Statewide Wetlands Strategies

By World Wildlife Fund and Mark Rorner

Statewide Wetlands Strategies offers comprehensive strategies that draw upon all levels of government and the private sector to focus and coordinate efforts to work toward the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Island Press
• Release date: Apr 24, 2013
• ISBN: 9781610913270

Book preview

Appendixes

Preface

Wetlands have become one of the most controversial environmental issues of our time. Recent disagreements about the definition of wetlands and the government’s authority to regulate wetlands on private property have thrust them into the forefront of environmental debate. Around the country government officials are deluged with complaints about current wetlands programs: many claim that regulatory programs are too restrictive and burdensome for landowners, while others assert that these programs are not tough enough to protect wetlands adequately. What is clear amid all the controversy is the dissatisfaction with the current situation and the urgent need for change.

This guidebook offers a new approach to wetlands conservation-comprehensive statewide wetlands strategies. We believe this approach holds enormous potential for addressing the current controversies. It is both more inclusive and more responsive to regional and local needs than current approaches. It draws on all levels of government and the private sector to focus and coordinate efforts to work toward the goal of no net loss of wetlands.

The guidance we provide on developing statewide wetlands strategies draws on World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF’s) work over the past five years to develop practical solutions to address the problem of wetlands loss. In 1987, The Conservation Foundation, now incorporated into WWF, convened the National Wetlands Policy Forum. This diverse group—representing industry, government, farming, ranching, and environmental concerns—reached a historic consensus on over 100 recommendations for improving wetlands protection. It was the Forum that first proposed the goal of no net loss of wetlands.

The Forum’s recommendations provide the foundation for this guidebook. In searching for the best way to translate these recommendations into action, the Forum focused on states and encouraged them to take the lead in wetlands protection by developing comprehensive programs to achieve no net loss. This guidebook expands on this idea and provides general guidelines for developing such a comprehensive strategy.

In developing this idea and writing the guidebook, we worked closely with state and local wetlands program managers, federal agencies, wetlands scientists, and public policy specialists. We began our research with a workshop in September 1990 to help clarify what a statewide wetlands strategy should be, and to determine what kind of guidance states would need to undertake such a strategy. The workshop brought together 25 participants from 17 states, two municipalities, and several federal agencies. Following the workshop we convened a nine-member state advisory committee to steer our research efforts and ensure that the guidebook would best meet the needs of the states.

We believe that states can play a vital role in changing the trends of the past—in reversing the pattern of wetlands destruction to achieve no net loss and eventual net gain of the nation’s wetlands resource. This guidebook was put together to help states recognize the great opportunities for improving wetlands protection and to address the challenges they will face along the way.

Acknowledgments

As with many projects, this one continued to expand throughout its life, as did the number of people involved. The stalwart guiding light throughout the project, however, was the state advisory committee. In addition to working overtime to manage wetlands programs in their states, our advisory committee showed an unflagging commitment to improving wetlands protection by constantly helping us sort through issues, focus our efforts, and provide us with reality checks: They also had the courage and fortitude to wade through the voluminous first draft of the guidebook. Our sincere thanks to all the advisory committee members for their invaluable help.

This project was directed by Heidi Sherk. It was through her vision, perseverance, and good humor that the project came to fruition. Paul DeLong, Nancy Fishbein, Debra Prybyla, and Rebecca Skidmore also invested long hours of hard work in preparing the draft. Robert McCoy and Martha Cooley edited the manuscript, and helped see it through production. Terry Selby-Colburn assisted in producing the manuscript. Staff from RESOLVE, (an independent program of WWF), facilitated the September 1990 workshop, and Part II is based on RESOLVE’s consensus-building experience over the past 15 years.

Jon Kusler, a member of the advisory group and executive director of the Association of State Wetland Managers, provided WWF staff with important guidance throughout the project. In addition, U.S. EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and their Environmental Research Lab helped to refine our efforts by commenting on numerous drafts of the guidebook.

This project would not have been possible without the generous support of our funders. Major funding was provided by The Florence and John Schumann Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional funding was provided by the H. John Heinz III Charitable Trust, and Scott and Penny Barnes. We are grateful for their support.

