide protection to wetlands, but the authority may have not been used

(6,7). Case study information also revealed that

even where there is regulatory overlap between the

State and Federal programs, the 404 program may

provide an important regulatory backup for a few

projects where the State has neither the authority

nor the political will to deny actions that will

adversely impact wetlands.

OVERLAPPING OF STATE/FEDERAL WETLAND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

States differ greatly in the types of wetlands they

have, the wetland policies they employ, the problems they experience, and their attitudes toward

wetlands and the 404 program. It is difficult therefore to generalize about the relative overlap of State

and Federal programs. Tables 25 and 26 illustrate

this point for State wetland-regulatory programs

in New England. State and Federal programs often

overlap or differ in the coverage of activities and

areas and procedures used. Some States have nonwetland programs that may indirectly protect wetlands. In those States with strong wetland programs, Corps district offices do not always take an

active role in enforcing 404 regulations. Instead,

State agencies become the primary parties regulating the use of wetlands, and the Corps usually supports their efforts. Of those States with wetland programs, most believe that State and Federal wetland

programs complement one another.

Activities and Areas

Some States regulate more wetland-related activities than the Corps does. For example, over 70

percent of the wetlands under the New Jersey Pinelands Preservation Commission’s jurisdiction are

not subject to Corps individual permit review because flows are less than 5 ft3

/s (7). Many States

regulate less area than the Corps but exempt fewer

activities from regulation. For example, the North

Carolina Dredge and Fill Act does not exempt agricultural or silvicultural activities; however, the law
190 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Table 25.—Values Protected by State Wetlands Regulatory Programs in New England

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island

Salt Fresh Salt Fresh Salt Fresh Salt Fresh Salt Fresh

Flood control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P P P NA P P P P P P

Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — P – NA P P––– –

Recreation ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P P P NA – – P P – P

Fish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P P P NA P P P P P P

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P P P NA – – P P P P

Esthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P P – NA – – P P P –

Water supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – P P NA P P – – P P

Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P P – NA – – – – P –

Sediment capture . . . . . . . . . . . P P – NA – – P P — —

Shellfish production . . . . . . . . . P — P NA P P P P P P

Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P — P NA – – – – – –

Ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — NA P P P P — P

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — NA – – P P P –

P= Protected.

— - Not protected.

NA = Not applicable.

SOURCE: Data from OTA’S New England case study.

Table 26.–Exemptions by State Wetland Regulatory Programs in New England

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island

Salt Fresh Salt Fresh Salt Fresh Salt Fresh Salt Fresh

Farm ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boat moorings. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Municipal water supply . . . . . .

Uses incidental to residential

property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Navigation aids . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public health emergencies . . .

Mosquito control . . . . . . . . . . .

Snow dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maintenance and repair. . . . . .

Some requirements for

sewage disposal . . . . . . . . . .

Utility maintenance . . . . . . . . .

Emergency work . . . . . . . . . . . .

Silviculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Small wetlands (size limits

vary by State). ., . . . . . . . . . .

Riverbank cut and fill

with conditions . . . . . . . . . . .

— ●

●

●

●

● NA

NA

NA

NA

?

●

— — — —

—

—

—

— ● —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— ●

—

—

—

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

— — — —

—

—

—

— —

—

—

— —

—

—

—

●

●

—

●

—

●

—

— — —

— — — — —

● ● — —

NA

NA

NA

NA

— ● — — — —

● —

●

●

●

●

●

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— —

— — — —

NA ● ● ●

●

— —

— — — NA — — —

● = Exempted activities.

— =Activities regulated.

NA = Not applicable.

SOURCE: Data from OTA’S New England case study.

thereby providing convenient loopholes for developers who scale their projects just outside of regulatory control.

does not apply to forested wetland species (10). Policies of New Jersey’s Hackensack Meadowlands

Development Commission are less stringent than

the 404 program. For example, the commission allows nonwater-dependent uses of wetlands. It is

only because of the 404 program that such projects

may be denied or mitigation measures may be required (7). Projects that are smaller than a specified

size often are not regulated by State programs,

In another case, the provisions of the New Jersey

Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) generally are similar to section 404 but have some

features that are more, or less, stringent. For example, this act prohibits major development in wet-
Ch. 9—Capabilities of the States in Managing the Use of Wetlands ● 191

lands unless the project is water-dependent, there

is no practical alternative on a nonwetland site, or

the project involves only minimum alteration of

natural tidal circulation, natural contour, or wetland vegetation. This law applies to all activities,

not just the disposal of dredged and fill material

as does section 404. CAFRA also prohibits development that adversely affects white cedar stands; the

404 program doesn’t have such specific prohibitions. However, projects less than a certain size in

nontidal marsh wetlands are not regulated under

CAFRA, although the Corps might regulate some

of these activities (7).

Some State programs have provisions to regulate

activities that occur outside of the wetlands but still

have some impact on them, The NewJersey Pinelands Preservation Commission program prohibits

residential, commercial, and industrial development on wetlands, or within 300 ft of wetlands,

unless extraordinary hardship and a demonstrated

public need can be shown (7).

