analysis of the interface between the two types of processes and the study of 

 the impact of internal and external perturbations on wetlands and the various 

 systems that pertain to wetlands, their management, and their human uses. 



The proposal of the authors to sequester beneficiaries of wetland values 

 into owner, user, regional, and national groups could lead to double- and triple- 

 counting of wetland outputs. 



68. Leitch, J. A., and D.F. Scott. 1984. Improving wetland policy through 

 amelioration of adverse effects on local economies. Water Resources 

 Bulletin 20(5) :687-693. 



Leitch and Scott use an input-output model to estimate the changes in gross 

 expenditure patterns and net income flows that would result from the restoration 

 of prairie potholes. Some subsidization payments over and above the lost income 

 of the landowner would probably be required to make these local economies as 

 robust after restoration as they were before restoration. 



69. Nelson, R.W., and W.J. Logan. 1984. Policy on wetland impact mitigation. 

 Environment International 10(1):9-19. 



This is a policy-oriented article that examines the implementation of the 

 404 permit application process. Nelson and Logan discuss national and site- 

 specific mitigation impact policies for the granting of 404 fill and dredge 

 permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The general permits that are 

 currently being issued by the Corps allow the discharge of dredged or fill 

 material; they do not require any site-specific permit application or even 

 notification by the permittee. These general permits allow the bedding of 

 pipelines or the placement of minor roadway l^ills in any wetland on the 

 presumption that these activities will not produce more than a negligible impact. 

 However, this presumption is invalid according to the U.S. Environmental 

 Protection Agency, which would like to prohibit any dredge or fill discharges 

 in which unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies, recreation 

 benefits and activities, or fish and wildlife habitats would result. The U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service also deems this presumption invalid. The Service would 

 like to assign a very high value to certain aquatic and wetland fish and wildlife 

 habitats; the preservation benefits of these habitats is so high, that no loss 

 of habitat is acceptable. 



The basic criterion suggested by Nelson and Logan for choosing between 

 site-specific mitigation proposal permits and national permits and mitigation 

 policies is economic. National mitigation requirements are less costly to 

 administer, and the authors find this approach valid for low value wetlands when 

 the dredge and fill activities are likely to cause minor, short-term damage. 

 When damage is irreversible or long-term, or the wetlands has high value, site- 

 specific mitigation proposals should be used; the potential benefits from the 

 use of this permit policy outweigh the greater cost according to Nelson and 

 Logan. 



52 