James P Leape

Senior Vice President

State Advisory Committee

Mary E. Burg, Washington State Department of Ecology

David Burke, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

David Chambers, Office of the Governor (Louisiana)

Scott Hausmann, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Marvin Hubbell, Illinois Department of Conservation

Christy Foote-Smith, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers

Patricia Riexinger, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

David Saveikis, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Other State, Local, and Federal Advisors

Ken Bierly, Oregon Division of State Lands

Peg Bostwick, Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Tom Calnan, Texas General Land Office

Linda Cooper, Yorktown Conservation Board (New York)

Steve Gordon, Lane Council of Governments (Oregon)

Peter Grenell, California Coastal Conservancy

Tom Talley, Tennessee State Planning Office

U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (J. Glenn Eugster, Sherri Fields, Dianne Fish, Thomas Kelsch, Menchu Martinez, Doreen Robb, Lori Williams)

Principal Authors

Introduction

Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers

Heidi Sherk, WWF

Part I: Creating a Statewide Wetlands Strategy

1 Setting a Direction

David Burke, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Heidi Sherk, WWF

2 Developing a Strategy

John G. Jennings, environmental and energy consultant

Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers

Heidi Sherk, WWF

Part II: Organizing a Strategy Development Process

Paul DeLong, WWF (formerly RESOLVE)

Part III: Mechanisms for Protecting and Managing Wetlands

1 Introduction

Rebecca Skidmore, WWF

2 Federal Mechanisms

Debra Prybyla, WWF

3 State Mechanisms

Barbara McCabe, FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems

Sean McCabe, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council

Patty Metzger, FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems

4 Local Mechanisms

Luther Propst, Sonoran Institute

5 Private Mechanisms

Donnelle Keech, WWF

Rebecca Skidmore, WWF

Part IV: Wetlands Data Sources and Collection Methods

1 Introduction

Robert Brooks, Pennsylvania State University

Nancy Fishbein, WWF

2 Review of Sources and Methods

Paul Adamus, ManTech Environmental Technology

Appendixes

A Existing No Net Loss Goals

Terrence Hines, WWF

Christina Halvorson, WWF

B Examining Existing Programs

Nancy Fishbein, WWF

C Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

John G. Jennings, environmental and energy consultant

D Measuring No Net Loss

David Burke, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

WWF Research Assistants

Christina Halvorson

Leslie Harroun

Terrence Hines

WWF Reviewers

Donald Barry

Gail Bingham

James P Leape

Michael O’Connell

Production Staff

Jean Bernard, proofreader

Martha Cooley, editor

Robert McCoy, senior editor

Allison Rogers, assistant editor

Terry Selby-Colburn, production assistant

Rings-Leighton Limited, typesetting and graphic design

Lisa Wilcox-Deyo, illustrator

Introduction

e9781610913270_i0003.jpg

State officials in Michigan have spent a year disputing federal authorities and a developer about the impact of a golf course project on a wetland and adjacent river. Landowners on Maryland’s Eastern Shore claim that new wetlands regulations now leave their lands undevelopable; costly, time-consuming litigation lies ahead. Farmers, developers, landowners, and highway departments across the nation feel that they bear an unfair burden for our belated recognition of the value of wetlands and the confusion about how we will protect them. Yet, no matter how the issues are finally resolved, states have the most to gain by clearing up the current disarray.

In the United States, we continue to lose 290,000 acres of wetlands each year, an area almost half the size of Rhode Island.¹ Programs to protect wetlands lack consistency, predictability, and timeliness. Local, state, and federal guidelines often conflict, and no program can be effective and fair under these circumstances. Meanwhile, we lose productive wildlife habitat, groundwater quality, and flood control, and state officials remain mired in time-consuming conflicts reconciled case by case.

This guidebook describes a process for putting wetlands programs in order through a comprehensive strategy. A statewide wetlands strategy:

draws clear guidelines that eliminate confusion;

brings all interested parties into the decision-making process before conflicts become intractable;

streamlines existing state and local programs to address gaps and shortcomings;

dovetails with federal programs where possible;

makes better use of staff and financial resources; and

creates a coherent plan to protect wetlands tailored to the state’s particular needs.

