Swamp Stomp
Volume 14, Issue 19
The EPA’s Office of Inspector General has released a report detailing the success or lack thereof of wetland mitigation programs around the country. The central concern is whether or not “no net loss” is being achieved. The report is entitled, “EPA Needs to Clarify Its Claim of ‘No Net Loss ‘of Wetlands.” As the title might suggest it does not appear that this goal is being realized.
The following is from the report.
“The EPA attempts to verify that the application of the wetlands protection and restoration guidelines furthers the goal of “no net loss” by comparing the total acres of wetland impacts to the total acres planned for mitigation in the USACE’s Section 404 permits. However, this comparison is based on the EPA’s assumption that all wetlands mitigation projects will meet performance standards. Not all mitigation projects meet these standards. For example, in a 2011 report about North Carolina wetlands mitigation projects, it was reported that “… no single mitigation provider, mitigation type or geographic region achieved complete success according to the standards approved in mitigation plans.” Specifically, the report noted that 74 percent of the mitigation projects attained the mitigation goals established in the Section 404 permits. Because the EPA’s performance reporting does not inform readers of this assumption, the Office of Inspector General concluded that the EPA’s reporting of “no net loss” of wetlands hampers the public’s understanding of the EPA’s actual performance in protecting wetlands. The EPA should indicate in its wetlands measure definitions webpage and in future annual plan performance reporting that achieving “no net loss” is based upon an assumption that wetlands mitigation projects meet performance standards.”
So what is the recommendation? It is simply to lower the bar. This is the EPA Inspector General’s recommendation.
“Clarify on the wetlands measure definitions webpage and in future annual plan performance reporting that “no net loss” of wetlands is based upon an assumption that mitigation projects contained in CWA Section 404 permits will meet performance standards.”
This seems reasonable however, the agency response to this recommendation is a bit bizarre.
“In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, states and tribes achieve ‘no net loss’ of wetlands each year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program. (‘No net loss’ of wetlands is based on requirements for mitigation in CWA 404 permits and not the actual mitigation attained.).”
So no net loss is based upon the requirement of wetland mitigation. The fact that the mitigation put into the ground that does not work does not seem to matter. Oh well. We tried.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong. I invite our readers to look at this document and provide any insight they can. This seems to me to be a major step backward in ensuring wetlands that are impacted are put back.
Have a great week!
Marc
What a waste of money! The answer is not simply change your wording when “no net loss” means just that; no net loss. I’m a consultant and I am responsible for monitoring many wetland and stream restoration sites. What I find is that 401 and 404 permits are written so poorly, often requiring onsite mitigation with no mention of monitoring or performance standards. Or the performance standards don’t match the site features. It’s very frustrating because I would like to see our wetlands flourish and be put back to pre-construction condition. I find that planners have very little knowledge (or they just don’t care?) of hydrology or wetland systems and once a significant portion of a wetland is impacted it effects the entire wetland. Planting canopy trees under power lines…so many hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted because an extra hour wasn’t spent considering if the planned mitigation is practical. It’s frustrating!