SCDUCKS.COM Forums






Go Back   SCDUCKS.COM Forums > Hunting Forums > Wildlife and Habitat Politics
Register All Albums FAQ Members List Calendar Gameroom [0] Premium Sub Mark Forums Read

Wildlife and Habitat Politics Outdoor issues. DNR, private property rights, legislation, etc.

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 03-26-2014, 10:11 AM
JABIII's Avatar
JABIII JABIII is offline
Rush Chairman
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wateree, South Carolina
Posts: 23,886
Gameroom cash: $55292225
Default EPA Land Grab

In what critics are describing as a government land grab, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a change Tuesday to the Clean Water Act that would give it regulatory authority over temporary wetlands and waterways.

The proposal immediately sparked concerns that the regulatory power could extend into seasonal ponds, streams and ditches, including those on private property.

"The ... rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," said Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The EPA proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary.

At issue is whether the smaller streams and wetlands are indeed part of the "waters of the United States."

The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2001 and 2006. The second ruling restricted the federal government's authority by stating such waters must be "relatively" permanent or continuously flowing and sizeable, like "oceans, rivers, streams and lakes."

In defending the proposed change, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became "confusing and complex" following the high court decisions.

"For nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity," the agencies said in a joint statement.

They also argued such waters "form the foundation of the nation's water resources" and the changes would not extend the federal government's reach. "To be clear, our proposal does not add to or expand the scope of the waters historically protected under the Clean Water Act," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a video accompanying the announcement.

The EPA also said roughly 60 percent of "stream miles" in the country only flow seasonally or after rain but have a "considerable impact" on downstream waters -- and that about 117 million Americans, or one in three, get their drinking water from public systems that rely in part on such streams.

The proposal is now subject to a 90-day comment period in which federal officials vowed to conduct a "robust" public outreach effort that will include discussions across the country to gather the input needed "to shape a final rule." The agencies said the proposed change is supported by the latest peer-reviewed science.

However, Vitter accused the EPA of "picking and choosing" its science while trying to "take another step toward outright permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country."

He also warned the proposed change, if approved, would open the door for more environmental groups suing private property owners.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, echoed those concerns, saying the change "could result in serious collateral damage to our economy."

"[I]t appears that the EPA is seeking to dramatically expand its jurisdictional reach under the Clean Water Act," she said in a statement. The senator added that the change could have a huge impact on Alaska.

"If EPA is not careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control of nearly all of our state -- and prove to be a showstopper for both traditional access and new development," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...eams-wetlands/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiz18 View Post
We love Dabo. That will never change. We don't have to defend him. He's our horse if he never wins a race.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 03-26-2014, 10:13 AM
JABIII's Avatar
JABIII JABIII is offline
Rush Chairman
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wateree, South Carolina
Posts: 23,886
Gameroom cash: $55292225
Default

March 25 --All natural and artificial tributaries and wetlands that are adjacent to or near larger downstream waters would be subject to federal Clean Water Act protections under a joint proposed rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 25.

The proposal also would allow the EPA and corps to seek comment on a case-by-case basis on whether the aggregate effect of geographically isolated wetlands and other waters that “significantly” affect the physical, biological and chemical integrity of federally protected downstream waters are jurisdictional.

The agencies also included an interpretive rule, immediately effective, that clarifies that the 53 specific conservation practices identified by the Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation Service to protect or improve water quality won't be subject to dredge-and-fill permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The rulemaking is significant because it would seek to clarify the definition of which waters or wetlands are considered “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act, and therefore within U.S. regulatory jurisdiction, triggering federal requirements, such as permitting, state water quality certification and oil spill response.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed off on the proposed rule March 25, and Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, signed off on it March 24. Comments will be accepted on the proposed rule for 90 days following publication in the Federal Register.

According to McCarthy, the proposed rule will reduce the confusion and complexity about where the Clean Water Act applies following U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs., 531 U.S. 159, 51 ERC 1833 (2001), and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 62 ERC 1481 (2006).

“We are clarifying protection for the upstream waters that are absolutely vital to downstream communities,” McCarthy in a statement accompanying the proposed rule's release.

Darcy said, “Today's rulemaking will better protect our aquatic resources, by strengthening the consistency, predictability, and transparency of our jurisdictional determinations.”

