No net loss wetlands policy

Last updated

"No net loss" is the United States government's overall policy goal regarding wetlands preservation. The goal of the policy is to balance wetland loss due to economic development with wetlands reclamation, mitigation, and restorations efforts, so that the total acreage of wetlands in the country does not decrease, but remains constant or increases. [1] [2] To achieve the objective of no net loss, the federal government utilizes several different environmental policy tools which legally protect wetlands, provide rules and regulations for citizens and corporations interacting with wetlands, and incentives for the preservation and conservation of wetlands. Given the public benefits provided by wetland ecosystem services, such as flood control, nutrient farming, habitat, water filtration, and recreational area, [3] the estimations that over half the acreage of wetlands in the United States has been lost within the last three centuries is of great concern to local, state, and federal agencies as well as the public interest they serve.

Contents

Wetland in Everglades National Park Everglades National Park cypress.jpg
Wetland in Everglades National Park

Origins

Since the 18th century, wetland area has decreased from nearly 220 million acres (890,000 km2) in the lower 48 states to 107.7 million acres (436,000 km2) in 2004. [4] Since the 1950s, over fifty percent of this loss has come from wetlands being transitioned to agricultural lands. [5] Other contributing factors to wetlands loss include but are not limited to development and forestry.

No net loss as a goal for wetland's policy was recommended in 1987 at the National Wetlands Policy Forum [6] and was first adopted by President George H.W. Bush administration in 1989. The policy, which represented compromise between development and conservation, was grounded on the needs to protect the wetlands by creating and restoring the wetlands. The United States is not the only nation interested in the conservation of wetlands: international cooperation exists in the form of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

Definition

No net loss is a mitigation policy goal aiming to prevent and offset the destruction or degradation of wetlands. Under this bi-partisan policy, wetlands currently in existence are to be conserved if possible. No net loss is achieved through a coordinated effort of: [7]

No net loss policy under past administrations


"No net loss" of wetlands was first adopted as a national goal under Jimmy Carter's administration in 1977 under the Executive Order 11990. George H. W. Bush’s administration in 1989, after he campaigned on the policy, emphasized three elements on its policy: strengthening the wetland conservation and acquisition measures, revising the delineation manual, improving and streamlining the wetlands regulatory program. [8] All of these measures are aimed at maintaining wetlands quantity and quality of national wetland resources.

Bill Clinton

During his presidency, Bill Clinton's administration reiterated the same pledge by endorsing and updating the no net loss policy. The Clinton Administration’s commitment was to increase the fairness and flexibility, as well as speed of permit issuances over dredged or fill materials into waters as a part of the implementation of the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It also aimed to resolve the differences in the delineation of wetlands area. Finally, the administration committed to increasing funding for wetland restoration measures, such as Wetland Reserve Program under the USDA, voluntary wetlands restoration programs, non-regulatory conservation initiatives, and mitigation banks. [9] The Clinton administration's 1998 Clean Water Action Plan aimed for a net gain of 100,000 acres (400 km2) of wetlands each year. [10]

George W. Bush

The administration of George W. Bush endorsed the no net loss goal in December 2002, when it released the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan. This plan outlined improvements to be implement in wetland protection and mitigation by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Highway Administration. [11] Additional action by the Bush administration includes a push to clarify and redefine wetlands under the Clean Water Act. This proposal, published on January 10, 2003 guided federal agencies to not require Clean Water Act permits for non-navigable and isolated wetlands.

Barack Obama

Following the lead of the previous three presidential administrations, Barack Obama also pledged his commitment to no net loss. The Obama administration increased funding of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to ensure no net loss operation, however funding has been cut in the current budget. [12] Obama campaigned to amend the Clean Water Act and to extend the Swampbuster program, however these commitments have yet to be followed-through with. Barack Obama’s administration additionally is working with Congress to amend the Clean Water Act so that isolated wetlands will fall under the Act’s protection. [13]

Policy instruments

In an effort to meet the United States' policy objectives under the International Ramsar Convention and the national goal of no net loss of wetlands, a variety of policy instruments are utilized within and between the federal, state and local spheres as well as the private sector. Due to the fact that 70% of wetlands [14] are located on private lands, cooperation between government agencies and landholders is a critical component of most policy implementation approaches.

