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 wedand. 

 In the San Diego case just mentioned, the indivi- 

 dual permit process under the Corps' discretionary 

 authority has not preserved as many pools as the 

 city expected. In another case, the New York Dis- 

 trict 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 per- 

 mits, 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 nation- 

 wide permits.) Most general permits are for activ- 

 ities that cause little or no impact on wetland areas 

 (e.g., mooring buoys) and do not require individual 

 project permits. While some general permits pro- 

 vide some protection to wetlands, through the use 

 of BMPs, the lack of monitoring of permit condi- 

 tions means that many such activities may have 

 greater impacts than officially allowed. 



Some districts provide greater protection to wet- 

 lands than do other districts through language in 

 their general permits designed to protect wedands. 

 For example, Wilmington District general permits 

 for discharges into diked disposal areas; mainten- 

 ance and repair of private bulkheads; and mainten- 

 ance, repair, construction, or use of boat ramps all 

 include language for the specific protection of vege- 

 tated wedands. General permits for similar activities 

 in the Charleston District do not include such ex- 

 plicit language for avoiding vegetated wedands (9). 



Criticisms of general permits include: 



• the general-permit process eliminates both the 

 normal public interest review and the oppor- 

 tunity for other agencies to comment on a proj- 

 ect-by-project basis; 



• public notice is not required, which eliminates 

 a means for informing State and local agen- 

 cies of activities that may require non- Federal 

 permits; 



• general permits may lead to cumulative con- 

 version of wedand habitat to small-scale devel- 

 opment; 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 vio- 

 lation, the Corps will investigate and determine if 

 an individual permit is necessary. To avoid poten- 

 tial violations, letters of authorization for specific 

 projects can be obtained from the Corps. In fact, 

 some communities in New Jersey, for example, re- 

 quire such a letter from the Corps before local 

 approvals are obtained for construction. 



General permits can reduce regulatory require- 

 ments for both applicants and the Corps. The most 

 frequently noted successful use of the general per- 

 mit 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 appli- 

 cants, 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 encom- 

 passing 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 explicidy 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 Na- 

 tional Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wilmington 

 District also currendy is working to develop a gen- 

 eral permit for the discharge of dredged and fill ma- 

 terials for drainage systems and for land clearing 

 to convert lands to agricultural use. Stringent con- 

 ditions (yet to be developed) would have to be met, 