States are uniquely positioned to take the lead on wetlands because they occupy a middle ground between local jurisdictions that are often strongly influenced by a few relatively powerful players and the federal government, which often cannot meet local needs with appropriate flexibility. States are in a position to find creative solutions and strike a balance. At present, states are also displaying the greatest initiative in wetlands policy and a conviction that wetlands are vital to their economic and ecological health.

What Is a Comprehensive Statewide Wetlands Strategy?

A comprehensive statewide wetlands strategy is an organizational tool to identify opportunities to make programs work better. It is not intended to be a land-use plan for wetlands or a new level of bureaucracy. It is simply a process for bringing together citizens, government officials, development interests, and others to help identify the state’s specific wetlands problems and to develop workable and equitable solutions that achieve wetlands protection goals.

The National Wetlands Policy Forum

In 1988, a group of industry and government leaders, farmers, and environmentalists came together to brainstorm and debate measures to improve wetlands protection. In a year and a half, the National Wetlands Policy Forum agreed on over 100 policy improvements to protect wetlands while reducing unnecessary frustrations with regulatory programs. Its members found that an overall goal for wetlands protection was necessary to provide the consistency and focus missing from current wetlands protection efforts.

Think of a strategy as a process that is constantly evolving, not as a plan that will be completed and filed away on the shelf.

The Forum recommended an overall goal of no net loss and long-term net gain—a goal that reflects a sense of urgency yet provides flexibility to accommodate the need for economic growth. This goal was seen as a strong foundation on which to build equitable and effective wetlands policies.

Forum members agreed that comprehensive statewide wetlands strategies were the best way to implement no net loss. State strategies provide three key elements necessary to achieve the goal: a comprehensive approach, flexibility, and a regional focus.

A comprehensive approach can address all threats to wetlands (not just the most conspicuous) and mobilize a broad array of programs from the government and private sector.

A flexible approach recognizes the many ways to achieve no net loss. Statewide wetlands strategies do not prescribe a solution but encourage the use of a combination of programs and approaches suited to each state.

A regional focus allows the most challenging issues, such as conflicts between developers and environmentalists, to be resolved where site-specific information can be gathered and where customized solutions can be reached.

Involve all interests in strategy development.

Why States Should Take the Lead

States are well-positioned to implement wetlands protection and management programs. They have experience in managing environmental programs such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. States are equipped to help resolve local conflicts flexibly and can identify the local economic and geographic factors that lead to wetlands losses. Working with local governments, states can integrate wetlands conservation into comprehensive landuse plans. States can also promote private stewardship of wetlands through a variety of nonregulatory measures, including property tax incentives, local land trusts, and zoning techniques such as transfer of development rights.

At present, states hold the most promise for mustering the political will necessary to achieve the comprehensive reforms that no net loss will require. Although President Bush’s endorsement of the goal of no net loss has helped focus public attention on the issue, progress in implementing no net loss at the federal level has been slow.

Many states, in contrast, have been making steady progress toward no net loss. The National Governors’ Association set the tone by unanimously endorsing the goal soon after the Forum issued its final report. Washington, Delaware, and South Carolina convened state-level wetlands forums to develop recommendations for state action. In April 1989, Maryland passed the first state wetlands legislation with an explicit goal of no net loss. Louisiana has initiated an aggressive coastal wetlands restoration program funded by a state trust fund. In spite of difficult opposition, these states and others have found common ground and made great strides—educating the public, balancing interests, and developing innovative programs.

Elements of a Statewide Strategy

There is no recipe for developing a statewide strategy, nor will any two strategies look alike. To be successful, however, statewide strategies should contain the following elements:

An overall goal. An overall goal is the glue that holds the strategy together. We encourage states to adopt the goal of no net loss and long-term net gain. This goal ensures the vigorous protection of wetlands and provides a specific benchmark for assessing the effectiveness of a strategy. It also recognizes that some wetlands will be altered but requires that these alterations be fully compensated.

Information about a state’s wetlands (i.e., where they are located, what type) and the threats that put these wetlands at risk. Clearly, the more information a state has about where wetlands are located and why they are being lost, the easier it will be to address the problem. However, years of research are unnecessary. A strategy based on existing data can call for future research where needed.

