Buffers Ebb for Wetlands

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed Wednesday to weaken a series of rules to protect wetlands, including a requirement that developers create or restore a wetland for every one they destroy through building.

The proposals were part of an effort by the corps to loosen rules they set last year--with the prodding of Clinton administration officials--to better safeguard wetlands as required by the Clean Water Act.

“It won’t be as big a change in the wrong direction as the [2000] new rules were in the right direction, but it will be a big enough change that it will cause significant destruction of wetlands and streams across the nation,” said Todd Hutchins, an attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law group.

Most of the proposed changes affect the rules that govern when developers must apply for individual permits to build over streams, bogs and other wetlands, and when they can apply for the less restrictive “nationwide” permits that authorize dredging or filling wetlands that result in “minimal impact to aquatic environments.”

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service both criticized the new proposals when they were in draft form. On Wednesday, EPA officials refused comment. But a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior that runs programs to protect wildlife, raised objections about several of the corps proposals.

Spokesman Chris Tollefson said the service objected to the proposal to drop a requirement that developers gain individual permits to build roads that have an effect on 200 linear feet or more of a stream.

Fish and Wildlife also is concerned about a corps proposal to waive the requirement that developers create wetlands or refurbish damaged wetlands for every wetland they impair. Under the corps’ proposal, it could require that developers plant hedges or other vegetation instead of new wetlands if they think that would better protect the environment.

The Fish and Wildlife Service argues that that proposal would abandon a long-term goal critical to wildlife, which was set by President Bush.

“We’ve set a goal for some time of no net loss of wetlands,” Tollefson said.

That loss of wetlands has been slowed, he added, “but we’re still losing them, and there are hundreds of species that depend on these wetlands.”

The federal government long has had guidelines requiring developers to mitigate the effects of building on wetlands by making efforts to enhance wetlands nearby, but the 2000 rules specified that developers had to replace wetlands they destroyed, acre for acre.

Environmentalists were critical of proposals to waive the requirements that developers get individual permits for various projects, such as building homes, utility lines and roads in flood plains and diverting streams.

“That one defies logic,” said Julie Sibbing of the National Wildlife Federation.

Environmentalists described them as significant alterations that added up to a serious threat to wetlands. But corps officials explained the proposed changes as a “fine-tuning” of the 2000 rules.

The National Assn. of Home Builders, which is suing the corps because it believes the 2000 rules fail to fulfill Congress’ requirement for a streamlined permitting process, agreed that the proposals represented only marginal changes.

“We are disappointed that the corps didn’t take the opportunity to make any meaningful reforms to the program,” said Susan Asmus, a vice president of the association. “They punted.”

Environmentalists said that the 2000 rules reflected the influence of other agencies, such as the EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, on the corps. With Wednesday’s proposals, the corps was reasserting itself, they said.

Conservationists have long charged that the corps has failed in its role as the protector of wetlands. Although the EPA oversees most Clean Water Act regulations, the corps is responsible for regulating development on wetlands.

But Mark Sudal, regulation manager for the corps’ Los Angeles branch, said environmentalists are overreacting.

“Technically, it would be seen as a slight rollback,” Sudal said. “But I don’t see it as being a significant rollback.”

In fact, he said, some of the changes that environmentalists describe as rollbacks will help him better protect the most valuable wetlands in Southern California.

About 90% of Southern California’s wetlands already have been destroyed by development and agriculture.