The agencies said the proposed rule would not subject “any entities of any size to any specific regulatory burden.” Rather, it is designed to clarify the statutory scope of “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Proposed Rule Would Address Loopholes

During a March 25 teleconference call, McCarthy pointed out that an Environmental Law Institute study showed that 36 states have legal limitations that prevent the agency from covering waters not covered by the Clean Water Act. She said this proposed rule would cover those regulatory loopholes.

Emphasizing the need to protect 60 percent of streams that flow “seasonally” and provide drinking water to 117 million people, McCarthy said, “From farming to manufacturing to recreation to energy production, you name it--these streams and wetlands protect the economy,” she said.

McCarthy said the proposed rule wouldn't cover groundwater, tile drainage, maintenance and construction of irrigation ditches, agricultural stormwater discharges, silvicultural activities that involve logging and construction of temporary roads.

The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly sent a draft rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in September 2013 for interagency review. The rule proposed by the agencies doesn't differ drastically from the draft rule, which was leaked in November 2013.

New Definitions Proposed

More significantly, the proposed rule would revise the existing definition of “waters of the United States” that now include a new regulatory definition for tributaries. The EPA and the corps proposed that only those waters meeting the regulatory definitions would be subject to Clean Water Act protections.

The proposed rule, as in the draft rule, also would define the terms “significant nexus,” “neighboring” waters, floodplains, riparian areas and wetlands.

The proposed rule would expand the definition of a tributary of an interstate river, territorial seas and navigable waters. Right now, it is defined as having a bed, a channel and an ordinary high water mark.

Under the proposed rule, the definition would include tributaries that run through wetlands and bridges, culverts and dams without losing their characteristics. Tributaries would include lakes, streams, canals and ditches, excluding those ditches that don't contribute flow or have an ephemeral flow or are found in uplands.

In a change from the draft rule, the rule would define tributaries to impoundments of interstate waters, territorial seas or navigable waters to be jurisdictional.

Test Set by Supreme Court

The so-called significant nexus test was articulated by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in Rapanos v. United States. The purpose of Kennedy's test was to identify which waters fell under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction based on a significant nexus between the water in question and downstream navigable waters and wetlands.

The agencies have asked the public to comment on how it should go about evaluating, on a case-by-case basis, “other waters” that include prairie potholes, playa lakes, mudflats and sandflats that “alone or in combination with similarly situated waters, including wetlands” have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters or the territorial seas.

Environmental groups, including Earthjustice and the National Wildlife Federation, were mostly effusive in their praise for the proposed rule.

“By protecting the streams that feed into mighty rivers like the Mississippi and the wetlands that filter pollution from the Puget Sound and other iconic waters, this rule is a safety net for all the waterways Americans care about,” Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America, said.

Peter Lehner, executive director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, cautioned against the rule's naysayers, urging the public to support the rule.

Chandler Goule, vice president for the National Farmers Union, was pleased that the rule clarified Clean Water Act jurisdiction, maintained existing agricultural exemptions and added new exemptions.

Farm Bureau Federation Displeased

Unlike Goule, Don Parrish, federal regulatory relations director for the American Farm Bureau Federation, maintained the group's opposition to the proposed rule, saying it would expand federal regulatory overreach over the nation's waters.

Parrish questioned the exemptions that the rule immediately grants for conservation practices, saying they already were exempt from permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act.

Patrick Parenteau, a Vermont Law School professor specializing in environmental issues, asked whether the EPA “couldn't have done more” in asserting jurisdiction over geographically isolated wetlands, such as prairie potholes in the Upper Midwest and Carolina Bays in the southeastern U.S. that play important roles in filtering pollutants and providing habitat for wildlife.

Overall, Parenteau said the proposed rule was an improvement over what existed before.

“The fact it is a rule, not simply a guidance, gives it additional formality,” Parenteau said. “It has more the status of law now. I think it may undergo further changes during notice and comment. I would say EPA is moving in the right direction to clarify that something that is extraordinarily complicated, but it's an improvement.”

Positive Economic Impacts Expected

In a teleconference call, both Chris Wood, president of Trout Unlimited, and Whit Fosburg, president and chief executive officer of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, highlighted the positive economic impact of protecting headwaters that serve as habitat for fish and wildlife. Representing anglers, Wood said the direct economic benefit to the nation from protecting headwaters is estimated at $87 billion each year.

Benjamin Grumbles, the president of the nonprofit U.S. Water Alliance, was more circumspect in his reading of the proposed rule, saying, “It's a respectable jump shot, but hardly a slam dunk.”

