DOCSLIB.ORG

The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl Final Report September 2001 The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited, Inc. National Headquarters Mark Petrie, Ph.D. Jean-Paul Rochon, B.Sc. Great Lakes Atlantic Regional Office Gildo Tori, M.Sc. Great Plains Regional Office Roger Pederson, Ph.D. Southern Regional Office Tom Moorman, Ph.D. Copyright 2001 – No part of this document may be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 9, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. The decision reduces the protection of isolated wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which assigns the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Prior to the SWANCC decision, the Corps had adopted a regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” that afforded federal protection for almost all of the nation’s wetlands. The Supreme Court also concluded that the use of migratory birds to assert jurisdiction over the site exceeded the authority that Congress had granted the Corps under the CWA. The Court interpreted that Corps jurisdiction is restricted to navigable waters, their tributaries, and wetlands that are adjacent to these navigable waterways and tributaries. The decision leaves “isolated” wetlands unprotected by the CWA. These wetlands are very significant to many wildlife populations, especially migratory waterfowl. This report examines the possible implications to wetlands that are important to waterfowl across the Nation. We considered other state and federal laws and regulations that would protect isolated wetlands in the absence of Section 404. The most significant Federal provision is Swampbuster, a provision of the Farm Bill that excludes agricultural producers from receiving federal subsidies if they destroy wetlands for crop production. We considered how factors responsible for wetland loss varied regionally. We especially focused on areas that are continentally important to waterfowl and we generally assessed the consequences for the nation’s wetlands as a whole. East Coast and Great Lakes states generally have laws that offer moderate to strong protection of isolated wetlands even in the absence of Section 404, although there are exceptions. Protection is weak to non-existent in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) ii and Prairie Pothole Region (PPR). However, the majority of isolated wetlands located in these regions occur on agricultural land where most producers are enrolled in Farm Bill programs and wetlands are afforded some protection under Swampbuster. In the western half of the country state wetland protection laws are generally weaker and a high percentage of wetlands are found on non-agriculture land. In general, isolated wetlands play a minor role in meeting the needs of waterfowl in areas that are important for migration and wintering. In contrast, the SWANCC decision could have significant consequences for breeding waterfowl, especially in the PPR and migrating waterfowl, especially in the Rainwater Basin. Within these states, Section 404 and Swampbuster represent complimentary wetland protection programs that have proven highly effective in reducing wetland loss. As a result, Swampbuster now remains as the only effective legal or regulatory deterrent to wetland drainage. iii Acknowledgements In the preparation of this report, we consulted with many colleagues throughout the United States and Canada. Several agreed to review an early draft, namely: Dr. Mike Anderson, D.U. Canada; Jeanne Christie, Association of State Wetland Managers; Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers; Dr. Keith McKnight; Dr. Ken Reineke, U.S. Geological Service; Dr. Ron Reynolds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jim Ringleman, D.U. Inc.; Dr. Rollin Sparrowe, Wildlife Management Institute. We greatly appreciate their comments but we alone are responsible for how they were interpreted and incorporated into this final manuscript. Many others shared insights or provided information used in this report, for which we are grateful, namely: Ted LaGrange, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission; Jeff Raasch, Texas Parks and Wildlife; James Robb, Indiana Department of Environmental Management; Ted Rugell, U.S. Corps of Engineers; Tim Searchinger, Environmental Defense; Julie Sibbing, National Wildlife Federation; Ralph Tiner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Bill Wilen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and John Winters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. iv Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………….. 1-4 2.0 APPROACH TO ASSESSING IMPACTS OF THE SWANCC DECISION …………….. 4-5 3.0 WETLAND FUNCTION AND TRENDS……………………………………………………. 5-6 4.0 STATE WETLAND LAWS ………………………………………………………………….. 6-9 5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF FOCUS AREAS …………………………………………………… 9-13 6.0 SWAMPBUSTER …………………………………………………………………………….. 13-16 7.0 ESTIMATES OF UNPROTECTED WETLANDS ………………………………………… 16-28 8.0 SECTION 404 PERMITS AND STATISTICS ……………………………………………... 