7377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

restoration and creation, expecting some failures in the interest of furthering the science at the expense of the no net loss goal? or do we deny permits because successful mitigation has not been demonstrated? These are not easy questions. How do we measure progress towards the goal? The forum says by acreage and function. But how do we measure function? Functions are difficult or extremely work-intensive to measure. Consequently we use acreage as a surrogate, and prefer that the restoration, creation, or enhancement be of the same type of wetland as that lost through the permit. This is the ideal but, in reality, not always achievable. Do we accept preservation of wetlands as acceptable mitigation? It is obvious that wetlands preservation has great value and benefit to the environment. The proposal now is to accept preser- vation in only certain circumstances because the short-term result could be a net loss of wetlands. And what about mitigation banking? In concept this may be a forward thinking proposal, but the elements of implementation are complex and not yet well-developed. Who will be the sponsor of the bank -- the one with the financial means and the scientific expertise to oversee the design, moni- toring, and maintenance of wetlands? How will this sponsor account for the success of the mitigation, and how will corrective action be financed if the mitigation efforts fail? What accounting method will be used to establish an equitable and repli- cable wetlands debit and credit system? These questions must be addressed in the design of a successful bank. And I think we must have mitiga- tion banking to have a successful no net loss policy. LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES One legislative initiative that may help attain the no net loss goal is the Farm Conservation and Water Protection Act of 1989 recently introduced in the Senate. The bill, among other things, would establish within the Department of Agriculture a wetland restoration program. The program would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into permanent easement contracts with landowners, compensate the owner and share with the owner the cost of wet- lands restoration, if necessary. The easement would prohibit alteration of wildlife habitat and other natural features, agricultural crop produc- tion, grazing of livestock, spraying of the land with chemicals and any activities on adjacent land that would interfere with or decrease the wetland functions of the easement land. The owners would implement a conservation plan established by the Soil Conservation Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The easement contract program would apply to at least 1,000,000 acres of eligible land. There will be other legislation for wetlands protection. We can obviously use the help. CONCLUSION Clearly, we are in the midst of a ground- breaking phase of wetland program development. It is an exciting time in wetlands protection, and we need the combined cooperation of federal, state, and local agencies, the public, and the regulated community to protect these precious ecological systems. 31