ual was revised in 1989, but the revision created such confusion and
controversy in delineating wetlands, that Congress authorized the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a wetlands study designed
to develop new delineation guidelines (Zinn and Copeland, p.
CRS-4). Until that review is completed, the 1987 manual is in effect.
The 1989 revision expanded the definition of wetlands, thereby in-
creasing the amount of land so designated (Eckel, p. 7). Shelving the
1989 revision in favor of the 1987 manual significantly reduced the
amount of land designated as wetlands.
Another issue in the proposed bill which has generated concern
among environmentalists is the mitigation provision. They argue that
mitigation, the replacement of wetlands in kind, allows the con-
tinued destruction of wetlands (Zinn and Copeland, p. CRS-7). This
contention is based on the fact that the mitigation process is not
based on good science and experience which demonstrates that miti-
gation failures outnumber successes.
Endangered Species
Environmentalists consider the Endangered Species Act (ESA) the
most important piece of legislation preventing the extinction of
plants and animals (Corn, “Summary”). As defined by the ESA, an
endangered species is “any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. Sec.
1532 (6)), while a threatened species is “any species likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout a significant
portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532 (20)).
Currently, several bills have been introduced to reauthorize and
amend the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Key provisions of bills
proposed by Representatives Tauzin of Louisiana and Fields of
Texas are designed to provide for a five- year reauthorization; en-
sure the scientific integrity of the process to list threatened and en-
dangered species; ensure balanced consideration of all impacts of
listing decisions; and provide that private landowners and other non-
federal parties are not compelled to comply with more stringent pro-
cedures and standards than are federal agencies. The major provi-
sions of a bill introduced by Senator Baucus encourage earlier, more
comprehensive species conservation; improve efforts to recover spe-
cies by speeding up the development of recovery plans; and create
incentives for private landowners to protect endangered species.
Even with the incentives provided by these bills, opposition is ex-
pected from several sectors. On the agricultural side, the issue of
property rights is again raised by farm and ranch concerns. They ar-
gue that, amended or not, the ESA creates serious economic conse-
quences for agriculture, with insufficient compensation provided to
property owners by the government (Corn, “Summary”). Support-
ers of reauthorization favor strengthening the ESA through in-
182