28-36 9.0 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO WETLAND LOSS...…………………………………… 36-40 10.0 NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS FOR WETLAND PROTECTION ……………………… 40-43 11.0 IMPLICATIONS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERFOWL WITHIN FOCUS AREAS 43-52 11.1 Great Lakes Focus Area ……………………………………………………………... 44-45 11.2 PPR Focus Area ……………………………………………………………………… 45-47 11.3 MAV Focus Area ……………………………………………………………………. 48 11.4 Gulf Coastal Prairie Focus Area …………………………………………………….. 48-50 11.5 Southern Great Plains Focus Area …………………………………………………... 50-51 11.6 Great Basin Focus Area ……………………………………………...……………… 52 12.0 SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………….. 52-53 13.0 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………. 53-54 v List of Figures Title Page Figure 1. State wetland laws within the conterminous United States. 8 Figure 2. Highest and high priority areas as defined by the Ducks Unlimited International 10 Conservation Plan. Figure 3. State wetland laws within highest and high priority areas. 11 Figure 4. Focus areas. 12 Figure 5. Wetlands and agriculture in the Prairie Pothole Region. 15 Figure 6. Wetlands and agriculture in the Southern Great Plains. 17 Figure 7. Wetlands and agriculture in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 18 Figure 8. Wetlands and agriculture in the Great Basin. 19 Figure 9. Wetlands and agriculture in the Gulf Coastal Prairie. 20 Figure 10. Wetlands and agriculture in the Great Lakes. 21 Figure 11. Locations of isolated wetland analysis within focus areas. 23 Figure 12. GIS analysis to quantify isolated wetlands. 26 Figure 13. Wetland acreage in the conterminous United States. 37 Figure 14. Annual development rate in the conterminous United States. 38 Figure 15. Former agricultural land developed between 1992 and 1997 in the conterminous 39 United States. Figure 16. Acreage of wetlands within agricultural land in the conterminous United States. 41 vi List of Tables Title Page Table 1. Estimates of wetland acreage that may longer be regulated under the Clean Water 25 Act within focus areas using various levels of proximity to navigable waters. Table 2. Estimates of wetland numbers that may longer be regulated under the Clean Water 27 Act within focus areas using various levels of proximity to navigable waters. Table 3. NWP 26 Activity Within Focus Areas From 1999-2000. 33 Table 4. ACOE Nationwide Permits Issued During 1998 in North and South Dakota. 35 vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION On January 9, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (1). The decision reduced the protection of isolated wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Our objective is to determine the effects of the SWANCC decision on wetlands that are especially important to waterfowl in the United States. Section 404 of the CWA originally assigned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill material into “navigable waters.” The term “navigable waters” stems from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the forerunner of the CWA (2). In the CWA of 1972, the term “navigable waters” was retained but broadly described as “waters of the U.S.” as the Act was intended to address environmental concerns, as opposed to simply protecting navigable waters. In 1977, the Corps adopted a broad regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” that included; “waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce.” By adopting such a broad definition of “waters of the U.S.,” virtually all wetlands were afforded federal protection under Section 404. The constitutional basis for Section 404 is found in the Commerce Clause (10 th Amendment) that grants Congress the power to regulate interstate or foreign commerce. If loss of a waterbody class is deemed to affect interstate or foreign commerce, the Corps could assert jurisdiction over those waterbodies via the CWA. Through interpretation of court case findings and legislative intent, links to interstate or foreign commerce were established from The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl 1 the high seas to vernal pools. Once such
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Water Summary Wetland Resources: Maine
    National Water Summary-Wetland Resources 213 Maine Wetland Resources M aine is rich in wetland resources. About 5 million acres, or one­ System Wetland description fourth of the State, is wetland. Maine has a wide variety of wetlands, Palustrine .................. Nontidal and tidal-freshwater wetlands in which ranging from immense inland peatlands to salt marshes and mud vegetation is predominantly trees (forested wet­ flats along the coast. lands); shrubs (scrub-shrub wetlands); persistent Wetlands are an integral part of Maine's natural resources. or nonpersistent emergent, erect, rooted herba­ ceous plants (persistent- and nonpersistent­ Wetlands provide essential habitat for certain types of wildlife and emergent wetlands); or submersed and (or) vegetation, including rare and endangered species. They are used floating plants (aquatic beds). Also, intermit­ for timber and