State definitions of wetlands and procedures for

identifying wetland boundaries may be more restrictive, leaving many wetlands to be regulated

only by the Corps. For example, the wetland vegetation list used in Florida is less comprehensive

than that of the Corps. Also, the Florida procedure

for identifying contiguous wetlands is more restrictive than the Corps’. Any break in the continuity

of contiguous, dominant species, even an illegal fill,

limits the extent of State jurisdiction (l).

Wetland values protected under some State laws

are less comprehensive than those of the Corps. For

example, Florida restricts its consideration to waterquality impacts under its dredge and fill law (ch.

403), while the Corps considers the broader public

interest, including fish and wildlife values (l).

Massachusetts wetland permit programs do not

consider wildlife values ( 12).

A few States have more stringent standards for

mitigation than does the Corps, requiring developers to provide some sort of compensation or mitigation for all wetlands lost due to development in

certain areas—e. g., California and Oregon both

have a no-net-wetland-loss standard. California also

is committed to increasing wetland acreage by 50

percent by the year 2000 (4).

Broad language in many State laws can be used

to provide either strong or weak protection for

wetlands. For example, the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act has a pollution prohibition.

Water pollution, as defined in the act, could include

any human activity affecting wetlands, including

wetland drainage due to lowering the water table.

The definition of wastes could include fill material

disposed of in wetlands. However, these authorities have not yet been used by the State to protect

wetlands (6).

In some States, courts have supported broader

State authority over development activities that may

have implications for wetland protection. For example, the California Supreme Court in 1981 expanded the boundary of the public trust to include

the area between the seasonal high and low watermark of all nontidal waters (4). However, in other

States, protection for wetlands may be limited by

judicial interpretations of past State actions. For

example, Florida cannot deny permits to fill submerged lands that were originally sold by the State

with the expectation that the area would be developed (1 1). Other States may lack authority to regulate tidelands that were granted to private landholders prior to statehood (4, 10). In Nebraska, agricultural water use is given constitutional preference

over all other non-domestic uses. Attempts to reserve

water for wetlands may result in constitutional challenges (6).

Some State programs may encourage the protection of wetlands but lack the authority to require

protection or mitigation of potential impacts. For

example, the California Department of Fish and

Game reviews proposals for projects that may alter

streambeds and impact fish and wildlife. The department proposes modifications and encourages

the applicant to incorporate them into the project.

The State does not have the authority to stop any

projects (4). The California 1977 Policy for Preservation of Wetlands in Perpetuity also has no direct

mechanism for implementation. The policy limits

the actions of State agencies in approving projects

that will harm wetlands and exempts some wetlands

from the policy. However, acre-for-acre compensation still is required (4). In another case, the South

Florida Water Management District is authorized

to protect water resources and to ensure that con-
192 . Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

struction of surface-water management systems do

not adversely affect water resources. The district

has authority to designate conservation areas; however, since it can only obtain easements for waterflow, damage to wetlands from development still

can occur (l).

Implementation Procedures

The implementation procedures of some State

programs ensure better compliance with wetland

regulations than do some aspects of the Corps’ 404

program. For example, the Mississippi program has

a reporting requirement for exempted activities. In

addition, exempted activities must be granted an

exemption and must still comply with the public

purpose of the wetlands law, which is to preserve

coastal wetlands except where a higher public interest is served that is consistent with the public trust

(2). The Mississippi program also has a mechanism

to eliminate unnecessary wetland alteration from

activities of State agencies. Four agencies must approve State activities (2).

The State general permit program of the South

Florida Water Management District has notification requirements that differ from those of the

Corps (l). To obtain a general permit, an applicant must have the project reviewed to ensure that

certain standards will be met.

Some States administer programs on a regional

level. This practice is thought to provide greater

opportunities for monitoring and enforcement, to

ensure that decisions are made with a better understanding of local circumstances, to reduce travel

time and other costs, and to provide applicants with

better access to regulatory personnel (l).

State and Federal procedures for making decisions about wetland use may not be the same, although a similar decision may give the impression

that the programs are duplicative. For example,

Alaska requirements for oil and gas activities on

State lease sale tracts of wet tundra often duplicate

requirements on the activities imposed through the

404 program. The State review of operational plans

for these activities is conducted by four State agencies. But the review process does not involve the

general public or local governments; the 404 review

of the same project application may. Critics of the

State review process note that the State agency with

responsibility for decisions on these operational

plans also has primary responsibility for developing State oil and gas resources and for accounting

for State revenues (5).

Several Corps districts have been working with

State program officials to reduce regulatory overlap

and permit processing delays. For example, the

Wilmington District’s efforts include (10):

●

●

●

●

●

●

Joint applications: the Corps and North

Carolina Office of Coastal Management

(NCOCM) developed a single permit application for obtaining necessary State and Federal

approvals for regulated projects.

Joint public notice: a single public notice was

prepared to meet both State and Federal

requirements.

Joint preapplication meetings and onsite visits:

applicants meet with Federal and State officials

to review potential projects. For nonroutine

projects, a joint onsite meeting is held prior

to the submission of a permit application.

Joint postapplication meetings: when review

agencies have objections to a proposed project,

the Wilmington District typically will call a

meeting to work out the differences between

the Federal and State agencies and the applicant. The Corps acts as an arbitrator and has

full knowledge of the decisions that are made.

