February 1997 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Nationwide Wetland Permits

"The changes the Army Corps is making to the nationwides (see opposite) are definitely improvements, but you can't get away from the fact that the overall goal of the nationwide permit system is to streamline permitting for development in wetland areas. Many of the nationwides are just piece-mealing wetlands away. The Corps has never provided adequate information to support the claim that there is no significant cumulative impact.

"The other problem with the nationwides is they've never taken into account special regional circumstances, such as the fact that California is a semi-arid state where we've already lost 90% of our wetlands. Activities that may be acceptable for states like Florida or Louisiana may be totally inappropriate here. Nationwide number 26 is absolutely the worst, so I am delighted that the Corps is reducing the acreages involved and eliminating it entirely in two years-I only wish they were eliminating it sooner. "But 26 is only one nationwide. There are still others that are going to continue to cause significant adverse impacts to wetlands and aquatic sites. The second worst one is probably 29, which is designed for single family homes and allows for up to one-half acre of fill in non-tidal wetlands. It's unacceptable. There is nowhere in California where I feel it would be appropriate to build homes on wetlands.

"I also have problems with permit 13, which allows fill placement of up to 500 linear feet for bank stabilization. There is no requirement for mitigation, and there is no assurance that the same ends couldn't be accomplished without fill. The nationwide that allows for fill of up to one-third acre for road crossing is also a concern. There are many wetlands where a third of an acre is a major loss, and in other places, small incremental losses can add up to losses we really can't afford.

"Except for the nationwides that cover things like aids to navigation, scientific measurement devices, and mooring buoys, I think most of the activities covered by the nationwides should require individual permits.

By Barbara Salzman, Marin Audubon Society

Barbara Salzman is a long-time Bay Area wetland activist who also serves on the Board of Friends of the Estuary.

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project