Democratic lawmakers say the cost of inaction would be higher. Republican lawmakers remained opposed to the rulemaking (see related story).

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, led five Republican senators in circulating a letter March 5 urging a “no” vote on President Obama's nominee to serve as assistant administrator for water at the EPA, a bid to stop the agency from moving forward with the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rulemaking .

Comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 should be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov.



To contact the reporter on this story: Amena H. Saiyid in Washington at asaiyid@bna.com
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiz18 View Post
We love Dabo. That will never change. We don't have to defend him. He's our horse if he never wins a race.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 03-26-2014, 10:14 AM
JABIII's Avatar
JABIII JABIII is offline
Rush Chairman
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wateree, South Carolina
Posts: 23,886
Gameroom cash: $55292225
Default

Note that Carolina Bays are specifically addressed...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiz18 View Post
We love Dabo. That will never change. We don't have to defend him. He's our horse if he never wins a race.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 03-26-2014, 10:21 AM
turbo's Avatar
turbo turbo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Blythewood
Posts: 11,558
Gameroom cash: $31650
Default

Mercy...

They'll never stop reaching.
__________________
"Freedom Isn't Free"
_Spc. Thomas Caughman
1983-2004

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dook View Post
Go tigers!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 03-26-2014, 10:26 AM
Turd Ferguson's Avatar
Turd Ferguson Turd Ferguson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in a van down by the river
Posts: 14,216
Gameroom cash: $102477
Default

you fucktoods dont own any land- it all belongs to them and they decide how to manage it
__________________
Conservation Permit Holder #2765

2011 SCDUCKERS REDNECK NASCAR CHAMPION
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 03-26-2014, 10:29 AM
CAMO SNOB CAMO SNOB is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South Carolinastan
Posts: 9,983
Gameroom cash: $84077
Default

"Waters of the US" plats just went up
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 03-26-2014, 10:42 AM
Turd Ferguson's Avatar
Turd Ferguson Turd Ferguson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in a van down by the river
Posts: 14,216
Gameroom cash: $102477
Default

What is the definition of “Waters of the
United States” & “Navigable Waters of
the United States”?

Waters of the United States
40 CFR 230.3(s) The term waters of the United States means:
1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide;
2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or
foreign commerce including any such waters:
(I) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other
purposes; or
(ii)(From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;
or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce;
4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this
definition;
5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
6. The territorial sea;
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in
paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including
treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than
cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this
definition) are not waters of the United States.
Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the
determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the
purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction
remains with EPA.

Navigable Waters of the United States
This term includes the oceans and navigable coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and
streams. Corps jurisdiction extends shoreward to the mean high water line.
The Corps general definition of navigable waters of the United States is “those waters subject
to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water mark and/or are presently
used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or
foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the
entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which
impede or destroy navigable capacity.”
__________________
Conservation Permit Holder #2765

2011 SCDUCKERS REDNECK NASCAR CHAMPION
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 03-27-2014, 06:15 AM
GMAC GMAC is offline
Black Duck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Columbia
Posts: 2,370
Gameroom cash: $140850
Default

Its hardly a land grab. EPA's jurisdiction over isolated and ephemeral wetlands with no significant hydrolic nexus to navigable waterways was eliminated by the Supreme Court in 2001. No amount of rule making can restore that. In the meantime, Prarie potholes were among the wetlands that lost all protection. Drainage of potholes across the midwest has ramped up significantly since then. What was a victory for property rights advocates has been a severe setback for the ducks. Many biologists believe that with the current rate of pothole destruction, NAWMP goals will be impossible to sustain.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 03-27-2014, 06:21 AM
benman's Avatar
benman benman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 4,561
Gameroom cash: $128500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAMO SNOB View Post
"Waters of the US" plats just went up

Now we'll have stream crossing permits and ravine crossing permits.
__________________
Founding Member of the Short Mo' Sea Pro Posse

Fuck Purdue
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 03-27-2014, 06:44 AM
fro's Avatar
fro fro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hardeeville, SC
Posts: 3,995
Gameroom cash: $624790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAMO SNOB View Post
"Waters of the US" plats just went up
Yup, so did the price of delineations, impact permits, letter of permission, no permit required letters, Tulloch request, etc, etc, etc....