peat; hunting, fishing, and shellfishing; education tently to permanently flooded open-water bod­ and research; and bird, wildlife and plant observation, all of which ies of less than 20 acres in which water is less than 6.6 feet deep. boost tourism and the general economy. Wetlands also provide flood control, bank and shoreline-erosion control, sediment retention, lacustrine ................. Nontidal and tidal-freshwater wetlands within an intermittently to permanently flooded lake or water fi ltration, and nutrient uptake. In recognition of the impor­ reservoir larger than 20 acres and (or) deeper tance of wetlands, many government and private organizations have than 6.6 feet. Vegetation, when present, is pre­ worked to preserve wetlands and educate the public about wetland dominantly nonpersistent emergent plants (non­ values. For example, the Maine Department of Conservation owns persistent-emergent wetlands), or submersed and (or) floating plants (aquatic beds), or both.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Conservation Strategies
    11/15/2010 Wally Akins TWRA/NRCS Private Lands Biologist 1 The “Farm Bill” Congressional legislation passed every 5 to 7 years that provides framework and guidance for USDA commodity support, conservation programs, emergency/disaster programs, and other agriculture/food-related programs. Includes intended budget, but actual appropriations decided annually (usually late in federal fiscal year) 2008 Farm Bill = “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008” 2 Farm Service Agency (FSA) • Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) – 32 million acres nationwide; ~235,000 acres in TN • Also handles commodity programs, and emergency and disaster payments to farmers Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • EEinvironmental QQliuality Incenti ves Program (EQIP) • Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) • Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) • Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) • Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) • Farm & Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) 3 1 11/15/2010 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Farm Wildlife Habitat Program Landowner Incentives Program U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Partners for Fish & Wildlife – T&E, at-risk species in all habitats Tennessee Division of Forestry Forest Stewardship Plan Development TWRA, NRCS and Ducks Unlimited Tennessee Partners Project - wetlands 4 Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) WRP provides an opportunity for lldandowners to receive financial incentives to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal land from agriculture. 5 On average, only 5% of the lower 48 states is wetlands and other shallow aquatic habitats. Wetland abundance varies by region: <1% of CA, NV, AZ, NM, UT, KS, MT, and WV Approx. 30% of FL and LA 45% of AK 6 2 11/15/2010 Since the late 1700s, >50% of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quantity Management Goals
    CHAPTER TWO: NFCRWD WATER PLANNING ISSUES This chapter of the NFCRWD Overall Plan identifies the District’s key water planning issues and assesses what resources are available to properly address them. The chapter is broken down into sections corresponding with the District’s four main goal areas: surface and drainage water management (Section A); reducing priority pollutants (Section B); and improving stakeholder participation (Section C) and raising public awareness (also Section C). Section A: Drainage and Surface Water Management (Goal Area 1 in Chapter Three) Drainage Work Group In 2005, the Minnesota Legislature directed the BWSR to conduct an “implementation assessment of public drainage system buffers and their use, maintenance, and benefits”. As part of this assessment, the BWSR convened a Work Group of stakeholders, which met several times over the two-year period, to develop recommendations on how to improve drainage management. The following are the consensus recommendations of the group: o Clarify point of beginning for measuring required ditch buffer strips and width of required buffer strips. o Enhance authority to establish and maintain buffers. o Enhance ditch buffer strip compliance and enforcement. o Enhance establishment of public drainage ditch buffers. o The BWSR should develop and disseminate guidelines for drainage records preservation and modernization. o The Minnesota Public Drainage Manual should be updated, in consultation with the Drainage Work Group, to reflect revisions and clarifications of Minnesota drainage law since 1991. o The Drainage Work Group should continue to develop consensus recommendations to the Legislature, agencies, and other stakeholders for additional drainage issues and topics brought forward by its members.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Distribution and Conversion in Southern Ontario
