CRS-21 



for example, are not specifically included. Moreover, the policy does not pro- 

 vide for consideration of other functions in wetland areas, such as flood con- 

 trol, groundwater recharge, or nutrient productivity, which may be as highly 

 valued but may also be incompatible with wildlife habitat in some cases (see 

 page 50). Involving other agencies and their programmatic coverage in wetlands 

 could enlarge application of the mitigation program to include these additional 

 functions. 



Third, the definition of mitigation incorporated in the policy statement 

 was derived from Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing 

 the National Environmental Policy Act. Lacking a statutory basis, the defin- 

 ition of such an important concept is likely to be subject to considerable 

 debate and challenge. This has been true, for example, of the term "wetlands," 

 which has had various judicial and regulatory interpretations, but no statutory 

 definition. 



Finally, Congress has had no formal role in formulating the Fish and Wild- 

 life Service mitigation policy. Considering the importance of the issues in- 

 volved — making recommendations that may alter landowners' and developers' plans 

 and affect land values — there is major interest in the policy, which should be 

 reviewed by Congress and, if judged appropriate, authorized in law. 



Con 



Other persons take the position that it would be unwise to define in law 

 the roles of wetland mitigation and restoration. Doing so could prove to be 

 overly restrictive in view of the variability of wetland types and their func- 

 tions. 



First, an administrative policy offers greater flexibility, both for 

 developers (project applicants) and Federal agencies. With flexibility, the 

 agency can respond more easily to case-by-case differences, which frequently 



