32 



-3- 



What's wrong with the Clinton plan on Classification? 



The Clinton plan makes positive strides by recognizing, for purposes of watershed 

 management plans, that classification might be appropriate and by attempting to provide 

 some level of flexibility in the avoidance phase of sequencing. Unfortunately, the criteria 

 used to "allow flexibility" in the sequencing process appears to be so narrowly crafted that 

 only permits that would have probably qualified for general permits anyway can make 

 use of the new flexibility. 



The primary reason the Administration provides for not adopting a national Classification 

 system is administrative expense. I find it fascinating that dividing five percent of the 

 land mass of the continental United States into low, medium, and high is to difficult and 

 expensive when we are being asked to create a Biological Survey that is going to map 

 and evaluate every ecosystem and every species in the country. Yet the Secretary of 

 Interior tells me the Biological survey can have its initial assessments done in the next 

 several years. Why is the Biological Survey feasible and a wetlands classification system 

 not? 



The Administration should be commended for recognizing the importance of Non- 

 regulatory approaches for encouraging landowners to protect and enhance wetlands. The 

 plan also recognizes the importance of private sector initiatives through its commitment 

 to mitigation banking. More private sector initiatives should be encouraged. 



Appeals 



The only way to appeal an adverse decision in this program is in court. To even get to 

 court the permit applicant must get an outright permit denial. Then try to go to court 

 under the 5th amendment of the constitutions "takings clause". This is terribly time 

 consuming and unfair. 



What's wrong with the Clinton Plan on Appeals? 



The Administration should be commended for agreeing to set up an Administrative 

 Appeals system for delineation challenges, permit denials, and enforcement actions. In 

 order to properly address the shortcoming of the current system the plan must also allow 

 the applicant to challenge onerous permit requirements which amount to a defacto denial 

 of the permit. To do otherwise will continue the practice of not actually denying permits 

 but putting such onerous mitigation requirements in place that every permit becomes 

 economically impractical. 