    WETLAND DISTRIBUTION AND CONVERSION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO WORKING PAPER No. 48 Environment Environnement Canada Canada WETLAND DISTRIBUTION AND CONVERSION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO Elizabeth A. Snell CANADA LAND USE MONITORING PROGRAM December 1987 Inland Waters and Lands Directorate Working Paper No. 48 Environment Canada Disponible en français sous le titre: Répartition et conversion des milieux humides dans le sud de l'Ontario ABSTRACT Concern over the ongoing conversion of wetlands is growing. Information on the location, extent, and quality of remaining wetlands is needed to assist in developing future policy and management actions aimed at retaining wetland values. In addition, knowledge of wetland conversion rates and trends is important in assessing the current status of wetlands. To date, the availability of such information has been fragmentary and inconsistent. This study used available soil and land use data, supplemented by other information, to map southern Ontario wetlands and wetland conversion on 125 map sheets at a scale of 1:50 000. Analysis has revealed that before 1800, 2.38 million hectares (ha) of wetland were widely distributed throughout southern Ontario. By 1982, 0.93 million ha remained and were more prevalent in the northern parts of the study area. The original wetland area had been reduced by 61% overall, and by 68% south of the Precambrian Shield. Wetland decline since settlement has been most severe in southwestern Ontario where over 90% of the original wetlands have been converted to other uses. Areas in the Niagara Peninsula, along western Lake Ontario and in eastern Ontario have less than 20% of the original wetland area.
    [Show full text]
  • W E Tla N D R Eso U Rce E V a Lu a Tio N a N D Th E N R a 'S R O Le in Its C
    Wetland resource evaluation and the NRA's role in its conservation. Classification of British wetlands Item Type monograph Authors Wheeler, B.D.; Shaw, S.C. Publisher National Rivers Authority Download date 29/09/2021 00:46:56 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/27297 W etland Resource Evaluation and the NRA's Role in its Conservation 2. Classification of British Wetlands Environmental Consultancy University of Sheffield R&D Note 378 Further copies of this report are available from: EZS Foundation for Water Research, Allen House, The Listons, Liston Rd, Marlow, Bucks SL7 1FD. Tel: 01628-891589, Fax: 01628-472711 Wetland Resource Evaluation and the NRA's Role in its Conservation 2. Classification of British Wetlands B. D. Wheeler and S. C. Shaw Research Contractor: Environmental Consultancy University of Sheffield Edited by: P. Bradley & C. J. S. Routh National Rivers Authority Manley House Kestrel Way Exeter EX2 7LQ R&D Note 378 Commissioning Organisation: National Rivers Authority Rivers House Waterside Drive Aztec West Tel: (01454) 624400 Bristol BS12 4UD Fax: (01454) 624409 © National Rivers Authority 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the National Rivers Authority. The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the NRA. Its officers, servants or agents accept no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance on views contained herein. Dissemination Status: Internal: Released to Regions External: Public Domain Statement of Use: This document recommends a 'hydrotopographical' classification of British wetlands which should be adopted by the NRA and hopefully other organisations and individuals concerned with wetland resource assessment, management and conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Swampbuster, Sodbuster, and Conservation Compliance Programs Linda A
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1988 Swampbuster, Sodbuster, and Conservation Compliance Programs Linda A. Malone William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Malone, Linda A., "Swampbuster, Sodbuster, and Conservation Compliance Programs" (1988). Popular Media. 103. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/103 Copyright c 1988 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media =======/NDEPTH Swampbuster, sodbuster, and conservation compliance programs - Ii by Linda A. Malone On September 17, 1987, final regula­ of "hydrophytic vegetation" typically dueing an agricultural commodity on the tions were published in the Federal Reg­ adapted for life in the saturated soil con­ land continues to be eligible for program ister for the swampbuster, sodbuster, ditions. 52 Fed. Reg. at 35202. An excep­ payments. 16 U.S.C. § 3822. and conservation compliance programs tion from the definition of "wetland'" is The final rule has been revised at of the 1985 E'arm Bill. Pub L. No. 99­ made for lands in Alaska identified as length to clarify when conversion is con­ 198, provisions, codified at 16 U.s.C. §§ having high potential for agricultural sidered to have been "commenced" be­ 3801-3823 (West Supp. 1987). The new development which have a predomi­ fore December 23, 1985. Conversion was rules, published in 52 Fed. Reg. ~5194­ m~nce of permafrost soils. [d. at 35202. "commenced" before that date if: (1) 35208 (September 17, 1987), will be pub­ "Under normal circumstances" is ex­ draining, dredging, filling, leveling or lished in the Code ofFederal Regulations plained in the final rule as referring to other manipulation (including any activ­ as 7 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Upland Nesting Waterfowl Population Responses to Predator Reduction in North Dakota Matthew R