I hate my job....
__________________
you aint did a dawg gon thang until ya STAND UP IN IT!- Theodis Ealey


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
The older I get, the more anal retentive I get.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 03-27-2014, 07:01 AM
Timberman22's Avatar
Timberman22 Timberman22 is online now
.243 Pro Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Diameter at Breast Height aka "DBH"
Posts: 2,177
Gameroom cash: $148330
Default

I'm just glad silvicultural activities are exempt at this time. Feel sure that will eventually change.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghetto View Post
A larger caliber will help you with your deer kills. Try it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportin' Woodies View Post
I agree with timber22
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 03-27-2014, 07:02 AM
CAMO SNOB CAMO SNOB is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South Carolinastan
Posts: 9,983
Gameroom cash: $84077
Default

I like mine... What the hell do you do? Environmental consulting correct? Do you think your clients are going to like to pay you a lot more for a wetlands delineation and waters of the US approval? What kind of increase do expect on say a small site (less than 2 acres) with one wetland less than 4000 sqft?

How much has the new phase one requirments increased your fees? And liablity?

What about the water quality mandate that requires water to be damn near drink able when leaving a site? I mean these things created jobs someone has to right a report about silt fenwce each time it rains.

Sounds to me like you are in a good spot... Environmental compliance is going to be more critical in the future.... You will have to spend twice as much time and effort per site, Barry has been good to the environmental consultants.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 03-27-2014, 07:29 AM
ECUPirate's Avatar
ECUPirate ECUPirate is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lexington
Posts: 2,953
Gameroom cash: $132400
Default

It's all about the government getting "their" money. The more land they govern over, the more money they collect on annual permit fees and fines from violations. Silviculture and agriculture, I believe, will continue to be exempt. I listened to a teleconference on Tuesday, regarding the above article, and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. The 90 day public review period is the time for everyone to speak up and voice their concerns.
__________________
:FYT:

Last edited by ECUPirate; 03-27-2014 at 07:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 03-27-2014, 07:33 AM
CAMO SNOB CAMO SNOB is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South Carolinastan
Posts: 9,983
Gameroom cash: $84077
Default

They won't, they can't, it's going to happen for forestry.... Don't be fooled.

Ag... Maybe not, but the tree huggers letting the forestry guys slide is not in the master plans.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 03-27-2014, 07:36 AM
Timberman22's Avatar
Timberman22 Timberman22 is online now
.243 Pro Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Diameter at Breast Height aka "DBH"
Posts: 2,177
Gameroom cash: $148330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAMO SNOB View Post
They won't, they can't, it's going to happen for forestry.... Don't be fooled.

Ag... Maybe not, but the tree huggers letting the forestry guys slide is not in the master plans.
Exactly, it is coming.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghetto View Post
A larger caliber will help you with your deer kills. Try it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportin' Woodies View Post
I agree with timber22
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 03-27-2014, 07:56 AM
Dook's Avatar
Dook Dook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Research Triangle
Posts: 11,499
Gameroom cash: $130000
Default

"the mud hole policia" at it 24/7
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 03-27-2014, 08:07 AM
fro's Avatar
fro fro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hardeeville, SC
Posts: 3,995
Gameroom cash: $624790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAMO SNOB View Post
I like mine... What the hell do you do? Environmental consulting correct? Do you think your clients are going to like to pay you a lot more for a wetlands delineation and waters of the US approval? What kind of increase do expect on say a small site (less than 2 acres) with one wetland less than 4000 sqft?

How much has the new phase one requirments increased your fees? And liablity?

What about the water quality mandate that requires water to be damn near drink able when leaving a site? I mean these things created jobs someone has to right a report about silt fenwce each time it rains.

Sounds to me like you are in a good spot... Environmental compliance is going to be more critical in the future.... You will have to spend twice as much time and effort per site, Barry has been good to the environmental consultants.
I hear you loud and clear. Not many of my clients want to pay for the "extra work" the administration has created. The back log in Charleston and Savannah is unreal and getting anything completed in a timely manner is unheard of. The endless amount of paperwork is what I loath. From the time you submit a complete application and by the time they act on it they will have revised policy/forms or something in order to kick it back at the consultant. It is a vicious cycle. I hate sitting in front of this damn computer.

The shift in policy since 2008'ish has taken me out of the field and put me in an office chair, fighting with asshole liberal regulators constantly. The shift has not only been policy as much as the regulators themselves. None of them have any idea what a budget is and what it means to bill time for a living. There was a time not so long ago when the USACE would work with you to find a sensible way for an applicant to move forward with their project. They have put decision makers in place now that find ways not to permit your project. Some of the shit they ask for or require is out of control! Par of me thinks it laziness and part of me thinks it a very leftish mentality.

