Note: Only 16% of US streams have been assessed and 44% of them are considered impaired.
National Water Quality Inventory Report Now Available On-line
This report, available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/305b/2004report/, summarizes water quality assessments submitted by the states to EPA under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The report finds that the states assessed 16 percent of the nation?s 3.5 million river and stream miles, 39 percent of its 41.7 million acres of lakes, ponds and reservoirs, and 29 percent of its 87,791 estuary square miles. Forty-four percent of assessed river and stream miles, 64 percent of assessed lake acres, and 30 percent of assessed estuary square miles were found to be impaired for one or more of the uses designated for them by the states. Leading causes of impairment included pathogens, mercury, nutrients, and organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen. Top sources of impairment included atmospheric deposition, agriculture, hydrologic modifications, and unknown or unspecified sources. This report is a companion to electronically-submitted state water quality information available on EPA?s Web site, known as ATTAINS, at
http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir. In addition to viewing the national summary and information by state at this Web site, users can click down to the individual waterbody level to find out more about water quality conditions.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Free Used Tire Disposal at Solid Waste Sites
ADEQ awards more than $1 million in waste tire grants
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality awarded grants of more than $1 million this month to support tire disposal and recycling operations throughout the state.
The grants are given quarterly to the state's regional solid waste management districts to fund waste tire collection, transportation, recycling or disposal.
For the first quarter of 2009, ADEQ awarded $1,011,850.
ADEQ's grant awards are calculated based on population of each district and by the number of tires a district received the previous year.
Arkansas residents may dispose of up to four tires per month free of charge at waste tire collection sites within their region. The 125 sites in Arkansas are operated by regional solid waste management districts.
The ADEQ grants are funded by a $2-per-tire fee on automobile and light truck tires sold in the state. An additional $3-per-tire fee is assessed for large truck tires.
In addition to the tire management grants, ADEQ often awards money from its waste tire grant fund to pay for clean up of illegal tire disposal sites or support capital improvement projects.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality awarded grants of more than $1 million this month to support tire disposal and recycling operations throughout the state.
The grants are given quarterly to the state's regional solid waste management districts to fund waste tire collection, transportation, recycling or disposal.
For the first quarter of 2009, ADEQ awarded $1,011,850.
ADEQ's grant awards are calculated based on population of each district and by the number of tires a district received the previous year.
Arkansas residents may dispose of up to four tires per month free of charge at waste tire collection sites within their region. The 125 sites in Arkansas are operated by regional solid waste management districts.
The ADEQ grants are funded by a $2-per-tire fee on automobile and light truck tires sold in the state. An additional $3-per-tire fee is assessed for large truck tires.
In addition to the tire management grants, ADEQ often awards money from its waste tire grant fund to pay for clean up of illegal tire disposal sites or support capital improvement projects.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
EPA, Army Corps satisfy no one with new guidance
Note: Rapanos was a major Supreme Ct. case that addressed the issue of how connected must water be to a stream or lake to be under the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Clean Water Act (CWA)? The decision really left the question unresolved, but EPA and the COE has been working on guidelines for decision making, none the less.
Gene
FYI passing this along--of interest to duck hunters/wetland interests. Jim Wood.
----- Original Message -----
From: George Sorvalis
To: CRNETWORK@LISTS.NATIONALWILDLIFE.ORG
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: WETLANDS: EPA, Army Corps satisfy no one with new guidance (12/05/2008)
WETLANDS: EPA, Army Corps satisfy no one with new guidance (12/05/2008)
Katherine Boyle, Greenwire reporter
Environmentalists and industry stakeholders alike are blasting the wetlands guidance memorandum issued this week by U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The revised guidance defines protected waters as those that are determined to be navigable-in-fact by the courts, are currently being used or have historically been used for commercial navigation, or could realistically be used for commercial navigation in the future.
The document also clarifies what constitutes a protected, adjacent wetland, noting that a wetland must have an unbroken hydrologic connection to jurisdictional waters, be separated from those waters by a berm or similar barrier or be reasonably close to a jurisdictional water (E&ENews PM, Dec. 3).
Neither environmental groups like the National Wildlife Federation nor industry stakeholders like the National Association of Home Builders are happy with it.
The federation slammed the guidance as less protective and more confusing than the June 2007 memo it replaces. Both memos are meant to clarify the Supreme Court's muddled 2006 Rapanos-Carabell decision.
The guidance "is another lose-lose document that will have the effect of making it harder to protect waters, and more time-intensive and costly to administer permit applications," federation attorney Jim Murphy said in a statement. "It will result in more pollution, more administrative delays, and more head scratching."
Environmentalists warn that the revised guidance undermines Clean Water Act protections for a number of wetlands and streams by requiring waters to be commercially navigable to qualify. That means fewer bodies of water will fall under the significant nexus test, which measures the relationship between upstream waters and the closest traditionally navigable water, devised by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Rapanos decision, the federation said.
The homebuilders, on the other hand, said the guidance's definition of protected waters is too broad.
