Did the government recently reclassified Golf Courses as wetlands?

[What_Exit]

Full Question:
**Is it true the Federal government has recently reclassified Golf Course Water Hazards as Wetlands? **

I heard this on the Colbert Report last night and I am taking it with a grain of salt. I have not found a news story to confirm it. Does anyone have the Straight Dope on this?
What Colbert said is that the Federal Government is considering that there has been an increase in the amount of Wetland acreage in the US.

This is a GQ question to start, please stick to factual answer for now. Once it is answered, it may turn into a GD thread, but for now please stick to answers.

Thank you for the help,
Jim

[hawthorne]

Oh, there are news stories: here, here here etc. Go to google news and search for wetlands golf course and you’ll see some.

This is the Fisheries and wildlife wetlands inventory page. This is their wetlands definition. You’ll notice it does not contain the words “wild” or “natural”. It also seems the aggregate quantity of wetlands is not weighted by any measure of quality, but that this is not a change from prior practice.

[DrDeth]

Well, what is a “wetland”? Often a place for waterfowl to land, rest & feed? Do they do that in artificial bodies of water also? Sure, in fact some canadian geese like soem of the local artificial urban lakes around here so much, they have stopped migrating and have become permanent residents (although I have heard the INS is considering raids… ).

I do know there are a couple of water hazards in the San Francisco area that have to be protected during frog egg season, as they have endanged frog species breeding there.

[What_Exit]

Thank you, My GoogleFoo is apparently non-existent today.

The NPR article seems to be saying that “Natural wetlands” are down but “created wetlands” are up.
It also seems to be saying that **they have not made changes ** to how they Classify Wetlands.

@Palm Beach Post Editorial

The difference is lost on outgoing Interior Department Secretary Gail Norton, who said, “I’m pleased to complete my term as secretary of interior by announcing some good news.” Ms. Norton’s rush to rejoice, however, is tempered by the facts. A total of 523,500 acres of swamps and tidal marshes have been lost, but the study noted gains of 715,300 acres of shallow-water wetlands, or ponds, The New York Times reported. "The most stunning thing about this report,’’ said Julie Sibbing, the leading wetlands expert at the National Wildlife Federation, "is that we’re losing diverse natural wetlands in this country and the administration tells us it’s OK because we’ve increased the number of ponds.’’

I guess that paragraph sums it up best. But it is not as bad a Colbert made it sound. I was afraid this was a repeat of the Ketchup is a vegetable debacle in the 80’s.

DrDeth I guess I should request this get moved to GD now. A natural wetland is quite often more than just a place for waterfowl to hang out at, in many places they act as a natural barrier to storm damage and act to clean water.

@app article

Swamps, marshes, fens, tidal marshes, peatlands and other waterladen ecosystems filter pollutants and sediments, control flooding and protect against coastal erosion. They also provide clean water and homes for fish, shellfish and wildlife, and stopping points for migratory birds.

Jim

[Rico]

<mod>

Moved per OP’s request.

</mod>

[What_Exit]

Thank You Rico.
So the next Question, should the government classify a loss of a total of 523,500 acres of swamps and tidal marshes but the gain of 715,300 acres of shallow-water wetlands, or ponds as a positive?

I see it as an overall negative still, just not as bad as the past.
I have read multiple articles decrying the loss of wetlands as seriously endangering Coastal areas from storm damage. The Wal-Mart Drainage ponds are not going to help this.

Jim

[gooftroopag]

As a side note, the definition of a wetland is kind of fuzzy in the first place. I took a construction course about a year ago where the instructor recommended we never grow comfortable with a particular definition, because it changes too frequently based on the whim of who ever is currently in office. History of terminology for wetland definition

[BoringDad]

@gooftroopag

As a side note, the definition of a wetland is kind of fuzzy in the first place. I took a construction course about a year ago where the instructor recommended we never grow comfortable with a particular definition, because it changes too frequently based on the whim of who ever is currently in office.

And the logic of what we call a wetland varies depending on our goals for protecting wetlands. If you think that the most important thing for wetlands is diverse wildlife habitat then you would want a different version than if your most important thing was clean water or riverside erosion protection.

[gooftroopag]

@BoringDad

And the logic of what we call a wetland varies depending on our goals for protecting wetlands.

Very true.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

INS hilarity aside, I am compelled to point out they are Canada geese, not Canadian geese.