Yes the cost of doing work has gone up and will continue to. The profit margins have also gone down, considerably! Thing have really picked up in the coastal counties of SC and GA where I primarily focus my work, but the folks doing business (government contracts excluded) are still hanging by a tread...

Example. Back in the hay day when everything was going gang busters (2003-2008 time frame) I delineated and had the wetlands on many large tracts of land platted and verified (large= 2000-8000 acres). That five year certification doesn't mean squat once it expires. A typical tract of say 2000 acres would of cost the landowner close to or just above 100k to run that process once the all said and done. Now the same tract where nothing has changed in that 5 year time span will cost a land owner half of that just t have it re-certified. Mainly because of the paper work. The wetland line hasn't moved or shouldn't of. All delineations with an isolated wetland must got to the USACE and EPA for approval. In Savannah, that requires two plats and an ass of other documents. Each with their own set of requirements. Hell if you have an isolated wetland and you want a nonjurisdcitonal call on it, better gear up and open the check book.

My point is, the additional work required makes it almost too expensive for an applicant to have a viable project to construct and sell in addition to adding an astronomical time to the front end of a project. Everything starts here... the bridges you cross, the water that gets to your house, the house you live in, the roads you drive on, the walmart 2th hates, the ports that import and export everything, the trees we grow, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberman22 View Post
I'm just glad silvicultural activities are exempt at this time. Feel sure that will eventually change.
What you talking about willis? You better stay in that glass house... The 15 federally mandated clean water act provisions that give you those "silvicultural exemptions" are not worth the paper they are written on. I have not seen one timber tract in the 100's of thousands of acres I have traversed that were completely in compliant with the BMP's. Thus meaning the "ongoing" silvicultural activities are a violation of the cleanwater act. The biggest problem i see on such sites are stream and wetland crossings. I have yet to see but a very small handful that would qualify as compliant. that not to say the crossings are not doing what the regulation intend them to do, they just don't fit into the way the clean water act has required them to be built or installed.

Was on a 2000 acre tract yesterday with GAFC for a BMP inspection the USACE has required. It was awful. Everything was copacetic except 3 wetland/stream crossings where the culverts were not installed correctly by GP many years ago. The current landowner inherited these crossing, but it is his responsibility. Those 3 crossing will give him a failing grade for the inspection and therefore in the USACE's eyes he is not compliant with the clean water act and the silvicultural exemptions. Unfortunately, He is about to get nailed i suspect. Now the USACE mindset will be punitive damages, violation resolution, etc. Wasn't so long ago that they would have slapped him a little and made him fix the few areas. This land owners pockets are not very deep and he is scrapping and clawing in order to keep this land. This might be the nail in the coffin for him to give it back to the bank. In addition, fema flood zone revision of 2008 put over 65% of his land in the flood zone and the proposed revision of 2014 will take another 20%. This land would have been a great development tract as it is located adjacent to Fort Stewart, not so much now. Hes will now have a hard time selling trees if he cant get them off the tract...
__________________
you aint did a dawg gon thang until ya STAND UP IN IT!- Theodis Ealey


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
The older I get, the more anal retentive I get.

Last edited by fro; 03-27-2014 at 08:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 03-27-2014, 08:54 AM
dfasano's Avatar
dfasano dfasano is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,936
Gameroom cash: $34500
Default

Have not read through all of this but I did get an email forwarded to be from NAFO discussing this.