Joint enforcement meetings: since 1972, the

Wilmington District and NCOCM have met

regularly with other interested Federal and

State agencies to discuss policies, regulations,

procedures, specific problem permits, and violations. .

State-program general permit: perhaps the

most far-reaching effort by the Wilmington

District and the State of North Carolina to

reduce regulatory overlap is the State general

permit. This type of permit covered 80 percent of all major projects in 1981. If a permit

application qualifies for this general permit,

the application is processed by the State, and

the Corps and other Federal agencies are given

the opportunity to comment. The Corps coor-
Ch. 9—Capabilities of the States in Managing the Use of Wetlands . 193

dinates the collection of comments of the Fed- have objections that cannot be resolved or if

eral agencies and determines the Federal con- they recommend denial, the general-permit

ditions that must be included if the State re- processing is terminated, and the application

cides to issue the permit. If Federal agencies is processed as an individual permit.

STATE-PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS

While a large number of States actively regulate

at least some of their wetlands, many face problems that significantly hamper their efforts. These

problems are described below in approximate order

of importance, according to State responses to the

OTA survey. The following discussion should not

be taken as characterizing all States, yet all but three

States indicated that at least one of the problems

was of major concern. Additonal problems that

were noted in the case studies also are presented.

Funding

For most of those States with wetland programs,

the major implementation problem is inadequate

funding for hiring a sufficient number of staff with

appropriate expertise and for monitoring and enforcement of permitted activities. * For example,

the Florida pay scale is lower than that of the Corps,

and there is significant personnel turnover. Also,

enforcement budgets at the State level may be inadequate to provide experienced attorneys and expert witnesses. For this reason, Florida often relies

on the Corps to pursue enforcement and will settle for after-the-fact permits rather than try to seek

penalties and restoration (l).

Difficulties often are related to reduced Federal

funding for wetland programs and coastal-zone

management activities. Federal assistance has been

important to States, for example, in developing inventories, in setting up coastal programs, and in

acquiring wetlands. Cutbacks in Federal programs

directly affect the capabilities of many States and

localities. For example, OCRM is phasing out its

grants to States with approved coastal-zone programs. In several cases, funding will be lost for half

to all of State staff dealing with coastal wetlands.

“Massachusetts, responding to the request on the survey to rank

problems in importance, responded ‘ ‘funding, funding, and funding,

in that order of priority.

State acquisition efforts also have been hampered

by the elimination of funding from the Land Water

Conservation Fund. *

Even more serious than Federal cutbacks is the

budgetary crisis confronting many State governments. * * Wetland-program budgets generally have

not kept pace with inflation, and in most cases,

have been static. They have even been projected

to decline in the future. Few States have come up

with replacements for the Federal funding that will

be lost, and few programs, whether dependent on

Federal funding or not, are likely to fare well when

making funding requests from financially strapped

State legislatures. A major factor behind low funding is the absence of legislative and public support

for wetland protection, especially when such protection appears to conflict with development activities.

General Attitudes Toward Wetlands

States and regions within States differ radically

in the awareness and attitudes of legislators and

residents toward wetland values and wetland-protection programs. Unlike coastal wetlands, which

in many cases are of great importance to industries

such as fishing and tourism, inland wetlands, especially those outside of flyways for waterfowl, have

not been as firmly connected in the public mind

with functional services and economic benefits.

Based on State responses to OTA’S questionnaire,

*A few States also have received grants from EPA to study the

feasibility of assuming the 404 program. States receiving grants have

said that such funding is essential if assumption eventually is to take

place.

● ● Michigan, for example, stated that owing to budget cutbacks,

it does not have enough personnel to administer ‘‘most effectively’

all aspects of the program. Applications for permits are getting processed in a timely fashion, but other important aspects of the program

are not being implemented.

25-415 0 - 84 - 14
194 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

lack of support of wetlands programs apparently

is due to many factors, including:

● Lack of awareness of wetland values. A few

States (e. g., Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas) commented that most residents are unfamiliar with wetland values and are unaware

of wetland-protection programs such as 404.

● Opposition to land use controls. In some States

(e.g., Colorado, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Tennessee), there is strong objection to wetland

programs that appear to create de facto land

use controls on private property.

● Sensitivity to regulatory costs and the desire

to promote development. In many States, especially ones in which agriculture is an important industry (e. g., Florida), legislative and

public sentiment tends to place a higher priority on development than on wetland preservation when the two goals conflict. Agencies in

some States may be forced to bow to political

pressure and to allow development that they

otherwise would deny or modify.

A few quotes from State responses are indicative

of general attitudes:

Agriculture still remains top priority with Iowa.

Wetland alterations are generally accepted by public as well as elected officials.

Iowa

Any program that was solely designed to protect wetlands is not politically feasible in Wyoming.

Wyoming

Although the intrinsic values of wetlands are recognized by all State agencies whose functions impinge on wetlands, and a few are strong advocates

of wetland protection, the entire question of

whether wetlands should be protected or regulated

by government has not been addressed by the State

(Arkansas) and there is little enthusiasm for doing

so now.