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2010 Upland nesting waterfowl population responses to predator reduction in North Dakota Matthew R. Pieron Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Pieron, Matthew R., "Upland nesting waterfowl population responses to predator reduction in North Dakota" (2010). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2570. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2570 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. UPLAND NESTING WATERFOWL POPULATION RESPONSES TO PREDATOR REDUCTION IN NORTH DAKOTA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The School of Renewable Natural Resources by Matthew R. Pieron B. S., Mount Union College, 1999 M.S., Eastern Kentucky University, 2003 May 2010 DEDICATION I got some terrible Chinese take-out the other day. The fortune in the cookie read “behind every able man there are always other able men.” If I am able, it’s largely due to the more than able men who shaped my life. My grandfathers, Vernon R. Pieron (Grampa; 1922−2008) and Dudley J. Masters (Pop; 1928−2004), taught me to catch fish, shoot pool and whiskey, raise hell, laugh till it hurts, be stubborn, work hard, love my family, not give up, finish what I start, and be my own person.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Geography of Changing Attitudes to Wetlands in the United
    A historical geography of changing attitudes to wetlands in the United States Midwest Hugh Counsell Prince University College London Thesis submitted for Ph D University of London Geography 1996 ProQuest Number: 10017204 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10017204 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract The study discusses ways in which different people at different times viewed wetland environments, appraised their potential value, contrived to transform them by draining and farming or protect them as wildlife refuges and places for outdoor recreation. It traces changes in peoples’ perceptions, critically examining literary evidence for changing attitudes towards wetlands in seven Midwest states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Views of places described by travellers, landowners, journalists and writers of fiction are compared with reports by federal and state officials, maps and statistical data. Changing scientific descriptions and classifications of the physical characteristics of wet prairies, swamps and bogs are reviewed. Important changes in the outlook of Indians followed their contact with Europeans.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Protection Assessment of Different Inland Wetlands in Chile Patricia Möller1,2* and Andrés Muñoz-Pedreros3
    Möller and Muñoz-Pedreros Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 2014, 87:23 http://www.revchilhistnat.com/content/87/1/23 RESEARCH Open Access Legal protection assessment of different inland wetlands in Chile Patricia Möller1,2* and Andrés Muñoz-Pedreros3 Abstract Background: Inland wetlands are well represented ecosystems in Chile that are subjected to various pressures affecting conservation. Protection means legal and administrative initiatives which promote the protection and/or preservation of a wetland, either in its entirety, considering their areas of influence or its components. Results: The aim of this work is to develop a methodology for estimating the value of protection of different types of inland wetlands in Chile. For this purpose: a) the Chilean regulations in relation to the issues of biodiversity, wetlands and water resources were compiled; (b) such legislation and its application were analyzed, (c) protection and restriction values of each legal standard was estimated, and then total protection value of standards applied to six types of wetlands in study. 47 legal rules related to protection of inland wetlands and eight directly or indirectly affecting conservation and wise use of wetlands were identified. Conclusions: In Chile there is no specific statutory rules or regulations on wetlands. Current legal standards do not protect equally the different types of inland wetlands, being swamp forests, peatlands and brackish Andean lakes less protected. To improve wetlands conservation, incentives promoting wetlands destruction must be eliminated and promulgate specific regulations for proper management and conservation. Keywords: Inland wetlands; Legal standards; Real protection; Wetland protection Background Wetlands support high biodiversity and are presently Chile is highly diverse in limnic systems mostly recog- recognized as the most threatened systems by human nized as wetlands and defined as ‘areas of marsh, fen, activities (Marín et al.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH DAKOTA STATE TACTICAL PLAN a Supplement to the 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan March 2017 CONTENTS
