CRS-19 



destroy such areas, namely draining, filling, and dredging of lands adjacent 

 to the Nation's waterways (see pages 54-59). To enact and implement a new 

 approach, perhaps with different emphasis, would risk disruption of programs 

 that have been reasonably successful in identifying and protecting valuable 

 wetland areas (see pages 88-93 for summary of permit program). Implementation 

 of a new program also would require identification of which wetlands would be 

 included, definition of agency responsibility, and decisions on other program 

 details that could disrupt ongoing efforts. Furthermore, the alternative to 

 the current approach preferred by some persons — Federal land use planning and 

 management — has so far proven to be unacceptable to many groups and individuals. 

 Interest in Federal land use legislation peaked in the early 1970s, and at the 

 present time it seems unlikely that Congress and the general public would 

 endorse moves in that direction. 



Despite the Corps' traditional focus on water resources and navigation, 

 these persons point out that since 1977 the Corps has increasingly accepted 

 responsibility for additional areas of interest, including the environment 

 (see pages 78-88). The composition of the Corps' staff has changed, and more 

 recent hirings include personnel having ecological science background. These 

 experts now form a large portion of Corps of Engineers staff involved in permit 

 processing evaluation. That fact, coupled with high levels of Involvement by 

 EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

 help to assure consideration of environmental protection issues during review 

 of section 404 permit applications. 



Issue 5 



Should Federal law define the requirements for mitigation of adverse 

 impacts on wetlands as habitats and restoration of altered wetlands, which cur- 

 rently are in the form of policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and extend 



96-073 0-82-3 