Arkansas

To illustrate further, the California Coastal Commission regulates some wetland-alteration activities

in the coastal zone where the boundary is subject

to political manipulation. The California Legislature has changed the boundary several times (4).

The only statewide protection given to wetlands is

provided indirectly through water-quality authorities who require permits for the discharge of pollutants into State waters. However, the effect of

discharges upon wetlands usually is not a separate

consideration in the permit process, which focuses

on water quality, especially the quality of water used

by people. Wetland habitat values are rarely considered.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Monitoring and enforcement was mentioned as

a problem by 14 States and was ranked first in importance by 3; other sources also have concluded

that this is a serious problem for many States. Some

States undertake site inspections for all permitted

development activities at least once during construction and after project completion. In other States,

monitoring is less comprehensive. Inland wetlands

are particularly neglected (9).

States experience even greater difficulties with

enforcement. According to one source, agencies

seeking administrative action in case of violations

are limited in some States to seeking injunctions

or issuing temporary cease-and-desist orders, with

the assistance of State or local prosecutors. Agencies in such cases do not have the power to impose

fines or criminal citations; where penalties are available, they may be too low to constitute effective deterrents (9). It is also sometimes difficult to get State

attorneys general to prosecute wetland violators.

Some States turn prosecution over to local authorities, who are often subject to political pressure. At

both State and local levels, prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute small violations and even in cases

of large violations have more pressing priorities than

wetland cases. Although compliance with some

State laws generally may be good, some States have

difficulty in obtaining restoration for those illegal

fills that do take place (1 1).

Inadequate Technical Information

and Expertise

A major problem hampering many States is the

lack of information regarding the wetland resources

of their area. Most States have little data on such

things as the location, size, vegetation types, and

wildlife habitat values of wetland areas covered

under State programs. Some States say they have
Ch. 9—Capabilities of the States in Managing the Use of Wetlands ● 195

insufficient technical expertise to determine wetland

boundaries and values and insufficient funds to hire

additional staff. Many States expressed the hope

that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) inventory

effort will be accelerated and that increased aid be

given to States for their own inventories.

Agency Fragmentation

In many States, more than one agency handles

programs that protect wetlands. In some States,

there may be four or more agencies involved. Inconsistency in policy often results. Another sort of

fragmentation takes place within single agencies:

agencies and their personnel with wetland-protection responsibilities often have other duties as well.

Divided responsibilities between State and local

governments also can cause problems for wetland

protection. For example, the North Dakota Drainage Law is implemented at the State and local level.

Complaints about illegal drains are reported to the

State, but the local water board is responsible for

forcing closure. The J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge requested closure of over 200 illegal

private drains in 1978. The State Water Commission informed the local boards and sent 200 violation letters. None of these drains had been closed

as of August 1982 (3).

State Interest in Assuming

404 Permitting

Somewhat less than a third of the 48 States responding to OTA’s survey are interested in the

possibility of assuming responsibility for a portion

of the 404 program. Through such assumption,

some States hope to get a stronger regulatory program; some a weaker program. However, almost

none of these States is willing to assume the program without major changes in one or more of the

following: current EPA regulations governing assumption, the scope of areas that States would be

allowed to administer, and, most importantly, financial assistance. In fact, only four States have

accepted responsibility for 404 permitting on an experimental basis. If the Federal Government reduced its involvement in wetland protection, wetlands would receive mixed levels of protection from

the States, owing to States’ budgetary and political

constraints. In response to cutbacks in the 404 program, few States would be willing at this time to

increase the current level of wetland protection

without additional resources from the Federal

Government; even with resources some States

would be reluctant.

1.

2.

3.

4.

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES

Center for Governmental Responsibility, “Wet- 5.

lands Loss in South Florida and the Implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, University of Florida College of Law, contract study for 6.

OTA, September 1982, pp. 58-61.

Center for Wetland Resources, “Wetland Trends

and Factors Influencing Wetland Use in the Area

Influenced by the Lower Mississippi River: A Case 7.

Study, ” Louisiana State University, contract study

for OTA, September 1982, pp. 1120-1123.

Department of Agricultural Economics, ‘‘Wetlands

in the Prairie-Pothole Region of Minnesota, North 8.

Dakota, and South Dakota—Trends and Issues,

North Dakota State University, contract study for 9.

OTA, August 1982, p. 73.

ESA/Madrone, “Wetlands Policy Assessment:

California Case Study, ” contract study for OTA,

September 1982, pp. 19-63. 10.

ESA/Madrone, “Wetlands Use and Regulation:

Alaska Case Study, ” contract study for OTA, January 1983, p. vi.

Great Plains Office of Policy Studies, “Wetlands

Trends and Protection Programs in Nebraska, ”

University of Nebraska, contract study for OTA,

September 1982, p. 49,

JACA Corp., “A Case Study of New Jersey Wetlands Trends and Factors Influencing Wetlands

Use, ’ contract study for OTA, September 1982,

pp. 3-23, 34.

Kusler, Jon, “Strengthening State Wetland Regulations, ” Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978, pp. 25-28.

