7 C.F.R. § 12.32

Converted wetland identification criteria

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Converted wetland shall be identified by determining whether the wetland was altered so as to meet the definition of converted wetland. In making this determination, the following factors are to be considered:

(1) Where hydric soils have been used for production of an agricultural commodity and the effect of the drainage or other altering activity is not clearly discernible, NRCS will compare the site with other sites containing the same hydric soils in a natural condition to determine if the hydric soils can or cannot be used to produce an agricultural commodity under natural conditions. If the soil on the comparison site could not produce an agricultural commodity under natural conditions, the subject wetland will be considered to be converted wetland.

(2) Where woody hydrophytic vegetation has been removed from hydric soils for the purpose of or permitting the production of an agricultural commodity, the area will be considered to be converted wetland.

(b) A wetland shall not be considered to be converted if:

(1) Production of an agricultural commodity on such land is possible as a result of a natural condition, such as drought, and it is determined that the actions of the person producing such agricultural commodity does not permanently alter or destroy natural wetland characteristics. Destruction of herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plants other than woody shrubs or trees) as a result of the production of an agricultural commodity shall not be considered as altering or destroying natural wetland characteristic if such vegetation could return following cessation of the natural condition which made production of the agricultural commodity possible; or

(2) Such land is correctly identified as farmed wetland or farmed-wetland pasture.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1999–2019 · leading case: Boucher v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 934 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Boucher v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 934 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “The government relies on 7 C.F.R. § 12.32 (a)(2) to assert that removal of woody hydrophytic vegetation from hydric soils is-by itself-sufficient to declare the area "converted wetland.”

Maple Drive Farms Ltd. P'ship v. Vilsack, 781 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 2015). “24-acre parcel qualified as converted wetland under the criteria of 7 C.F.R. § 12.32 (a). See Smith v. Natural Res.”

Keith Barthel Dorothy Barthel v. United States Dep't of Agric., Daniel Glickman, Sec'y, 181 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 1999). “” 7 C.F.R. § 12.32 (a)(3) (1992). “Persons may continue to farm such wetlands .”

Rita Boucher v. AGRI (7th Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “The government relies on 7 C.F.R. § 12.32 (a)(2) to assert that removal of woody hydrophytic vegetation from hydric soils is—by itself—suﬃcient to declare the area “con- verted wetland.”

Koshman v. Vilsack, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “7 C.F.R. § 12.32 (b). As noted, agricultural production may continue on farmed wetland under certain circumstances: The provisions of § 12.”

Keith Barthel v. Dept. of Agric. (8th Cir. 1999). “" 7 C.F.R. § 12.32 (a)(3) (1992). "Persons may continue to farm such wetlands .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.