Oppose U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Wetlands Mitigation Rulemaking

policygroup
Latest Action: 
<p>Final rule released in 2008</p>
Date Introduced: 
Tue, 03/28/2006
Implementing Agency: 
Environmental Protection Agency
Region(s)/State(s): 
National
Issue(s): 
Enforcement
Issue(s): 
Wetlands
Related Articles: 
EPA Wetlands Mitigation Rulemaking
Downloads: 
application/pdf icon
Comments on the Proposed Rule on Mitigation of Wetlands.pdf

On March 28, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) jointly proposed a rule revising the standards governing compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources. Despite the abysmal track record of the mitigation program to date, this rule allows for vastly greater flexibility in meeting mitigation requirements. By making it easier to compensate for destroying ecologically crucial streams and wetlands, it will effectively promote, not discourage continued destruction.

This proposed rule takes a faulty approach which will not improve mitigation success and amounts to a retreat from existing law. We call on the Corps and EPA to withdraw this proposal and start over with a legal and effective approach to ensuring successful mitigation.

CWN Position: 

The Clean Water Network opposes both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2006 proposed wetlands mitigation rulemaking and the 2008 final rulemaking statement. The rule has a number of weaknesses that make it ineffective and a poor tool for protecting America's wetlands.

There are numerous problems with this rule—some of the most significant are summarized below.

  • The rule attempts to include standards for stream mitigation despite limited research on the subject.
  • The rule must reflect a renewed emphasis on impact avoidance and treat mitigation as a last resort.
  • The Proposed Rule leaves far too much discretion to the District Engineer.
  • The rule authorizes an “anything goes” approach to mitigation.
  • The rule sets up a strong preference for the use of mitigation banks over other forms of mitigation that is simply not justified or justifiable.
  • The Rule must be strengthened to promote the no net loss of wetlands goal.
  • Requirements on mitigation providers must be vastly improved to ensure the success of mitigation projects.
  • Mitigation compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions should be strengthened.
  • The rule’s financial assurances provisions must be strengthened.