24 



But, that is a very different set of activities from going out and de- 

 lineating wetlands on their land. So it is a problem of underlying 

 experience and expertise; it is also a problem of being over- 

 extended, of course, because we have good people out there who can 

 be trained, maybe not as fully as necessary in all cases. But can 

 we go out and train all of them to do all of this work? That is an 

 open question. Where would the resources come from for us to do 

 that, given the broad range of responsibilities that we have today 

 already? 



Mr. Johnson. There has been some discussion recently about 

 taking a tiered or a prioritized approach to the regulation of wet- 

 lands, where wetlands which are determined to have a higher 

 value would have a greater degree of protection. Has the adminis- 

 tration been looking at some tiered approach, and are you aware 

 of this approach being utilized by the States? I wonder if you would 

 share with us any thoughts that you have on that particular ap- 

 proach. 



Mr. Hebert. I will defer to the EPA and the Corps of Engineers 

 to answer your question. 



Mr. Wayland. Mr. Chairman, the administration's August plan 

 acknowledges the importance of not, for regulatory purposes, treat- 

 ing all wetlands and all activities that occur in wetlands as if they 

 are equal. At the same time, there are tremendous difficulties with 

 trying to undertake a nationwide A priority categorization scheme. 

 That is true because the value of a wetland depends, in significant 

 part, on its place in the landscape, its relationship with uplands 

 and open water areas. So the administration plan advocates water- 

 shed planning as a scale at which, and a framework in which, we 

 can best understand and evaluate in advance the differing func- 

 tions and values of wetlands that can be incorporated into their 

 protection. 



However, at the time the plan was announced, we also issued a 

 memorandum to our field staff which reiterated the flexibility that 

 is present in the existing Clean Water Act. Section 404(b)(1) guide- 

 lines for decisionmakers, that as they evaluate individual permits, 

 to consider the value of the wetland and the impact of the activity 

 that is being proposed. So we would not expect the same rigor in 

 an alternatives analysis for a low impact project in a lower value 

 wetland as we would for a high impact project in a higher value 

 wetland. 



Mr. Johnson. We have just been warned of the 10-minute warn- 

 ing on a Journal vote. I think we best take care of that. 



Does the gentleman from Minnesota have any remaining ques- 

 tions for this panel to take up when we return? 



Mr. Peterson. No, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr, Johnson. All right. In light of that, I think then we will re- 

 cess the subcommittee to allow the members to vote and come back 

 promptly. I intend to pick up again as soon as I return. 



We thank this panel for your participation in this hearing. And 

 we will proceed to the next panel upon return. Thank you. 



[Recess taken.] 



Mr. Johnson. I bring the subcommittee back to order. 



We welcome the second panel which consists of Mr. Ron Jones, 

 director of the Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research 



