10/21/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13.A. EPA (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) AND FWS (FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE) RULES REGARDING ENHANCED PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES - LOCAL CLEAN WATER DECISION MAKING The Board reviewed a Memorandum from the Clean Water Industry Coalition: CLEAN WATER INDUSTRY COALITION New Rules Threaten Business and OCT 2 p 1997 Local Clean Water Decision-making BbARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION Background The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Interiol are quietly and quickly drafting new procedures to protect endangered species and their habitat ry strict limits on businesses operations. land use. and local economic development. The new EPA procedures may appear simple and reasonable --- states noun be required to "consult" with the U.S. Fish 3g. Wildlife Service (FWS') and the Nations . Marine Fisheries Service (N'MFS) to ensure that Clew Water Act (CWA) permits protect t tdangered species and their habitat. As always. the -devil is in the detail,." Under the new procedures, the agencies will decide whether species and hal itat are given "adequate" safeguards under C'WA permits --hut what mtnhods olid erireru, will ve used is unclear. If the agencies say protection is inadequate. EPA has broad new p aer to veto state -issued permits. They could impose stricter requirements and conditions on st: es and businesses. The procedures appl to species and habitat merely proposed ror prow .ion, The new policy directly affects every commercial, industrial and municipal :ritiry that is required to have a nate-issued C W A permit (including stortnwater. wetlands and ::wage sludge permitc). More monitoring. screening and reporting will be required. If EPA and F\ S sav that species/habitat are being. "adversely affected.- then facilities could be forced to at 1 more strict controls and limits! or pertnits could be denied. Facilities located in or Item spc iesihabitat areas may be required to comply (EPA and FWS will dcaide how close is sou etas I. Facilities could be preveuted from altering their discharge levels. Or that plant expansion. c ranges in production output and new sewer houlcups will be prohibited. Offsite develupmetl and improvements--- such as widening a road — way be restricted. Many common nd uses -- farming, homebuilding, logging. road building, torr. -- [tiny be restricted. delayet or denied. Public and private land could be tied up for years. Rivers. streams and watershed could be redesignated for more restrictive uses with communities forced :o pay for impro. mens. Tlic procedures tit not provide pennirces; with any say in the prowess. It r: dnnrbtnnl Mai nor species or hnhitnt �rili he �JNr1Nl'l�rnuet'led rltnll tnlllP! !•lu'rtnlr itn►:s ani! rukerlt ions. • till this is unnecessary. The Endrut_e.^ed Species Act already protects species/11; aunt and provides for cooperative agrcetnct.Is between states and the Interior nep4mnen Many skates already -consult- with the FWS. and have their own standards, agencies nd laws to protect endangered species. • Having four federal agencies invr+lved in clean water permitting will throw• the rocess into gridltwk. This makes no sense wizen. Ir»uically. EPA is takute separate action t , streamline and simplify the clean water perurir process. • It overrides traditional stare authority and shifts local decisiun-making to the fet :sal government. L rider the Mean Writer Act. stales determinc water quality standar is and criteria. including protection for endaneered species/habitat. • There is no evidence that spt.•ciLs an:i habitat are being jeop<•trdized or harmed b the states or by clean water pertnits. If dery policy is needed, it should be fully debated b, Congress. the states and the public, not by regulation. OCTOBER 21, 1997 87 BOOK -1.03 F ,H . ,