PERPETUITY
“What benefit is it to the citizens of Ohio to have temporary solutions to the loss of wetlands? “
We are troubled to see that the state budget (HB64) has included an amendment that will impair the protection of Ohio’s wetlands and negate the process of wetland mitigation. Considering that the state has already lost well beyond 90% of its wetlands and loss is continuing despite policies to protect them, we need to assure that Ohio will save and even increase the wetlands that serve Ohio. While progress has been made to protect duck habitat, there are far more services that our wetlands provide beyond sport shooting opportunities. Our wetlands are the key to keeping Ohio’s waters clean. The best protection against nutrients and other impairments in our rivers and lakes are the filtering powers of wetlands. Coastal and riverine wetlands provide critical spawning habitat for sport fish. What’s more, Ohio’s wetlands are host to our most endangered plants and animals. We need to prevent impacts, first, and when absolutely necessary, mitigate with integrity and in perpetuity. The idea that mitigation should be temporary flies in the face of laws that stand to protect our waters. HB64 includes language to declare that “Preservation” of mitigated wetlands would now mean ‘longterm’ instead or ‘perpetuity’ which is so ambiguous that it, in essence, declares Preservation to be temporary.
What benefit is it to the citizens of Ohio to have temporary solutions to the loss of wetlands? When wetlands protect downstream communities from flooding, who would want a temporary protection from a devastating flood? For those communities that get their drinking water from rivers and lakes, who would want their water supply protected by the filtering properties of wetlands for a little while? For the multi-billion dollar Lake Erie tourism industry, who would ask for the waters to be healthy, clear and fresh this year but not later? Would the tens of thousands who visit northwest Ohio for birding in Lake Erie marshes agree that we need these wetland habitats for this generation but not the next?
Clearly, there is no legal or semantic separation between long-term and short-term. Its use will only be subject to interpretation and confusion. I am concerned that some future interpretation will establish that ‘long-term’ is maybe just a few years or the length of a term in congress. The existing use of the word ‘perpetuity’ is the appropriate word and the only form of protection that makes sense.
Summary of salient points in HB64 provided by Nathan Johnson at the Ohio Environmental Council
Isolated wetlands permits; Section 401 water quality certifications
(1) Revises the definition of "preservation" as used in the provisions of the Water Pollution Control Law governing permits for impacts to isolated wetlands to mean the "long-term" protection of ecologically important wetlands, rather than protection "in perpetuity," through the implementation of appropriate legal mechanisms to prevent harm to the wetlands.
(2) Requires an applicant for coverage under an individual or general state isolated wetland permit to demonstrate that the mitigation site will be protected "long term" rather than "in perpetuity.
6111.02(L)
(L) "Preservation" means the long-term protection of ecologically important wetlands in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal mechanisms to prevent harm to the wetlands. "Preservation" may include protection of adjacent upland areas as necessary to ensure protection of a wetland.
6111.027(C)
(C) An applicant for coverage under a general state isolated wetland permit or for an individual state isolated wetland permit under sections 6111.022 to 6111.024 of the Revised Code shall demonstrate that the mitigation site will be protected in (long term change to in perpetuity)and that appropriate practicable management measures are, or will be, in place to restrict harmful activities that jeopardize the mitigation.
6111.030(A)(4)
(A) Applications for a section 401 water quality certification required under division (P) of section 6111.03 of the Revised Code shall be submitted on forms provided by the director of environmental protection and shall include all information required on those forms as well as all of the following: [...]
(4) A specific and detailed mitigation proposal, including the location and proposed legal real estate instrument or other available mechanism for protecting the property in (long term change to in perpetuity);
We are troubled to see that the state budget (HB64) has included an amendment that will impair the protection of Ohio’s wetlands and negate the process of wetland mitigation. Considering that the state has already lost well beyond 90% of its wetlands and loss is continuing despite policies to protect them, we need to assure that Ohio will save and even increase the wetlands that serve Ohio. While progress has been made to protect duck habitat, there are far more services that our wetlands provide beyond sport shooting opportunities. Our wetlands are the key to keeping Ohio’s waters clean. The best protection against nutrients and other impairments in our rivers and lakes are the filtering powers of wetlands. Coastal and riverine wetlands provide critical spawning habitat for sport fish. What’s more, Ohio’s wetlands are host to our most endangered plants and animals. We need to prevent impacts, first, and when absolutely necessary, mitigate with integrity and in perpetuity. The idea that mitigation should be temporary flies in the face of laws that stand to protect our waters. HB64 includes language to declare that “Preservation” of mitigated wetlands would now mean ‘longterm’ instead or ‘perpetuity’ which is so ambiguous that it, in essence, declares Preservation to be temporary.
What benefit is it to the citizens of Ohio to have temporary solutions to the loss of wetlands? When wetlands protect downstream communities from flooding, who would want a temporary protection from a devastating flood? For those communities that get their drinking water from rivers and lakes, who would want their water supply protected by the filtering properties of wetlands for a little while? For the multi-billion dollar Lake Erie tourism industry, who would ask for the waters to be healthy, clear and fresh this year but not later? Would the tens of thousands who visit northwest Ohio for birding in Lake Erie marshes agree that we need these wetland habitats for this generation but not the next?
Clearly, there is no legal or semantic separation between long-term and short-term. Its use will only be subject to interpretation and confusion. I am concerned that some future interpretation will establish that ‘long-term’ is maybe just a few years or the length of a term in congress. The existing use of the word ‘perpetuity’ is the appropriate word and the only form of protection that makes sense.
Summary of salient points in HB64 provided by Nathan Johnson at the Ohio Environmental Council
Isolated wetlands permits; Section 401 water quality certifications
(1) Revises the definition of "preservation" as used in the provisions of the Water Pollution Control Law governing permits for impacts to isolated wetlands to mean the "long-term" protection of ecologically important wetlands, rather than protection "in perpetuity," through the implementation of appropriate legal mechanisms to prevent harm to the wetlands.
(2) Requires an applicant for coverage under an individual or general state isolated wetland permit to demonstrate that the mitigation site will be protected "long term" rather than "in perpetuity.
6111.02(L)
(L) "Preservation" means the long-term protection of ecologically important wetlands in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal mechanisms to prevent harm to the wetlands. "Preservation" may include protection of adjacent upland areas as necessary to ensure protection of a wetland.
6111.027(C)
(C) An applicant for coverage under a general state isolated wetland permit or for an individual state isolated wetland permit under sections 6111.022 to 6111.024 of the Revised Code shall demonstrate that the mitigation site will be protected in (long term change to in perpetuity)and that appropriate practicable management measures are, or will be, in place to restrict harmful activities that jeopardize the mitigation.
6111.030(A)(4)
(A) Applications for a section 401 water quality certification required under division (P) of section 6111.03 of the Revised Code shall be submitted on forms provided by the director of environmental protection and shall include all information required on those forms as well as all of the following: [...]
(4) A specific and detailed mitigation proposal, including the location and proposed legal real estate instrument or other available mechanism for protecting the property in (long term change to in perpetuity);