In a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCAR), significant concerns were raised regarding proposed changes to Ohio's stream mitigation regulations, specifically the introduction of a drainage area scaling factor in subpart b 5 of the proposed OAC 3745-32-4. The Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) and experts in environmental restoration voiced strong opposition, arguing that the new rule conflicts with existing regulations and could lead to the degradation of Ohio's small headwater streams.

Nathan Johnson, representing the OEC Action Fund, emphasized that the proposed rule fails to provide a complete and accurate summary and fiscal analysis, as mandated by Ohio Revised Code. He highlighted that the scaling factor would drastically reduce the credits associated with mitigating impacts on small headwater streams, potentially resulting in the destruction of these vital ecosystems without adequate compensation. Johnson pointed out that this change contradicts both the Federal Clean Water Act and Ohio's anti-degradation law, which mandates the protection of existing water quality and uses.

Joshua White, a stream and wetland restoration expert, echoed these concerns, stating that the scaling factor was introduced without sufficient public notice or opportunity for comment. He noted that nearly 80% of Ohio's waters are comprised of headwater streams, which are crucial for maintaining ecological balance. White argued that the proposed changes would force mitigation efforts to focus on larger water bodies, neglecting the critical headwater streams where most environmental impacts occur.

Both Johnson and White called for the invalidation of subparts b 4 and b 5, urging JCAR to recommend that the Ohio House and Senate reject these proposed changes. They stressed the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for stream mitigation to ensure the protection of Ohio's waterways and the ecological functions they provide.

The meeting underscored the growing tension between regulatory changes and environmental protection efforts in Ohio, as stakeholders continue to advocate for transparency and public involvement in the rule-making process.