An assessment of current wetlands protection efforts. To understand a state’s capability to address wetland loss, one must know the strengths and shortcomings of current programs. An assessment can help states decide how to eliminate gaps, inconsistency, and overlap and identify opportunities for coordinating programs.

An action plan. Based on a state’s existing programs and specific needs, an action plan can address shortcomings identified by the assessment and draw on the help of government and the private sector. For instance, a state may choose to develop a joint permitting process if the assessment shows that multiple agencies (floodplain, storm-water sediment control, zoning) require permits for activities in wetlands. Existing federal and state subsidy programs that pay landowners to protect wetlands can be targeted to fill the gaps in coverage of existing regulatory programs. Where economic development is being derailed by wetlands protection, local governments can be encouraged to use flexible zoning techniques to increase the density of development in less environmentally sensitive areas. Government and private resources can be combined to restore wetlands as part of an effort to control nonpoint source pollution.

Focus on finding opportunities and innovative ways to improve wetlands protection (e.g., link wetlands protection with other natural resource protection efforts).

State Approaches to Wetlands Protection

California‘s Coastal Conservancy provides technical and financial assistance to land trusts working to protect wetlands.

Maryland has a statutory no net loss goal for nontidal wetlands and has created a sophisticated Geographic Information System for mapping wetland areas.

In Alaska, Juneau and Anchorage have developed local wetlands management plans.

Illinois has a statutory no net loss goal that applies to public projects and activities and an extensive computerized wetlands mapping system.

Washington helps local governments improve ordinances to better protect wetlands and has developed wetlands educational materials, including videotapes and curricula guides.

Connecticut’s centralized data coordination, gathering, storage, and analysis capability includes wetlands as one component and provides information to all agencies and local governments.

Wisconsin has digitized wetlands and floodplain maps. In southeastern Wisconsin, wetlands and associated watersheds are being protected through regional planning and environment corridor approaches that include extensive use of conservation and scenic easements.

Oregon encourages local governments to develop comprehensive plans to protect wetlands.

New York has detailed maps of tidal and freshwater wetlands with notice to landowners, an adopt a wetland stewardship program, and an aggressive restoration program.

New Jersey’s freshwater wetlands legislation establishes wetlands buffer requirements. The state has also established special state agencies and special management areas to protect particular wetlands, including the Pinelands and Hackensack Meadowlands.

Ohio uses its authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act to protect wetlands.

Minnesota adopted a new wetlands law in 1991 that includes an easement program, education and training grants, a state regulatory program, and property-tax exemptions.

Massachusetts, the first state to adopt a wetlands protection statute, is mapping its wetlands statewide and notifying all landowners with wetlands on their property.

Florida uses critical area legislation to designate and protect larger wetland complexes (e.g., Big Cypress) and has an aggressive program to acquire wetlands and other sensitive lands.

Michigan has assumed the federal Section 404 program and uses a combination of shoreline zoning, wetland regulation, and lake protection and management to protect wetlands.

A funding strategy. Even if an action plan does not call for new programs, a state may still need additional funds. Budget deficits and competition for use compel states to look to a wide variety of revenue-generating mechanisms and nontraditional sources of funding, including programs not specifically designed for wetlands, such as federal grants for nonpoint source pollution control.

Consider Implementation and funding every step of the way.

A monitoring and evaluation plan. To protect a state’s investment in wetlands protection, an accounting system must be established to measure wetlands gains and losses and monitor progress. This can help point out deficiencies in the strategy and suggest adjustments.

The Role of the Federal Government

A stronger role for states will not supplant the need for federal involvement. A strong federal regulatory program can complement and support a state strategy and provide a safety net to ensure a minimum level of wetlands protection across the country. Federal regulation as well as acquisition, incentives, and research will continue to make important contributions to wetlands protection. In addition, federal resources can help states develop strategies. Grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are funding the development of strategies in 10 states.

A wetlands strategy should ensure that a state gets the most out of federal programs. As a state develops its strategy, it should identify what federal programs currently affect its wetlands. It may be possible to leverage federal resources to help achieve state goals. States should coordinate efforts with federal programs where possible. State wetlands strategies should also work to modify federal programs that may be at odds with wetlands protection.

