CRS-89 



* the relative extent of the public and private need for 

 the proposed structure or work; 



* the desirability of using appropriate alternative lo- 

 cations and methods to accomplish the objective of the pro- 

 posed structure or work; 



* the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or 

 detrimental effects which the proposed structure or work may 

 have on the public and private uses to which the area is 

 suited; and 



* the probable impact of each proposal in relation to 

 the cumulative effect created by other existing and antici- 

 pated structures or work in the general area. 111 / 



Wetlands are given special attention in this evaluation process, which 

 also applies to non-wetland areas. 112 / Permits for activities in wetlands 

 are not given if the wetland performs one or more of the functions identi- 

 fied earlier. The two questions the District Engineer must answer are whether 

 the proposed activity is dependent on wetland resources and environments, and 

 whether feasible alternative sites are available. 113 / If the activity is not 

 water-dependent and alternative sites are available, a permit is only awarded 

 when strong public benefits can be demonstrated. 



The recent history of this program is summarized In the following statis- 

 tics. In FY80, approximately 17,700 applications requiring individual permits 

 or letters of permission were received and 15,000 permits were issued. Both 



111 / Hill, Jr., Lt. Col. John R. Corps of Engineers Efforts Related to 

 Wetland Protection. In Proceedings — National Wetlands Protection Symposium. 

 FWS/0BS—78/97. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.S. Govt. 

 Print. Off., 1978. p. 129. 



112 / It is important to remember that a percentage of 404 permit requests 

 do not deal directly with wetland areas; the exact percentage, however, is 

 unknown . 



113 / Hill, Corps of Engineers, p. 129. 



