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 di- 

 rected specifically toward wetlands as being most 

 important for controlling wetland use. Such pro- 

 grams address water pollution control, endangered 

 species or game species protection, and natural-area 

 acquisition programs. These programs vary gready 

 in the extent of protection they provide. In some 

 States, one or more of these programs appear to 

 have far-reaching effects on wedand 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 pro- 



grams 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 pro- 

 gram in protecting wetlands in the areas covered. 

 However, the OTA study indicated that some State 

 programs may look good on paper but have prob- 

 lems with implementation (3,11). In other cases, 

 a State may have granted the authority to an agency 

 or local government to provide protection to wet- 

 lands, 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 prob- 

 lems they experience, and their attitudes toward 

 wetlands and the 404 program. It is difficult there- 

 fore 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 non- 

 wetland programs that may indirectly protect wet- 

 lands. In those States with strong wetland pro- 

 grams. Corps district offices do not always take an 

 active role in enforcing 404 regulations. Instead, 

 State agencies become the primary parties regulat- 

 ing the use of wetlands, and the Corps usually sup- 



ports their efforts. Of those States with wedand pro- 

 grams, most believe that State and Federal wetiand 

 programs complement one another. 



Activities and Areas 



Some States regulate more wetland-related ac- 

 tivities than the Corps does. For example, over 70 

 percent of the wedands under the New Jersey Pine- 

 lands Preservation Commission's jurisdiction are 

 not subject to Corps individual permit review be- 

 cause flows are less than 5 ft^/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 agri- 

 cultural or silvicultural activities; however, the law 