Avoid turf Issues among agencies by ensuring that all of them have clearly defined roles In strategy implementation.

Statewide Strategies and Section 404

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the major federal regulatory program to protect wetlands. Although strategies have a valuable role to play in increasing the effectiveness of this program—ensuring that it is implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy—linking strategies to state assumption of Section 404 suggests that the primary role of strategies lies in the regulatory program. This is not the case. Regulatory considerations should be only one component of the overall strategy, not the driving force.

Given the highly controversial nature of Section 404, an attempt to tie a state strategy to Section 404 assumption may also make this strategic process more difficult. A statewide wetlands strategy and Section 404 assumption are not, however, mutually exclusive. A state may decide that it wishes to assume responsibility for Section 404 as part of its plan for achieving its goals.

The Role of Local Governments

Local governments should play an extremely important role in developing and carrying out a statewide strategy. This level of government is closest to the local population and is often best equipped to represent its needs and concerns. Because local governments control most land-use decisions, they can also do much to promote wetlands protection. A statewide strategy should recognize and address local needs as well as encourage or require local governments to incorporate wetlands protection provisions into land-use plans and zoning ordinances (and where otherwise appropriate).

The Role of the Private Sector

Businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other representatives of the private sector should participate in the development of a wetlands strategy to ensure that their needs are incorporated into the state’s wetlands protection plan. Private organizations can also contribute significantly to carrying out a strategy. Private efforts to protect wetlands are diverse, ranging from corporate funding for restoration to educational tours. A successful strategy must look to the private sector and factor its resources into the process of achieving the strategy goal.

Why Undertake a Statewide Wetlands Strategy?

Why Wetlands Should Be Protected

We are coming to understand better every day the environmental and economic values of wetlands and why saving them is crucial to a prosperous future.²

Flood control. Wetlands detain floodwaters, reducing their size and destructiveness.

DuPage County, Illinois, is a rapidly developing suburban community approximately 30 miles west of Chicago. The county covers 332 square miles, of which approximately two-thirds were formally wetlands.... The Salt Creek watershed on the eastern side of the county currently has less than one percent of its wetlands remaining. This area now experiences frequent flood damage, mostly in the headwater areas above the flowing creek. These damages are directly traceable to the loss of the shallow basin wetlands. A catastrophic flood in 1987 caused, in just a few days, an estimated $120 million in damages to a few thousand residences in the lowest-lying areas. The county is now developing engineering works, including diversion of floodwaters into quarries, to replace the flood storage lost from the destruction of wetlands. These works will cost thetaxpayeran estimated $100 million (or$20,000 to $50,000 per damaged residence).

Water Quality. Wetlands absorb and filter pollutants that could otherwise degrade groundwater or the water quality of rivers, lakes, and estuaries.

Homeowners now face increased sewage-treatment costs to remove sediments and polluting nutrients whose source is increased runoff caused in part by loss of wetlands. The costs of modifying sewage treatment plants in Maryland and Virginia that discharge into the Chesapeake Bay have been estimated at more than $1 billion. For Long Island Sound, the working estimate of installing nutrient removal systems at all sewage treatment plants has been estimated to be at roughly $6 billion. Sewage treatment plants discharging into freshwater bodies face similar requirements, often with the focus on phosphorous, which is the primary nutrient of concern in freshwater.

Fisheries. Wetlands provide direct spawning and rearing habitat and food supply that support both freshwater and marine fisheries.

America’s fisheries are big business in both a commercial and recreational sense. Fish landed in 1990 had a direct, dockside value of $3.6 billion, which served as the base of a fishery processing and sales industry that generated total consumer expenditures of $26.7 billion. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that 71 percent of the value of commercial fish consists of species that need estuaries for reproduction, as nurseries for young fish, for food, or for migration.

The estuaries and rivers of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and northern California provide the main spawning and rearing areas for salmon in the contiguous United States....The magnitude of these salmon fisheries is indicated by their dollar values. In 1985, for example, the commercial salmon catch of Washington, Oregon, and northern California yielded salmon with a wholesale value of $143 million. This catch employed more than 16,000 fishermen in Washington, Oregon, and California, at least part-time.

Waterfowl Habitat. Wetlands provide the principal habitat for virtually all waterfowl.

