Effort to Change Wetlands Definition Sparks Protests : Environment: Scientists warn that an interagency attempt to clarify protection guidelines could result in a massive loss of valuable habitat.

An interagency effort to clarify the “bible” used to implement federal wetlands protection measures has provoked sharp objections from scientists and environmentalists, some of whom contend that hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands may be lost in the process.

The dispute caused one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s top wetlands experts to resign last month from the technical panel assigned to revise guidelines used by federal officials. And it has provoked a chorus of complaints from EPA scientists working out of district offices across the country.

Since the arrival of the first settlers, the continental United States has lost more than half of its 200 million acres of wetlands and it continues to lose several hundred thousand acres every year. Affected areas include swamps, marshes and bogs, which have come to be appreciated as environmental treasures because they provide habitat and breeding grounds for a rich variety of fish, waterfowl and other species of animals and plants.

In the early days of his Administration, President Bush endorsed a “no-net-loss” policy designed to prevent further loss of wetlands. But pressure has mounted on the Administration to relax wetlands protection, and environmentalists said that they see the proposed manual changes as a retreat from the President’s commitment.

“The whole effort is reminiscent of the early days of the (Ronald) Reagan Administration, when they tried to put a political rather than a scientific definition on wetlands,” said Andrew Palmer, director of the Washington office of the American Oceans Campaign. “It is wholly inconsistent with the no-net-loss promise.”

William S. Sipple, the EPA’s chief wetlands ecologist, said that he quit the technical panel last month because he believed the review and revision process was being used to bring about an unacknowledged policy shift and because he felt “pushed toward unethical technical behavior.”

Scientists involved in wetlands programs in the agency’s field offices said that they had been instructed not to discuss the dispute. But, in memorandums made available to The Times, scientists complained that the draft of the revised manual significantly narrows the definitions of wetlands and that officials in Washington have failed to provide an airing of the proposed changes or sufficient time for field testing.

In a memo to the EPA’s Office of Wetlands Protection, an ecologist in the agency’s Region 10 headquarters in Seattle predicted that the proposed new criteria “may result in hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands in Region 10 being eliminated. . . .”

According to Sipple, the changes being contemplated at the time he resigned from the committee would have restricted the protection primarily to those areas considered “truly aquatic sites” or the “wettest of the wetlands.”

Other sources said that contemplated changes would eliminate some bogs and intermittently flooded lands, as well as lands where water does not stay within a specified distance of the surface throughout the year.

Besides the EPA, the technical panel that is revising the wetlands manual includes scientists from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service and the Agriculture Department’s Soil Conservation Service.

EPA officials denied critics’ assertions that the revision is aimed at narrowing the scope of wetlands definitions and removing huge areas from protection.

Noting that the review is taking place in the face of simultaneous criticism that the program is too lax and too rigid, agency spokesman David Cohen said that there is no intent to retreat from the Administration’s no-net-loss objective.

The EPA, he said, wants to “make sure that prized wetlands are thoroughly protected, that the program itself does not become bogged down by investing too much in areas where quality is marginal at best.”

Alan Fox, a special assistant in the office of the assistant EPA commissioner for water, said that the interagency review panel will report to EPA, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service and Soil Conservation Service officials next week. But he said it could be four weeks or more before a draft of the revised manual is offered for public comment.