CRS-22 



arise in plans that may affect wetlands, and to any changing national views 

 about the need to protect wetland areas. Explicit legislative language might 

 be so rigid as to hinder the agency from considering situations that are 

 exceptions. 



Second, although the Fish and Wildlife Service is the only agency that so 

 far has adopted an explicit mitigation policy, others could do so, in order to 

 mitigate damage to other wetlands functions besides habitat. Indeed, Presi- 

 dential Executive Order 11990 does require each Federal agency to minimize 

 damage or loss of wetlands, and to protect or enhance their beneficial values 

 (see pages 98-99). 



Finally, these persons point out there is considerable public and scien- 

 tific dispute about the relative functions of different wetlands types. The 

 congressional forum may be inappropriate for resolving complex disputes about 

 mitigating damages. While Congress might give Federal agencies general policy 

 guidance on mitigation and restoration, the administrative agencies should con- 

 tinue to develop many more specific policies or rules, within their areas of 

 expertise. 



Issue 6 



Should the process of section 404 permit review be streamlined? Several 

 Federal agencies are involved in reviewing and consulting on permit appli- 

 cations. Frequently the result is duplication, poor interagency coordination, 

 confusion, and delays. Some persons — particularly those who find themselves 

 "victims" of the review process — argue that administrative and legislative 

 changes should be made to speed up the process. Opponents respond that, as 

 currently operating, the review process is necessary to ensure environmental 

 protection and to balance public interest considerations. 