The Rainwater Basin encompasses 4,200 square miles of prairie, mostly corn fields, within 17 counties of south central Nebraska. Although the area once contained at least 4,000 major wetlands basins and several smaller wetlands forming more than 200,000 acres, agricultural expansion has left no more than 34,000 acres of wetlands....Millions of waterfowl, however, use the basin every year. These include approximately 90 percent of the entire population of white-fronted geese, 50 percent of the breeding mallards, and 30 percent of the breeding northern pintail that use the mid-continental United States. A single wetland basin may contain more than 100,000 birds. Unfortunately, the loss of wetlands is crowding birds together in such a way as to trigger outbreaks of disease. More than 200,000 birds died of avian cholera between 1975 and 1990 alone.

e9781610913270_i0004.jpg

Biological Diversity. Wetlands provide important habitat for an enormous diversity of plants and animals, including a large portion of federally listed threatened or endangered species.

The Louisiana black bear, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed as threatened in early January 1992, inhabits bottomland forests in the lower Mississippi River Valley. Fewer than 100 are believed to remain. The principal reason for its endangerment has been habitat destruction; by 1980 over 80 percent of its habitat had disappeared. It suffers not just from loss of habitat, but also from a loss of contiguous habitat, so that, in general, any development that fragments portions of bottomland forests could have a highly disproportionate impact.

Groundwater Recharge. Some wetlands recharge aquifers that provide drinking water.

In many portions of North Dakota, temporary and seasonally flooded potholes tend to occur higher in the landscape, and water tends to percolate down and recharge groundwater....Groundwater is the drinking source for most rural North Dakotans. In various surveys, between 11 and 13 percent of North Dakota’s groundwater tested showed concentrates of nitrate above federal safe drinking water levels. The majority of all samples showed some nitrate contamination. Nationally it is estimated that 37 percent of the counties in the United States have nitrate contamination in the groundwater due to agricultural activities....Pothotes can absorb nitrogen by incorporating it into plant tissue and then absorbing the plant tissue into the buildup of organic soils.

Erosion and Land Formation. Wetlands stabilize shorelines and prevent erosion by binding stream banks and by absorbing wave energy. Wetlands also play an early and fundamental role in land formation, particularly in coastal areas that regularly lose land to the ocean.

In arid areas where inputs of sediment are high, cotton-willow wetlands systems play an important role in stabilizing streambanks.... When this vegetation is removed, streambanks collapse, leaving wide channels of sediment-filled murky water. The potential magnitude of this impact was shown during the arroyo-cutting of a turn-of-the century period of intensive land clearing and cattle grazing. Deprived of wetlands vegetation, channel beds of many western rivers decreased by several meters. The loss of these banks flattened out the stream so much that surface flow was actually lost in some stream reaches. Remaining vegetation was soon scoured away. Nearly a century later, rivers are still recovering.

e9781610913270_i0005.jpg

Recreation. Wetlands support a multibillion dollar fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation industry nationwide.

America’s greatest trout fisheries occur in the north-west and northern Rocky mountain states. More than 11 million people fished for trout (outside the Great Lakes) in 1985, for an average of roughly 15 days each, spending an estimated total $1.6 billion.... Recreational salmon anglers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California spent an estimated $109 million in 1985.

Problems in Wetlands Protection and How a Strategy Can Help

Wetlands are causing controversy in part because of their unique physical qualities. What allows them to perform their valuable functions also makes them tough to manage. They are sometimes difficult to identify because they are not wet year round; activities at other locations, such as upstream contamination or water diversions, can have a severe impact on them. In addition, our somewhat recent recognition that wetlands are valuable areas and not disease-infested swamps means that time will be required to change people’s s perceptions as well as public policy.

The problem of wetlands loss has not been ignored. There are an array of public and private programs to protect wetlands. However, these programs address only limited aspects of the problem and have been adopted haphazardly and incoherently. A strategy can remedy some of the major flaws of wetlands programs by addressing the following issues³

Conflicts between development and wetlands protection. Many times, clashes between development interests and wetlands protection are caused by uncertainty. A strategy can make great progress in resolving many of these conflicts. by anticipating problems and attempting to reconcile different needs. For example, a strategy can help to focus resources in areas of the state with high concentrations of wetlands to identify in advance where wetlands are located and areas that are suitable for development. In addition, representatives from the development community should be involved in creating a strategy, and help to ensure that it addresses their concerns and problems.

