permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SANET-MG] EPA HQ Now Vets Internal Protests of Wetlands Permits
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:21:45 -0500
From: sydney151 <sydney151@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

EPA HQ Now Vets Internal Protests of Wetlands Permits

WASHINGTON, DC, December 6, 2006 (ENS) - Under a new screening procedure,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires prior approval from EPA
Headquarters for any objections agency staff may contemplate filing against
wetlands destruction permits.

The order is contained in a October 30, 2006 Memorandum for the Field signed
by EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles.

The internal directive was released Tuesday by Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, PEER, a national association of employees in
natural resources agencies.

Under the new procedure, every EPA protest sent to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers requires prior approval from EPA Headquarters.

All regional offices must now "notify HQ immediately" and provide advance
drafts before issuing a letter to the Corps indicating that a pending permit
may result in "substantial and unacceptable" impacts to aquatic resources of
national importance.

The rationale for this new policy is to "ensure consistency with national
program regulations, policies, and goals," Grumbles states in the directive.

"The aim and effect of this policy is to stifle EPA's own staff from
protecting wetlands," said New England PEER Director Kyla Bennett, a
biologist and lawyer formerly with the EPA's wetland program.

"This new policy puts the final decision in the hands of officials who have
never seen the land in question and whose principal interest is political
rather than environmental," said Bennett.

Under a 1992 interagency agreement between the EPA and the Corps, the EPA
regional wetland program must notify the Corps district office when it
believes a proposed permit may violate the wetland protections of the Clean
Water Act.

This preliminary warning is called a "3(a) letter" for the numbered
paragraph of the interagency agreement to which it refers.

Typically, this type of letter is sent directly from the wetlands program
staff without input from the regional administrator, but each EPA region has
its own practice.

If the Corps proceeds with the permit despite the 3(a) letter, the regional
administrator can send what is called a "3(b) letter" to the Corps District
Engineer stating that EPA believes the proposed project will have a
substantial and unacceptable impact to aquatic resources of national
importance.

If the Corps decides to issue the permit despite the 3(b) letter, it must
send a draft copy of the permit to the EPA. At that point the EPA regional
office can "elevate" the permit dispute to EPA Headquarters. PEER has
documented that this elevation has occurred only 18 times since 1992 when
the program began.

"This added layer of scrutiny by [EPA] Headquarters will discourage the
regions from trying to elevate cases, or just increase the instances where
HQ quashes a regional decision to elevate," Bennett said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has an elevation option similar to
that of the EPA, has not objected to a single wetlands destruction permit
during the Bush administration. Bennett says this is because the Service is
"already under strict controls by political appointees within the Interior
Department."

Corps wetlands permitting practices have been criticized in independent
reviews by the National Academies of Science and the Governmental
Accountability Office for favoring development over conservation.

PEER is now suing the Corps in federal district court to force the Corps to
reveal its permitting records since 2003. The suit, filed this spring, is
now in a final settlement process.