Estimated Exempt Wetlands submitted by the Walter J. Breckenridge Chapter

Sulfide Mining Sulfide Mining submitted by the Walter J. Breckenridge Chapter

Low GHG Transportation Fuels submitted by the Bush Lake Chapter

Flood Protection submitted the Prairie Woods Chapter

Comments Clean Water Cabinet - Brad Redlin

For more information please see the Clean Water Cabinet website: http://cwc.state.mn.us/

And in reviewing Brad Redlin's comments, it would be useful to see the draft document itself----it is at: http://cwc.state.mn.us/documents/CWC-Draft-FB-Conservation-Recommendations.pdf

Status of No Net Loss

Steve Kline, Conservation Associate, Izaak Walton League of America
Brad Redlin, Director of Agricultural Programs, Midwest Office, Izaak Walton League of America

There is little doubt about the important role that wetlands play in the overall functioning of a healthy ecosystem, and because of this critical role, President Bush has made two separate policy promises involving wetlands, the first was a "No Net Loss" of wetlands policy, and the second was a "Net Gain" of wetlands, which called for the restoration and/or creation of three million acres of wetlands in the next five years.

Since the announcement of these two companion policies, there has been some concern amongst various conservation groups, including the Izaak Walton League, that no real progress is being made toward reaching the goals of "No Net Loss" and "Net Gain" of wetlands. This policy briefing is meant to outline both what is and isn't being done to reach the goals the President committed to.

The Farm Bill, if fully funded and implemented, would be a great first step towards reaching the President's wetland goals. However, one of the Farm Bill programs that would do the most to benefit wetlands, the Wetlands Reserve Program, or WRP, seems to annually be on the appropriations' chopping block. The FY06 appropriations process has seen WRP acreage capped below the farm bill authorized 250,000 acres/year by both the House of Representatives and the Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee. This annual trend of capping WRP acreage flies in the face of both the "No Net Loss" and "Net Gain" policies. The President issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) prior to House debate this year indicating that he does not support the cap. Although, the administration's earlier FY06 budget proposal did cap WRP at 200,000 acres (as FY05 budget proposal also had). It is still unclear how the SAP will affect the final outcome of this issue.

The SWANCC issue, while no new rulemaking has been undertaken, still looms heavily over wetland conservation. With the Bush Administration's decision to not make a new rule, many in the conservation community thought that a major catastrophe had been avoided. While that may have been the case, the situation still remains unclear-not getting any worse, but also not getting markedly better. Some states, and lawmakers in Congress, have begun to interpret the rules of SWANCC for themselves, often times with potentially dire consequences for isolated wetlands. For instance, the Baker-Berry legislation (HR 2658) would take away protections for any isolated wetland not connected to a navigable waterway. While bills like these are not expected to go very far, if the President was truly committed to his new wetland policies, his administration would grant full protection to isolated wetlands with a new SWANCC rulemaking.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) funding is another boon to wetlands. NAWCA funding has seen moderate increases in each of the past few years, a trend that would have likely continued regardless of the President's policies.

Most professionals agree that enforcement of wetland regulations is unbelievably lacking. Under the 1985 Food Security Act, farmers risk losing federal farm payments if they do not apply conservation practices to reduce erosion or if they drain wetlands. But concerns about soil erosion and wetlands conversions continue. In fact, a GAO report from April 2003(1) states that "almost half of the Natural Resource Conservation Service's field offices do not implement the conservation provisions as required because they lack staff, management does not emphasize these provisions, or they are uncomfortable with their enforcement role." The report also recorded that, "In the process of selecting samples of cropland tracts to assess farmers' compliance, the Conservation Service disproportionately emphasizes tracts with little potential for noncompliance, such as permanent rangelands. This selection process leads to inflated compliance rates." And finally, the GAO report documented that, "the Farm Service Agency, the USDA agency responsible for withholding benefits for violations identified by the Conservation Service, often waives these noncompliance determinations without adequate justification."

One troublesome aspect of the FSA review process is that violations appeals go to FSA county boards made up of local farmers, often neighbors or acquaintances of those cited. So suffice it to say that without enforcement of existing rules, additional rules have little chance of being effective.

There are no easily accessible numbers that show a nationwide decline in wetland acreage. The National Academy of Sciences found that no federal agencies are accurately tracking wetlands to see if the losses each year are adequately compensated. Because of that, a panel of academic and government experts found, there is no way to assess whether the nation's goal of "no net loss" of wetlands-in terms of both acreage and function-is being met.(2) It seems that everything from implementation of wetland conservation programs to enforcement of wetland regulations is inadequate, and as long as that is the case, the "No Net Loss," and "Net Gain" policies are far from reality.

(1) GAO report GAO-03-418. "USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands." April 2003 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03418.pdf

(2) National Academies Press. "Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act." July 2001 http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074320/html