Q1. Do the proposed changes favor the environment or development?

A1. These proposed changes increase environmental protection and streamline processing for projects with minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. This proposal reflects the Corps unequivocal commitment to its environmental mission and to aquatic resource protection. In addition, we have simplified and clarified several provisions to reduce unnecessary procedures and make the process easier to understand and comply with.

Q2. Why is the Corps proposing these changes?

A2. The Corps is proposing these changes to do a better job of protecting aquatic ecosystems while helping the regulated public with clearer, simpler language. The Corps is not proposing to change most NWPs.

Q3. If adopted, how will the proposed changes affect the controversial “valley fills” issue associated with mining spoils?

A3. It does not affect the Corps authority or responsibility regarding regulation of valley fills. However, we have revised NWP 21, which may be used to authorize valley fills. The proposed revisions will enhance and clarify the mitigation requirements associated with the use of this permit and will require a case-by-case review of all projects seeking to use this permit to ensure that any adverse effects of the permitted activity are no more than minimal, both individually and cumulatively.

Q4. How does the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding isolated wetlands affect these proposed changes?

A4. Not at all. The court’s ruling affects the Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Nationwide Permits are a type of general permit and do not affect CWA jurisdiction. NWPs do not affect (establish or remove) any jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. They do not create any jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist. The Supreme Court’s decision means only that some activities, which previously required a permit, no longer need a permit.

Q5. Will less mitigation be required as the result of these changes, or more?

A5. The Corps revisions will increase flexibility to allow the most environmentally appropriate type of mitigation. The revisions are intended in particular to focus attention on the need for strong stream protection measures, such as the use of vegetated buffers. While the presumption that wetlands impacts will be mitigated one-for-one is maintained, this proposal provides flexibility to require other types of mitigation where appropriate to the particular ecosystem being affected. Corps Districts will ensure that the required mitigation will be what is best for the aquatic environment.

Q6. What is the expected workload impact to the Corps regulatory staff? A6. These proposed changes may result in some small reduction in Corps staff workload. The Corps staff will have the flexibility to require mitigation that is best for the aquatic environment in a more efficient manner. These changes also allow the districts to focus their limited resources in areas where they can better protect the environment and not use those resources on reviews that have minimal effects and no benefit to the aquatic environment.

Q7. Did the Corps coordinate the proposed changes with other federal agencies? A7. Yes. The Corps coordinated with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Management & Budget, and various other agencies.

Q8. Will the changes mean a greater cost to taxpayer?

A8. Overall, we expect that these changes will have little change to Corps program costs. Shortly, the Corps will release a cost analysis of the NWP changes that were adopted in June 2001. Those NWP changes did increase costs to the Corps and to the regulated public. These proposed changes could have some costs reductions to the Corps by allowing Districts to authorize some activities by NWP that have minimal impact on the aquatic environment that unnecessarily require an individual permit now.

Source COE: Last Updated: 8 August, 2001

Go to the Top