Rosenbaum, Nelson, “Enforcing Wetlands Regulations, ‘‘ in Wetland Functions and Values: The State

of Our Understanding, American Water Resources

Association, 1979, pp. 43-49.

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,

th

)r

hi

)f

‘r

!n
196 . Wetlands: Their Lke and Regulation

11.

“Wetland Trends and Policies in North and South 12

Carolina, Duke University, contract study for

OTA, August 1982, pp. 63, 87-89.

Shapiro and Associates, Inc., “An Analysis of Wetlands Regulation and the Corps of Engineers Section 404 Program in Western Washington, contract study for OTA, September 1982, pp. 3, 41.

Water Resources Research Center, “Regional Assessment of Wetlands Regulation Programs in New

England, ” University of Massachusetts, contract

study for OTA, September 1982, p, 144.
Appendix

List of Acronyms and Glossary
Appendix

List of Acronyms and Glossary

List of Acronyms

AAPA —

ACP —

AMC —

API —

API/NFPA —

AWO

BMPs

C EQ

Corps

CPI

CWA

C ZM

EIS

EPA

FI

FmHA

FWS

GNP

IWR

LWCF

MOA

NCA

NEPA

NFIP

NMFS

NPDES

NSF

NWTS

OCRM

OCZM

OMB

O RD

OTA

PIK

POWDR

RIA

SCS

USDA

WES

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

American Association of Port

Authorities

Agricultural Conservation Program

American Mining Congress

American Petroleum Institute

American Paper Institute/National

Forest Products Association

American Waterways Operators, Inc

best management practices

Council on Environmental Quality

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Consumer Price Index

Clean Water Act

Coastal Zone Management

Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Protection Agency

Fertilizer Institute

Farmers Home Administration

Fish and Wildlife Service

gross national product

Institute for Water Resources

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Act

memorandum of agreement

normal crop average

National Environmental Policy Act

National Flood Insurance Program

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System

National Science Foundation

National Wetlands Trend Study

Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management

Office of Coastal Zone Management

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Research and Development

(EPA)

Office of Technology Assessment

Payment-in-Kind Program

Protect Our Wetlands and Duck

Resources Act

regulatory impact assessment

Soil Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Waterways Experiment Station

Glossary

Acquisition— the purchase of the full rights to a

property.

Alluvium-soil composed primarily of eroded material,

such as sand, silt or clay, that has been deposited on

land by rivers and streams overflowing their banks.

Barrier island—a detached portion of a barrier bar,

usually formed through wave deposits, lying offshore,

and usually parallel to the shore whose crest rises

above high water.

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)—the demand for

dissolved oxygen needed for the decomposition of

organic matter in water. If the amount of oxygen

dissolved in water is high and the organic matter

present is low, the BOD is low, and vice versa.

Biomass— the total amount of organic material present

during a specific instance in a community or in a particular population or other component of the community.

Bog—a term commonly applied to forested wetlands

formed in deep, steep-sided lakes with small watershed areas and poor drainage. Decomposition rates

are characteristically slow, resulting in extensive

deposits of peat. Floating mats of Sphagnum moss

are commonly associated with bogs.

Bottom land—flat-lying areas adjacent to rivers, which

are subject to annual flooding.

Brackish—a mixture of freshwater and saltwater typically found in estuarine areas.

Bulkhead—a structure usually running parallel to the

shoreline of a river, stream, or lake to protect adjacent lands from erosion due to current or wave action, and to protect channels from upland sedimentation.

Conditioning (permit) —requirements attached to a

permit that dictate the mitigation of or compensation for development project impacts.

Cumulative impacts—those impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of a

development activity when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities.

Deciduous—a descriptive term for woody plants that

shed their green leaves or needles during the cold or

dry season.

Detritus—a partially decomposed organic material produced by the disintegration and decay of plant

tissues, principally leaves and stems.

199
200 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Dike—a wall or mound built around a low-lying area

to prevent flooding.

Drainage basin or watershed—the area within which

all surface water runoff will normally gather in a

single tributary, stream, river, conduit, or other

water course. This area is determined by topography

that forms drainage divides between watersheds.

Ecosystem—the system of interrelationships between

plants and animals and their environment.

Emergent—an erect, rooted herbaceous hydrophyte

that may be temporarily or permanently flooded at

the base, but is nearly always exposed at the upper

portion.

Endangered— nearing extinction; existence of the

organism and its environment are in immediate jeopardy; distribution is usually restricted to highly specific habitats.

Estuary— the mouth of a river entering the sea where

the current of the river meets the tide and where salt

and fresh waters mix.

Eutrophication —an increase in concentration of nutrients in rivers, estuaries, and other bodies of water.

This increase may be due to natural causes, man’s

influence, or a combination of both.

Evergreen—a descriptive term for woody plants that

retain their green leaves or needles throughout the

year.

Flood hydrographs—graphs of the time distribution of

runoff from a drainage basin which are used to

analyze flooding characteristics.

Flood plain—an area adjacent to a lake, stream, ocean,

or other body of water lying outside of the ordinary

banks of the water body and periodically inundated

by flood flOWS.

Flyways—routes followed by migrating birds.

Food chain—the means by which energy and material

are transferred from a producer (a green plant) to

herbivores and carnivores.