Failure to consider both land use and hydrology in wetlands protection. Wetlands are the interface between land and water, often falling under the jurisdictions of water (pollution and water supply) as well as land-use agencies. Because both land and water programs are critical to protecting wetlands, a statewide strategy can ensure that wetlands protection is considered in the management activities of a broad range of agencies.

Overreliance on regulatory programs. Although strong regulatory programs are necessary, they will never provide adequate wetlands protection. More emphasis should be given to encouraging private landowners (who own almost three-quarters of the wetlands in the lower 48 states) to protect these areas voluntarily. A statewide strategy, through good education programs and extensive use of economic incentives, can develop a complementary mix of regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to achieve no net loss.

Inadequate maps and other data. Good information is needed to help determine the location of wetlands, track trends, evaluate their functions, determine the probable impacts of various activities on wetlands, design restoration and creation efforts, and so on. A wetlands strategy can help gather this information efficiently and cost-effectively by identifying and compiling existing data from a variety of federal, state, and local sources and helping to identify areas where more information should be gathered. Moreover, a strategy can help identify the agency or agencies best equipped to gather, update, store, and analyze data and identify opportunities for multiagency funding or implementation, since managing information is an expensive and time-consuming task.

Inadequate tracking of permits and changes in wetlands. In most states, there has been little tracking of wetlands permits for compliance or of the success of restoration and creation efforts. A statewide wetlands strategy can establish such a tracking system by developing common reporting forms for wetlands, floodplain, coastal area, public water, and other agencies; by providing a centralized and geographically referenced depository for permits; and by requiring follow-up monitoring (perhaps on both a random and selected basis) utilizing the staff of each of the participating agencies.

Lack of wetlands protection policies for public lands. Most states do not have explicit wetlands policies for their public lands, such as wildlife refuges, parks, forests, recreation areas, and lands owned by public universities. A wetlands strategy could help establish general policies (e.g., buffer zones, avoidance of wetlands, mitigation) and multiagency procedures and cooperative agreements for evaluating impacts and restoring wetlands. In addition, a strategy could establish mechanisms for working with federal agencies to encourage the adoption of similar policies for federal land management.

Lack of policies for public infrastructure planning and development. In some states, public works agencies (highway, sewer and water, floodplain management) view wetlands protection as hindering projects and making them more expensive. Often, state wetlands regulatory programs do not apply to state public works projects or many federal or federally funded projects. A statewide wetlands strategy can establish a common policy for state public works agencies and projects—e.g., roads, highways, reservoirs, dredging, channelization, and pipelines—to provide greater certainty in decisionmaking and facilitate mitigation banking or joint mitigation projects.

Limited scope of regulatory programs. No wetlands statute regulates all activities in all wetlands. A strategy can draw not only on explicit wetlands regulatory statutes but on pollution control, sediment control, floodplain, solid waste disposal, incentive, and other programs to help fill the gaps in current protection efforts. In addition, most state wetlands statutes exempt existing uses, agriculture, and forestry. Networking wetlands protection with existing nonwetlands regulatory measures could help remedy these problems. For example, agricultural activities might be regulated pursuant to nonpoint source pollution control statutes, pesticide control statutes, or sediment control statutes.

Approach strategy development as a win-win opportunity for agencies and groups that have been frustrated in achieving their goals by lack of staff, budgets, political support, or common goals.

Duplication and inconsistencies in permitting . One of the biggest complaints about wetlands regulation is the inefficiency and frustration involved in having to apply separately for a local, state, and federal permit. A statewide wetlands strategy can help establish mechanisms for joint permitting, including a common application form or forms and perhaps a joint permitting board.

Limited budgets, staff, and expertise. Lack of funding, budgets, and expertise limits the effectiveness of most wetlands programs. A statewide wetlands strategy can make better use of available staff and experts in all agencies by setting up mechanisms such as joint compliance surveys by the staffs of wetlands, floodplain, and public waters agencies and joint permit processing involving several