Federal

Command and Control Regulation under the Clean Water Act

Under the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution, the federal government derives authority to regulate pollution of United States waters if interstate commerce is affected. The Clean Water Act (CWA), in particular §404, regulates discharge into "waters of the United States". Permitting is required under the CWA §404 for activities that dredge or fill in this jurisdiction, which can include wetlands. [15] Under this permitting program, environmental impacts are to be avoided if possible, reduced and mitigated if necessary. [16] Permits are limited to a maximum period of five years and use public notice and comment procedures. While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues the permit, responsibility for enforcement is shared between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. [17] [18] However, the scope of what constitutes a wetland and thus what falls under CWA command and control regulation has changed over time. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have impacted the definition of wetlands under the Clean Water Act:

Rapanos et ux, et al v. United States (2006)
  • determination of whether or not a wetland falls under the definitions of "water of the United States" was not limitless [19]
  • wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are "waters of the United States"
  • no clear definition of navigable waters or majority opinion so jurisdiction under the CWA if one of the following two standards is met: [20]
    • Justice Kennedy’s Test: a "significant nexus" must be found between the wetland and traditional navigable waters
    • Plurality Test: a "continuous surface connection" needs to flow between the wetland and navigable waters
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2001)
  • rejection of migratory bird habitats to constitute as intrastate waters
  • determined the Migratory Bird Rule, under which the Army Corps of Engineers extended jurisdiction for §404 to include migratory bird habitat, was outside the scope of authority granted in the CWA [21]

Other key federal policy instruments

ProgramAgencyYear ImplementedPurpose
Conservation Reserve Program FSA Farm Bill [22] Conservation Easement
Wetlands Reserve Program NRCS 1990 Farm Bill Conservation Easement
Swampbuster Provision USDA 1985 Food Security Act [23] Converting wetlands to croplands results in a loss of federal funds
Migratory Bird Rule Army Corps of Engineers & EPA 1996Overturned by U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 [24] [25]
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act USFWS & State Wildlife Agencies1934Fee on consumptive use of waterfowl to fund conservation efforts (such as SWAP [26] )
§101, 303, 319, 402 of Clean Water Act EPA 1972Command and Control Regulations on discharge of pollutants into waterways
Water Bank Act [27] USDA 1970Allows trading of wetlands mitigation property rights
217 of Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA [28] ) EPA 1990Voluntary Program
EPA Grants [29] EPA VariousProvides direct funding for projects through a competitive grant process

Additional federal policy instruments include private-public sector collaborations such as educational efforts, conservation easement programs, land banking, [30] and numerous voluntary programs.

State

States government tools for addressing wetland protection, include but not limited to:

  1. police powers to regulate use of water and land
  2. zoning authority
  3. land use designation
  4. benchmarks regulating net gain or loss
  5. State Wetland Conservation Plans [31]
  6. wetlands mitigation banking (compensatory mitigation where wetlands credits are acquired through the restoration of wetland areas and can be used or sold through market trading) [32]

Local

Local Wetland Protection [33] Local governments tools for addressing wetland protection, include but are not limited to:

  1. stakeholder involvement
  2. Local Wetland Strategic Plans (outlining conservation opportunities, research, and wetlands management) [34]
  3. ordinances regarding protection, zoning and development plans
  4. local wetlands mitigation banking

Barriers to implementation

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Environmental Protection Agency</span> U.S. federal government agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States government tasked with environmental protection matters. President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Act</span> 1972 U.S. federal law regulating water pollution

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; recognizing the responsibilities of the states in addressing pollution and providing assistance to states to do so, including funding for publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Best management practice for water pollution</span> Term used in the United States and Canada to describe a type of water pollution control

Best management practices (BMPs) is a term used in the United States and Canada to describe a type of water pollution control. Historically the term has referred to auxiliary pollution controls in the fields of industrial wastewater control and municipal sewage control, while in stormwater management and wetland management, BMPs may refer to a principal control or treatment technique as well.

Mitigation banking is the preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC) of a wetland, stream, or habitat conservation area which offsets, or compensates for, expected adverse impacts to similar nearby ecosystems. The goal is to replace the exact function and value of specific habitats that would be adversely affected by a proposed activity or project. The public interest is served when enforcement agencies require more habitat as mitigation, often referred to as a mitigation ratio, than is adversely impacted by management or development of nearby acreage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of ship pollution in the United States</span>

In the United States, several federal agencies and laws have some jurisdiction over pollution from ships in U.S. waters. States and local government agencies also have responsibilities for ship-related pollution in some situations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wetlands of the United States</span>

Wetlands of the United States are defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Environmental Protection Agency as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetations typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Wetlands can be valued in terms of their contributions to ecological, economic and social systems. Wetlands service these systems through multiple processes including water filtration, water storage and biological productivity. They also contribute the functions of flood control, providing a nutrient sink, groundwater recharge and habitat.

