Posted by Jane Clark

Immediate Release: Contact:
November 6, 2001 Julie Sibbing, NWF, (202) 797-6832
                        Robin Mann, Sierra Club, (610) 527-4598
                        Daniel Rosenberg, NRDC, (202) 289-2389
Howard Fox, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500
Melissa Samet, American Rivers (415) 482-8150

Army Corps Ignores "No Net Loss" Wetlands Policy

Five of the country's foremost conservation groups expressed outrage
over an Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Guidance Letter on
wetlands mitigation released late Friday. Without any public notice or
coordination with other federal agencies who share responsibility for
wetlands policy, the Corps has unilaterally ignored the national goal of
achieving "no net loss" of wetlands, a goal established during the first
Bush administration which has been the guiding principle of the national
wetlands regulatory program since.
"This arrogant move by the Corps demonstrates the agency's complete lack
of respect for the public, other federal agencies, and most of all for
our country's natural resources," said Julie Sibbing, NWF's Wetlands
Legislative Representative.

The Regulatory Guidance Letter, dated October 31, sets out new Corps'
policy regarding compensation for destroyed wetlands. Mitigation
involves construction of new wetlands to replace those destroyed by
development activities. The Corps is supposed to place highest priority
on avoiding harm to wetlands, rather than mitigating damage after it has
occurred. Unfortunately, the Corps often overlooks avoidance and allows
destruction of wetlands, based on speculative promises of mitigation.

According to Robin Mann, Chair of the Sierra Club Wetlands Committee,
the Corps' new policy sets up an "anything goes approach" to wetland
replacement.  The policy allows for wetland mitigation to consist of
preservation or enhancement of existing wetlands, small buffer strips
along streams, upland areas, ponds and other waters, or simply deepening
an existing wetlands for swimming or fishing.  "None of these types of
'mitigation' can compensate for the loss of natural wetlands and will
contribute to a continued net loss of our nation's valuable wetlands,"
said Mann.

The Corps has come under increased criticism over the past year for its
failure to ensure that compensatory mitigation adequately replaces the
functions and acreage lost when wetlands are allowed to be destroyed.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) published a study last spring which
was extremely critical of the Corps' use of certain third party
mitigation schemes.  The National Academy of Science (NAS) also
published a report last spring that found that Corps' mitigation policy
was not providing for "no net loss" of wetlands within the regulatory
program and that serious improvements were needed.

While the Corps claims that the new guidance letter is responsive to
recommendations of the National Academy of Science study, only a few of
the NAS recommendations are incorporated into the new policy, the GAO
study is not mentioned and several weakening policy changes are included
that were not recommended by either study.

"It is bizarre that the Corps proposes to weaken their inadequate
program further, given that recent studies by the National Academy of
Sciences, GAO and the Corps itself detail the widespread failure of the
Corps' current mitigation policies to adequately protect wetlands and
achieve the goal of "no net loss," said Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney
with the Natural Resources Defense Council.  "Apparently, when it comes
to wetland protection, there is no success like failure for the Army
Corps," he added.

According to Melissa Samet, Senior Director of Water Resources with
American Rivers, the Corps' guidance letter  "violates the spirit of
interagency cooperation in administering the 404 program, and goes
against the specific agreement that has guided wetlands compensatory
mitigation in recent years." She points out that the Corps has a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. EPA on mitigation.  This MOA
can be modified or revoked only by agreement of both agencies or else by
one agency with six months advance notice. "Yet it appears that the
Corps has decided to informally revoke this agreement by replacing it
with weaker standards," says Samet.

In April, the Bush Administration allowed a Clinton-era wetlands
protection rule to take effect and pledged that it would continue to
take responsible steps to ensure the protection of wetlands.  "Either
the Corps didn't get the memo, or the Administration's policies
regarding wetlands protection have been reversed without notice to the
public," said Rosenberg.

While the Corps' press statements tout the guidance letter as improving
protection for the nation's waters, Howard Fox of Earthjustice points
out, "if this document were truly protective of wetlands and streams,
the Corps wouldn't have felt the need to rush it onto the street without
any public input. Refusing to allow the public a chance to point out the
problems with the Corps' approach won't make those problems go away."
The Sierra Club's Robin Mann agreed, adding "the Administration must not
allow this guidance letter to stand."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]