General permit—a type of permit that is issued for a

category or categories of work or structures when

those structures or work are substantially similar in

nature and cause only minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental impacts.

Glacial drift—sediment accumulated as a result of

glaciation, under a glacier, at its margins, or beyond.

Ground water—water that penetrates the Earth’s surface from precipitation and from infiltration by

streams, ponds, and lakes.

Habitat—the range of environmental factors at a particular location supporting specific plant and animal

communities.

Herbaceous—plant material characterized by the

absence of wood.

Hydrophyte—any plant growing in a soil that is at least

periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive

water content.

Indirect impacts—impacts removed from both the

direct area and time that development occurs.

Mangrove-a term denoting any salt-tolerant intertidal

tree species.

Marsh—a common term applied to describe treeless

wetlands characterized by shallow water and abundant emergent, floating, and submergent wetland

flora. Typically found in shallow basins, on lake margins, along low-gradient rivers and in low-energy

tidal areas.

Mitigation— a term that describes the efforts to lessen,

or compensate for the impacts of a development project.

Mudflat-bare, flat bottoms of lakes, rivers, and

estuaries, which are largely filled with organic deposits, and periodically exposed by a lowering of the

water table.

Nationwide permit—A type of general permit

authorized for the entire Nation.

Organic soil—a “histosol” as defined by the U.S. Soil

Conservation Service. In general, a soil is a histosol

either if more than 50 percent of the upper 80 cm

of soil is organic material or if organic material of

any thickness rests on rock or on fragmented material

having interstices filled with organic materials.

Peat—organic soil which has undergone very little decomposition so that plant remains can be identified.

Permeability— the property of soil or rock to transmit

water or air.

Productivity, gross primary—the rate at which energy

is fixed by a particular population or community of

producers.

Productivity, net primary—the rate of increase in the

energy that is contained in a particular population

or community of producers after the amount of energy that is lost by respiration is deducted from the

gross productivity.

Recharge (ground water)—the percolation of surface

water to the water table.

Riparian—habitats adjacent to rivers and streams.

Riprap—a bulkhead or other structure constructed of

selected rock or concrete and placed so as to dissipate

wave energy or collect sand along a shoreline.

Sedge—a grasslike plant in appearance, of the family

cyperaceae, often with a triangular base.

Shrub—a woody plant that at maturity is less than 6

meters tall, usually exhibiting several erect, spreading, or prostrate stems and a generally bushy appearance.

Slough—a small body of stagnant water, or a small

marshy or swampy tract of land.
App. – List of Acronyms and G/ossary . 201

Submergent—a herbaceous or nonvascular plant, either

rooted or nonrooted, which lies entirely beneath the

water surface, except for flowering parts in some

species.

Substrate—the bottom surface on which plants grow.

Swamp—a forested wetland.

Threatened—nearing endangered status.

Tundra—a wet arctic grassland dominated by lichens

and Sphagnum mosses. It is characterized by a thick

spongy mat of living and undecayed vegetation that

is often saturated with water.

Turbidity—the cloudy rendition of a body of water that

contains suspended material, such as clay or silt particles, dead organisms, or small living plants or

animals.

Watershed—the region drained by or contributing

water to a stream, lake, or other body of water.

Water table—the upper surface of ground water in the

zone of saturation.
Index

Adirondack-New England, 96

Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, 45

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), 77, 79

Alaska, 3, 16, 19, 25, 30, 52, 72, 87, 88, 99, 127, 132,

148, 152, 157, 192

Alcovy River Swamp, Ga., 42

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), 154

American Mining Congress (AMC), 155

American Paper Institute/National Forest Products

Association, 152, 154, 155

American Petroleum Institute (API), 155, 159

American Waterways Operators, Inc., 154

Anchorage (Alaska) Wetland Plan, 19

Arkansas, 78, 194

Atlantic City, N.J., 127

Audubon Society, 13, 84

Avoyelle’s Sportsmen League v. Alexander, 1 7 6

Bass Angler’s Sportsmen Society, 84

best management practices (BMPs), 132, 143, 170

Blackstone River, Mass., 45

Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, Del., 41

Bureau of Reclamation, 74

Cache River, Ill., 5, 44

California, 8, 52, 73, 99, 108, 111, 120, 123, 170, 172,

188, 191, 194

California Supreme Court, 191

Canada, 52

capabilities of States, 187-195

implementation problems, 193-195

agency fragmentation, 195

funding, 193

inadequate technical information and expertise, 194

interest in assuming 404 permitting, 195

general attitudes, 193

monitoring and enforcement, 194

State and Federal regulatory programs, overlapping of,

189-193

activities and areas, 189

implementation procedures, 192

Carter, President Jimmy, 38, 78

Cedarburg Bog, Milwaukee, Wis., 47

Charles River Basin, Mass., 4, 37, 45

Chesapeake Bay, 47, 52, 60, 124

Coastal Zone Management program, 75, 83

Congress:

House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

167

Connecticut, 84

Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Fla., 41

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 118, 129

Cranesville Swamp, W. Va,, 40

Currituck Sound, N. C., 48

Delaware, 41

Department of Agriculture (USDA), 12, 90

Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service

(ASCS), 73, 77, 78, 112

Farmers Home Administration, 77, 80

Payment-in-Kind Program (PIK), 9, 15

Secretary of, 73

Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 73, 74, 77, 78, 80,

90, 91, 148, 171

Water Bank Program, 9, 12, 15, 19, 20, 73

Department of Commerce:

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,

187

Secretary of, 83

Department of the Interior, 13, 69

Secretary of, 77, 84

Department of Justice, 180, 181

District of Columbia, 72

Ducks Unlimited, 13, 84

East Everglades Management Plan, 134

effects of the 404 program, 141-161

delay costs, 156

length of delays, 157

percentage of permits delayed, 156

sources of delay, 157

distribution of costs, 160

effects on wetlands, 141-145

benefits of the 404 program to regulated sectors, 146

effects on development activities, 145

general objections by regulated sectors, 147

congressional intent, 149

program administration, 151

program effects not reflected in permit data, 142

program effects reflected in program data, 143

specific impacts, 152

modifications costs, 155

opportunity costs, 159

processing costs, 154

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 11, 141, 154, 171

Environmental Law Institute, 77

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 10, 13, 17, 18,

70, 71, 75, 76, 133, 135, 155, 158, 167, 169, 187

Office of Research and Development (ORD), 77

Everglades National Park, Fla., 42

Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, 74

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 17, 74,

78, 80, 171

Farmers Home Administration, 12

Federal Crop Insurance Agency, 80

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 76

Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management, 75

Federal programs, 69-81

acquisition and incentive programs, 72

Agriculture Conservation Program, 77

agricultural conversions, 77

Federal tax, 78

assistance to States and localities, 75

205
206. Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

environmental programs and policies, 74

regulatory permitting programs, 69

wetland research program, 76

Federal Register, 174

Fertilizer Institute, 146, 152, 159

Florida, 31, 41, 42, 60, 87, 97, 99, 108, 111, 119, 120,

122, 130, 152, 168, 188, 191, 192

General Accounting Office (GAO), 132, 133, 156, 157

geographic distribution of wetland types, 32

Georgia, 25, 41, 42

Gianelli, William R., Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Civil Works), 167

Grays Harbor (Washington) Estuary Management Plan,

134

Great Plains Program, 79

Great Swamp Refuge, N. Y., 42

Hackensack River, N.J., 47

Hammond, Edwin H., 29

Hawaii, 87

Hilton Head Island, S. C., 124

hydrologic characteristics of wetlands, 28

Illinois, 51, 94

impacts and mitigation, 117-135

definitions, 118

development activities, 119-124

disposal and discharge of pollutants and nonpointsource pollution, 123

drainage and clearing, 121

dredging and excavation, 119

extensive flooding, 122

filling, 120

predicting impacts of, 126

general permits, 128

limitations, 126

wetland reviews, 127

water withdrawals and diversions, 123

mitigating impacts, 129

feasibility of compensation on offsite mitigation, 130

management plans, 133

onsite mitigation to minimize impacts, 131

variables of wetland-impact magnitude, 124

biological and ecological variables, 125

operations variables, 125

physical and chemical variables, 124

importance of wetlands to man, 37-61

attitudes, 37

ecological services, 43-61

climatic and atmospheric functions, 60

fish and wildlife values, 52-61

endangered wetland species, 57

pattern of duck distribution, 53

floodpeak reduction, 43-46

ground water recharge, 47

shoreline erosion control, 46-47

water quality improvement, 48-51

intrinsic values, 39, 42

recreation and education, 41

wetlands or natural areas, 39

Indiana, 27

Iowa, 97, 194

Ipswich River, Mass., 45

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge, 195

J. N. Ding Darling Refuge, Fla., 42

Kearneysville, W. Va., 77

Kentucky, 27

Kissimmee River, 51

Lake Okeechobee, Fla., 51

Land and Water Conservation Fund, 76

Lawrence Swamp, Mass., 47, 48

legislation:

California Coastal Act, 131

Clean Water Act (CWA), 4, 9, 10, 15, 69, 70, 75, 82,

187

404 program, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 69, 70, 134,

141-161, 167-182

Coastal and Inland Wetland Restriction Act, 81

Coastal Zone Management Act, 9, 75, 83, 188

Dingell-Johnson Act, 75

Endangered Species Act, 74

Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, 75

Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, 9, 75

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 69,

149

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 74, 83

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 12,

73

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 11, 75,

118, 141, 154, 171

Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, 191

Nebraska Groundwater Management Act of 1975, 188

New Jersey Coastal Area Facilities Review Act, 190

New Jersey Flood Hazard Area Control Act, 189

North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act, 173

North Carolina Dredge and Fill Act, 189

North Dakota Drainage Law, 195

Pittman-Robertson Act, 75

Protect Our Wetlands and Duck Resources Act

(POWDR), 13, 69, 84

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 10, 11, 72

Swamp Land Acts, 37

Water Bank Act of 1970, 12

Wetlands Loan Act, 9, 12, 13, 69, 72

limitations of the 404 program, 167-182

Corps performance, 175-182

district implementation, 176

monitoring and enforcement, 177

regulatory policies, 175

scope of coverage, 168-174

cumulative impacts, 174

decisionmaking criteria, 174

exempted activities, 170

general permits, 173

nationwide permits, 171

unregulated activities, 168
Index . 207

local programs, 83

Louisiana, 55, 89, 97, 99, 113, 119, 122, 131, 159

Western Judicial District, 176

Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, 89, 95, 97, 148

Lower Mississippi River Valley, 5, 7, 56, 87, 99, 108,

113, 120

Loxahatchee Refuge, Fla., 42

Maine, 25

major types of wetlands, 29

bogs, 30

bottom lands and other riparian habitats, 30

coastal salt marshes, 31

inland freshwater marshes, 29

inland saline marshes, 30

mangrove swamps, 31

shrub swamp, 30

tidal freshwater marshes, 32

tundra, 30

wooded swamps, 30

Maryland, 55, 99, 119, 146

Massachusetts, 26, 39, 45, 81, 84, 89, 146

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, Fla., 41

Michigan, 13, 25, 119

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, 69

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, 9, 12,

72

Minnesota, 25, 47, 73, 77, 79, 80, 95, 98, 112, 119, 180

Protected Waters Program, 81

Water Bank Program, 82

Mississippi, 119, 192

Mississippi Delta, 26

Mississippi River, 26, 52, 80, 89, 130

Muskie, Senator Edmund, 170

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), 76, 84

National Forest Service, 72

National Forest System, 72

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 10, 11, 18,

70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 83, 141, 142, 144, 145, 158, 167,

178

National Park Service, 73

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 75

National Science Foundation (NSF), 76, 77

National Wetland Trends Study (NWTS), 87, 88, 89,90, 91,

94, 98, 108, 170, 171

National Wildlife Refuge System, 16, 41, 52, 72, 73

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 10,

70

Nature Conservancy, 13, 43, 84, 181

Nebraska, 27, 79, 80, 88, 97, 99, 109, 112, 120, 169,

180, 188

Neponset River Basin, Mass., 45

New Jersey, 99, 146, 173, 189, 190, 191

New York, 25, 42, 174

North Carolina, 5, 40, 43, 55, 99, 109, 119, 152, 168,

173, 180

North Carolina Office of Coastal Management, 192

North Dakota, 25, 73, 77, 112, 180

Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM), 134

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 146, 155,

156, 157, 177

Okefenokee Swamp, Ga., 41, 42

Oregon, 55

origins of wetlands, 25-28

activities of man, 27

beaver dams, 26

distribution of wetlands in the United States, 26

erosion and sedimentation, 25

freezing and thawing, 26

glaciation, 25

miscellaneous processes, 27

Passaic River, N.J., 45

Pennsylvania, 41, 42

Platte River Valley, Nebr., 169

policy considerations and options, 13-21

issues and options, 14-21

private initiatives, 84

programs and policies affecting wetland use, 8-13

administration policies, 13

Federal programs discouraging wetland conversion, 10

Federal programs encouraging wetland conversions, 12

Federal regulation-404 program, 10-12

major Federal programs, 9

private initiatives, 13

State wetland programs, 13

Rainwater Basin, Nebr., 79, 80, 109, 112, 120, 169

Reelfoot Lake, Term., 28

Richard King Mellon Foundation, 13, 84

Reilly, William, 39

Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, Calif., 122

San Diego County, Calif., 172

San Francisco Bay, 6, 28, 117, 130

Snohomish Estuary Wetland Study, Seattle district, 127

South Carolina, 99, 168, 178, 188

South Carolina Heritage Trust Program, 43

South Dakota, 73, 77

State programs, 81-83

acquisition, 82

incentives to landowners, 82

influence on Federal activities, 82

wetland regulation, 81

tax incentives, 12, 15

Tennessee, 28

Texas, 55, 99, 119, 130

Thief Run Wildlife Management Area, 45

Thompson, Edward, Jr., 170

Tinicum Marsh, Pa., 41, 42

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 69, 70, 76, 82, 110, 126, 128, 129,

141, 143, 156, 174, 175-182

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 71, 157,

167
208 ● Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

Institute for Water Resources, 142, 147, 153, 154, 155,

156, 159, 160

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 10, 12, 18, 19, 25,

38, 56, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 83, 84, 87, 90, 112, 134,

158, 167, 195

values and uses, 4-8

intrinsic qualities and ecological services, 4, 5

trends in wetland use, 7

wetland conversions, 5

Virginia, 46, 84

Washington, 25, 55, 99, 108, 178

Waterways Experiment Station (WES), 76

Wharton, C. H., 42

Watt, James, Secretary of Interior, 84

West Virginia, 40

wetland trends, 87-113

national trends—loss and gain, 87-91, 112

factors affecting wetland loss, 88

trend information, 90

vegetated wetlands, 91

agricultural conversions, 108

economic factors, 111

freshwater wetlands, 91

regional trends, 94

agricultural conversions of wetlands, 100

case studies, 98

wetland losses, 106

saltwater wetlands, 93

wetland vegetation, 28

Wisconsin, 25, 51, 56, 78, 83, 94, 130

Wisconsin scientific areas program, 43

Wyoming, 194