To protect the environment from the adverse effects of pollution, many nations worldwide have enacted legislation to regulate various types of pollution as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of pollution. At the local level, regulation usually is supervised by environmental agencies or the broader public health system. Different jurisdictions often have different levels regulation and policy choices about pollution. Historically, polluters will lobby governments in less economically developed areas or countries to maintain lax regulation in order to protect industrialisation at the cost of human and environmental health.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), was a decision by the US Supreme Court that interpreted a provision of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Act requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "navigable waters," which is defined by the Act as "waters of the United States." That provision was the basis for the federal wetlands-permitting program.

The migratory bird rule, adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that the Clean Water Act (CWA) covers regulation of isolated waters "which are or would be used as habitat by... migratory birds that cross state lines." The rule was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nutrient pollution</span> Contamination of water by excessive inputs of nutrients

Nutrient pollution, a form of water pollution, refers to contamination by excessive inputs of nutrients. It is a primary cause of eutrophication of surface waters, in which excess nutrients, usually nitrogen or phosphorus, stimulate algal growth. Sources of nutrient pollution include surface runoff from farm fields and pastures, discharges from septic tanks and feedlots, and emissions from combustion. Raw sewage is a large contributor to cultural eutrophication since sewage is high in nutrients. Releasing raw sewage into a large water body is referred to as sewage dumping, and still occurs all over the world. Excess reactive nitrogen compounds in the environment are associated with many large-scale environmental concerns. These include eutrophication of surface waters, harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, acid rain, nitrogen saturation in forests, and climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water quality law</span>

Water quality laws govern the protection of water resources for human health and the environment. Water quality laws are legal standards or requirements governing water quality, that is, the concentrations of water pollutants in some regulated volume of water. Such standards are generally expressed as levels of a specific water pollutants that are deemed acceptable in the water volume, and are generally designed relative to the water's intended use - whether for human consumption, industrial or domestic use, recreation, or as aquatic habitat. Additionally, these laws provide regulations on the alteration of the chemical, physical, radiological, and biological characteristics of water resources. Regulatory efforts may include identifying and categorizing water pollutants, dictating acceptable pollutant concentrations in water resources, and limiting pollutant discharges from effluent sources. Regulatory areas include sewage treatment and disposal, industrial and agricultural waste water management, and control of surface runoff from construction sites and urban environments. Water quality laws provides the foundation for regulations in water standards, monitoring, required inspections and permits, and enforcement. These laws may be modified to meet current needs and priorities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonpoint source water pollution regulations in the United States</span>

Nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution regulations are environmental regulations that restrict or limit water pollution from diffuse or nonpoint effluent sources such as polluted runoff from agricultural areas in a river catchments or wind-borne debris blowing out to sea. In the United States, governments have taken a number of legal and regulatory approaches to controlling NPS effluent. Nonpoint water pollution sources include, for example, leakage from underground storage tanks, storm water runoff, atmospheric deposition of contaminants, and golf course, agricultural, and forestry runoff.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States regulation of point source water pollution</span> Overview of the regulation of point source water pollution in the United States of America

Point source water pollution comes from discrete conveyances and alters the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of water. In the United States, it is largely regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other things, the Act requires dischargers to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to legally discharge pollutants into a water body. However, point source pollution remains an issue in some water bodies, due to some limitations of the Act. Consequently, other regulatory approaches have emerged, such as water quality trading and voluntary community-level efforts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wetland conservation in the United States</span>

Over the past 200 years, the United States has lost more than 50% of its wetlands. And even with the current focus on wetland conservation, the US is losing about 60,000 acres (240 km2) of wetlands per year. However, from 1998 to 2004 the United States managed a net gain of 191,750 acres (776.0 km2) of wetlands . The past several decades have seen an increasing number of laws and regulations regarding wetlands, their surroundings, and their inhabitants, creating protections through several different outlets. Some of the most important have been and are the Migratory Bird Act, Swampbuster, and the Clean Water Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014</span> United States legislation

The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 is a bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) from implementing or enforcing certain proposed regulations regarding the use of the nation’s waters and wetlands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Rule</span> 2015 EPA regulation

The Clean Water Rule is a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands which have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over the act's scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.

The Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act was passed by the New Jersey Legislature on July 1, 1987, to "preserve the purity and integrity of freshwater wetlands from random, unnecessary or undesirable alteration or disturbance." This statute extended state and federal protection of waterways. Prior to this act, only coastal and navigable waters were protected. The act extended protection to inland waterways and freshwater wetlands, which serve to protect water quality, provide flood protection, and provide habitat for wildlife.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

References

  1. "Nowhere near no net loss" (PDF). National Wildlife Federation. Retrieved 31 March 2011.[ dead link ]
  2. "No Net Loss Policy" (PDF). University of Florida Law.[ dead link ]
  3. "EPA Wetlands Fact Sheet". Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 31 March 2011.[ dead link ]
  4. Copeland, Claudia. "Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 30 March 2011.
  5. Hansen, Leroy. "AREI Chapter 2.3: Wetlands: Status and Trends". USDA Agricultural Research Service. Retrieved 1 April 2011.[ dead link ]
  6. "History of Federal Involvement in Wetlands" (PDF). THE Ohio State University. Retrieved 31 March 2011.
  7. "660 FW 1, Wetlands Policy and Action Plan". USFWS. Retrieved 30 April 2011.[ dead link ]
  8. Heimlich, Ralph. "Wetlands Policy in Clean Water Act" (PDF).[ dead link ]
  9. Blumm, Michael. "The Clinton Wetlands Plan: No Net Gain in Wetlands Protection".[ dead link ]
  10. "Clean Water Action Plan". US EPA. Retrieved 31 March 2011.
  11. "National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan" (PDF). US EPA. Retrieved 31 March 2011.[ dead link ]
  12. "DOI Budget FY2011" (PDF). DOI. Retrieved 31 March 2011.[ dead link ]
  13. "BARACK OBAMA: SUPPORTING THE RIGHTS AND TRADITIONS OF SPORTSMEN" (PDF). BarackObama.com. Retrieved 31 March 2011.[ dead link ]
  14. "NRCS Testimony" (PDF). NRCS.[ dead link ]
  15. "Federal Wetland Policies and National Trends" (PDF). US Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 31 March 2011.[ dead link ]
  16. US Fish and Wildlife Service. "Clean Water Act Section 404" . Retrieved 30 April 2011.[ dead link ]
  17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Wetlands Enforcement" . Retrieved 1 May 2011.[ dead link ]
  18. U.S. EPA. "Section 404 Permitting" . Retrieved 2 May 2011.
  19. Supreme Court of the United States. "Rapanos et ux, et al v. United States" (PDF). Retrieved 1 May 2011.[ dead link ]
  20. US Army Corps of Engineers & EPA. "Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States" (PDF). Retrieved 2 May 2011.[ dead link ]
  21. Supreme Court of the United States. "Solid Waste Agency of Northern et al Cook Cty v. United States Army Corps of Engineers" (PDF). Retrieved 1 May 2011.[ dead link ]
  22. "Food, Agricultural, Conservation and Trade Act".[ dead link ]
  23. "MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT".[ dead link ]
  24. Meltz, Robert. "The Supreme Court Addresses Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction Over "Isolated Waters": The SWANCC Decision". Archived from the original on 17 June 2011. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
  25. "1996+migratory+bird+blue+law*wetlands" "1996 migratory bird rule".
  26. "SWAP". USFWS. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
  27. "Water Bank Act". USFWS. Retrieved 28 April 2011.[ dead link ]
  28. "CZARA". EPA. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
  29. "EPA Grants" . Retrieved 2 May 2011.[ dead link ]
  30. Powers, Elizabeth. "Land Banking" (PDF). Retrieved 2 May 2011.
  31. US EPA. "What is a State Wetland Conservation Plan?".[ dead link ]
  32. U.S. EPA. "Mitigation Banking Factsheet" . Retrieved 1 May 2011.[ dead link ]
  33. Turner, Marjut; et al. "WATERSHEDSS: Water, Soil and Hydro-Environmental Decision Support System". North Carolina State University.[ dead link ]
  34. ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIRD OBSERVATORY and the PRAIRIE AND WETLANDS FOCUS AREA COMMITTEE. "PRAIRIE AND WETLANDS FOCUS AREA STRATEGIC PLAN" (PDF). Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  35. King, Dennis. "The dollar value of wetlands" (PDF). Retrieved 30 April 2011.[ dead link ]
  36. King, Dennis. "kingeconomics.com" (PDF). Environmental Law Institute. Retrieved 2 May 2011.[ dead link ]
  37. "The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Resolution IX.4 Annex: The Ramsar Convention and Conservation, Production and Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources" (PDF).
  38. "SOIL CARBON AND MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES AT MITIGATED AND LATE SUCCESSIONAL BOTTOMLAND FOREST WETLANDS" (PDF).