162 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation 



residential development, and small business. These sec- 

 tors 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 ex- 

 plained. 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 

 Jilso 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 amortiza- 

 tion factor is eliminated. Accepting the IWR's figures 

 without amortization, the annual benefits of technology 

 transfer would be from $1.2 billion to $2.4 billion. 



8. "In the case of 'Madrona Marsh' in Torrance, California, 

 the Army Corps asserted jurisdiction over the Eirea on Feb- 

 ruary 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 phe- 

 nomenon, 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 Jurisdiction was subsequently withdrawn, but in 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 original- 

 ly asserted, yet under the current regulations and jurisdic- 

 tional 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. 



9. 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 con- 

 cerned. This type of problem was said to be declining. 



In Alaska, some permits prohibit drilling except dur- 

 ing winter, require that pipelines reach certain heights at 

 animal crossings, and require that impermeable waste dis- 

 posal pits be constructed. These stipulations are termed 

 controversial by a GAO report because they are costly and 

 their effectiveness has not been established. Often, stipula- 

 tions 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, "Devel- 

 oping Alaska's Energy Resources: Actions Needed to 

 Stimulate Research and Improve Wetlands Permit Proc- 

 essing," 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 Dis- 

 trict 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 



of these modifications serve no useful purpose and act to 

 increase project costs needlessly." 



The Corps' Pittsburgh District responded: "When deal- 

 ing with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environ- 

 mental Protection Agency, all wetlands are determined 

 to be of the highest quality and any application for filling 

 wedands, regardless of true quality, brings a recommenda- 

 tion for denial." 



10. 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 documenta- 

 tion of the need for such extensions by the requesting agen- 

 cies. Lack of documentation greatly decreased, however, 

 after March 1980 Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) were 

 signed between the Corps and other involved Federal agen- 

 cies. Problems continue with State agencies. Further 

 restrictions on reviewing times were contained in 1982 

 MOAs. 



1 1 . 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 evident- 

 ly 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 per- 

 mits 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 difierent 

 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 fall- 

 ing in this category, an amount which multiplied by $250 

 totals $2.67 million. 



1 2. In response to a question on the OTA survey on how often 

 modifications are required, only 1 association made a nu- 

 merical estimate: FI said that 7 out of 14 projects had 

 modifications requested of them. Nine out of seventeen 

 projects incorporated modifications in anticipation of agen- 

 cy objections. 