1. WATER POLICY:
Obama admin proposes broader protection for wetlands, streams
Annie Snider, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The Obama administration unveiled a regulatory proposal today that would bring nearly all rivers, streams and creeks under the protection of the Clean Water Act and add clarity on which wetlands would receive protection.
The proposal, which hews closely to a draft leaked last fall, would bring roughly $2 in benefits for every dollar it costs, according to U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which jointly proposed the rule.
"The health of our rivers, lakes, bays and coastal waters depend on smaller interconnected streams and wetlands that feed them," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said on a call with reporters. "These places are where we get our drinking water and where our families hunt, fish, swim and play."
The rule is aimed at clarifying which streams, creeks, bogs and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act following two muddled Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 that left both industry and agencies in regulatory limbo (Greenwire, Feb. 7, 2011).
That the rule was proposed at all is a major win for environmental groups, sportsmen and other supporters of a broader take on federal jurisdiction.
After the second Supreme Court decision in 2008, the George W. Bush administration established an approach to claiming jurisdiction over waters that greens faulted as too narrow. In the years since, they have attempted both legislatively and administratively to get more waters and wetlands automatically covered.
"Whether we look back to the recent spill in West Virginia that left 300,000 people without drinking water or ahead to the dead zones that will blight Lake Erie and the Chesapeake Bay this summer, it's obvious that our waterways are not as clean or safe as we need them to be -- for our drinking water, for recreation, or for the health of our ecosystems and wildlife," said Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America.
"Today's action by the EPA will help ensure that all our waterways get the protection they need so we can enjoy them for years to come."
According to U.S. EPA, the vast majority of waters in the southwestern United States do not flow year round. Such waters have been in regulatory limbo following two confused Supreme Court decisions but would receive federal protections under today’s proposal. Map courtesy of the EPA.
But the proposal would have major impacts for homebuilders, oil and gas companies, and agribusinesses that have been pushing back since the rulemaking effort began.
Industry groups and their congressional allies have called the proposal a power grab and said it will have broad implications across the economy (Greenwire, Nov. 13, 2013).
They have also questioned the administration's economic analysis showing that benefits outweigh costs (E&ENews PM, Dec. 20, 2013).
"The 'waters of the U.S.' rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
The Obama administration is making a concerted effort to reach out to the rule's foes, particularly those in agriculture.
The proposed rule would maintain all current exemptions for agriculture, and McCarthy said today EPA worked with the Department of Agriculture to develop and include a list of 53 additional exemptions for agricultural conservation practices.
'Significant' connection
The rule proposal would place all tributaries -- including those that flow only seasonally or when it rains -- under federal jurisdiction, meaning that a permit would be required for anyone who wanted to fill those areas or discharge pollution into them.
The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Rapanos v. United States threw protections for "intermittent" and "ephemeral" streams into question, and in many places they simply have not been regulated.
EPA says about 60 percent of U.S. stream miles fall into the "intermittent" category.
It's an even more pressing issue in the West. A 2008 EPA study says 94 percent of Arizona's streams don't flow year-round, 89 percent of Nevada's are dry most of the year, and 88 percent of New Mexico's are not perennial.
Geographically isolated wetlands -- like the Great Plains' Prairie Potholes -- have also been a major question mark following the two high court decisions.
Under today's rule proposal, wetlands that are adjacent to jurisdictional waters would be regulated, but geographically isolated wetlands would still require a regulator to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it significantly affects factors such as flooding, pollution or species downstream.
The Obama administration has added a specific request for comment on this issue, though.
"The agencies are interested in comments, scientific and technical data, case law, and other information that would further clarify which 'other waters' should be considered similarly situated for purposes of a case-specific significant nexus determination," the rule states, noting that situations could, for instance, be broken down by ecological regions or hydrologic landscape regions.
However, McCarthy said that for other types of waters to be ruled jurisdictional, one would have to show not just that there is a downstream connection but that it is a "significant" connection.
"These other upstream waters must be shown to have a significant nexus to downstream water quality," McCarthy said. "If you're a pond or a wetland, it's not enough to show that the connections simply exist; you have to show that that pond or wetland -- either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region -- significantly affects the alteration of physical, chemical or biological integrity of other jurisdictional waters that the Clean Water Act was intended to protect."
The rule also specifically asks for comment on whether there are categories of waters that could automatically be ruled outside of jurisdiction without a case-by-case analysis.
The agencies will be accepting public comment on the proposed rule for 90 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 03-27-2014, 09:19 AM
ECUPirate's Avatar
ECUPirate ECUPirate is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lexington
Posts: 2,953
Gameroom cash: $132400
Default

fro,

Just curious, but if the landowner you referenced is exempt from regulations in the Clean Water Act, why is the Army Corp on his site doing BMP inspections? I don't deal with the silvicultural activities so I'm not sure how the exemptions work but I assumed that if you were exempt from the CWA requirements, you wouldn't have to apply for permits and conduct routine inspections.
__________________
:FYT:
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 03-27-2014, 12:41 PM
CAMO SNOB CAMO SNOB is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South Carolinastan
Posts: 9,983
Gameroom cash: $84077
Default

FRO... if and when the boom returns project completion will be twice as long because all the bureaucrat manufactured red tape. The dam bureaucrats had waaaaaaay to much time on their hands the last few years AND instead of hanging out on scducks they wrote redtape rules to hinder development and give themselves more job security.... all at our expense.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2012, SCDUCKS.COM, LLC