    NORTH DAKOTA STATE TACTICAL PLAN A supplement to the 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan March 2017 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... ND.2 Five-year Goal and Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... ND.3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. ND.4 THE PRAIRIE POTHOLE REGION OF NORTH DAKOTA ................................................................................................ ND.6 PRIORITY WETLAND AND GRASSLAND HABITAT ..................................................................................................... ND.11 Priority Waterfowl Habitat ............................................................................................................................................... ND.11 Hunter Retention and Access ......................................................................................................................................... ND.12 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES ...................................................................................................................... ND.15 Five-year habitat objectives – Protection ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction and User's Guide to Wetland Restoration, Creation
    An Introduction and User’s Guide to Wetland Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement A Guide for the Public Containing: • Background on wetlands and restoration • Information on project planning, implementation, and monitoring • Lists of resources, contacts, and funding sources Developed by the Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This guide would not have been possible without the contributions of many individuals. The members of the Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration were critical to the document’s development from start to finish: Susan-Marie Stedman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries; John McShane, Lynne Trulio, Doreen Vetter, Mary Kentula, and , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Jack Arnold, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Jeanne Christie, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and now with the Association of State Wetland Managers; and Colleen Charles, US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and now with the US Geological Survey. The Workgroup would like to acknowledge the members of the Expert/User Review Panel for their practical knowledge and valuable input: Alan P. Ammann, NRCS; Robert P. Brooks, Pennsylvania State University’s Cooperative Wetlands Center; Andre F. Clewell, Society for Ecological Restoration (SER); Donald Falk, SER; Susan Galatowitsch, University of Minnesota; Curtis Hopkins, Ducks Unlimited; Mike Houck, Audubon Society; Michael Josselyn, Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies; Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers; Julie Middleton and Leah Miller-Graff, Izaak Walton League; Steve Moran, Nebraska Rainwater Basin Coordinator; Richard P. Novitski, RP Novitzki and Associates; Duncan T.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Agricultural Law Center the Nation’S Leading Source for Agricultural and Food Law Research & Information Nationalaglawcenter.Org | [email protected]
    The National Agricultural Law Center The nation’s leading source for agricultural and food law research & information NationalAgLawCenter.org | [email protected] Factsheet, Series: 2020 Farm Bill Conservation Programs: Swampbuster and Sodbuster Scout Snowden This material is based upon Research Fellow, National Agricultural work supported by the Law Center National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Brigit Rollins Research Service, U.S. Staff Attorney, National Agricultural Department of Agriculture Law Center When Congress enacted the 1985 Farm Bill, it included the Conservation Reserve Program (“CRP”), which was intended, in part, to conserve highly erodible land and wetlands. Colloquially known as the “Sodbuster” and “Swampbuster” provisions (“the conservation provisions”), they require farmers to 1) maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land, and 2) not convert wetlands for crop production, all in return for keeping certain United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) benefits. The goal of the conservation provisions is to encourage conservation priorities by reducing the availability of certain USDA benefits to those who make specific land-use decisions. Participants in most of the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) and Natural Resource Conservation Service (“NRCS”) programs are generally required to remain in compliance with the conservation provisions. Additionally, any person who is affiliated with a USDA program participant is also bound by the conditions and requirements of the conservation provisions. Whether someone is considered an affiliated person depends on the structure of the farming operation they work with. If the USDA program participant is an individual, the participant’s spouse or minor children who have a farming interest are considered affiliated persons.
    [Show full text]