Susan Asmus, staff vice president for regulatory policy at the National Association of Home Builders, said including waters that are potentially navigable contradicts the intent of the Clean Water Act. She said the law is meant to cover waters that are currently being used for navigation rather than those that are "susceptible" to use.
Despite the criticism, Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, praised the guidance, which he said ensures that the traditional navigable waters test encompasses requirements the agency has looked at over the years.
"We're looking at all the prongs for jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act," Grumbles said. "That includes if it was navigable in the past or is susceptible to commercial navigation in the future." That definition ensures that officials will not solely rely upon the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act when applying Kennedy's significant nexus test.
The Rapanos guidance is able to cover waters that may not have been covered in the past after the Supreme Court decision, Grumbles added.
Confusion remains
The guidance arrived in the wake of the Supreme Court's refusal this week to reconsider its Rapanos decision.
The court's refusal to reconsider the wetlands protection case leaves it to lower federal courts to continue to try to answer the question over how to interpret the high court's splintered opinion. The justices' 4-1-4 decision on the scope of the Clean Water Act has generated conflicting interpretations from lower courts (Greenwire, Dec. 1).
Environmentalists and industry officials agree that much of the language in the new guidance is still unclear.
Asmus said EPA and the Army Corps still need to better clarify which wetlands and streams will qualify as protected.
"I'm not sure that [EPA and the Army Corps] changed it enough to make it workable in the field," Asmus said. "There are still a lot of uncertainties."
Asmus pointed to EPA's new definition of protected, adjacent wetlands as an example. "They talk about adjacency, and they talk about 'reasonable, close proximity,'" she said. "I don't know what that means."
The National Wildlife Federation also panned the terminology as vague and confusing, calling the adjacency standard "ill-defined."
Yet Grumbles said the guidance does provide clarity.
"The guidance makes clear that an ecological connection is the basis for asserting the Clean Water Act safeguard, and we're proud of that," he said. ""We think it's an additional and important clarification."
The guidance also notes that decisions on protected waters do not have to be made on a case-by-case basis, Grumbles said.
"We will infer an ecological connection for those wetlands that are sufficiently close by looking at the movement of amphibians or fish," he said. "We think that type of ecological connection is an important one ... and we think it will lead to additional protections for wetlands."
Congressional fix?
Meanwhile, the National Wildlife Federation and three other advocacy groups -- American Rivers, Environmental Defense and Ducks Unlimited -- are calling on Congress to pass legislation that would override the memo and the split Rapanos decision.
"The Rapanos decision has caused a bureaucratic nightmare, but it is a Supreme Court decision and EPA has no choice but to obey it, " Jim Tripp, general counsel for Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "Congress, however, can -- and should -- step in to fix the problem."
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) may do just that.
Both lawmakers argue that prior to the court's Rapanos decision and the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision, the phrase "navigable waters" had been broadly defined as "waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." They have indicated that during the 111th Congress they will reintroduce legislation aimed at restoring that definition.
Opponents of their legislation say the bill would expand wetland protections beyond the intent of the Clean Water Act and could lead to a spate of lawsuits (E&E Daily, July 8).
While environmentalists call for a legislative fix, the homebuilders indicated they would like to see EPA promulgate a rule on the issue.
"Part of the challenge here is, you've got a Supreme Court who's ruled on something [and] a couple of agencies who don't quite know how to interpret that or are a little afraid to interpret that," Asmus said. "So they interpret it one way, and then everybody comes out of the woodwork and says, 'Hey, wait a minute, I disagree. You didn't interpret this right.' And you're off on a bad foot to begin with."
Click here to view the revised guidance memo.
________________________________________
Gene
FYI passing this along--of interest to duck hunters/wetland interests. Jim Wood.
----- Original Message -----
From: George Sorvalis
To: CRNETWORK@LISTS.NATIONALWILDLIFE.ORG
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: WETLANDS: EPA, Army Corps satisfy no one with new guidance (12/05/2008)
WETLANDS: EPA, Army Corps satisfy no one with new guidance (12/05/2008)
Katherine Boyle, Greenwire reporter
Environmentalists and industry stakeholders alike are blasting the wetlands guidance memorandum issued this week by U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The revised guidance defines protected waters as those that are determined to be navigable-in-fact by the courts, are currently being used or have historically been used for commercial navigation, or could realistically be used for commercial navigation in the future.
The document also clarifies what constitutes a protected, adjacent wetland, noting that a wetland must have an unbroken hydrologic connection to jurisdictional waters, be separated from those waters by a berm or similar barrier or be reasonably close to a jurisdictional water (E&ENews PM, Dec. 3).
Neither environmental groups like the National Wildlife Federation nor industry stakeholders like the National Association of Home Builders are happy with it.
The federation slammed the guidance as less protective and more confusing than the June 2007 memo it replaces. Both memos are meant to clarify the Supreme Court's muddled 2006 Rapanos-Carabell decision.
The guidance "is another lose-lose document that will have the effect of making it harder to protect waters, and more time-intensive and costly to administer permit applications," federation attorney Jim Murphy said in a statement. "It will result in more pollution, more administrative delays, and more head scratching."
Environmentalists warn that the revised guidance undermines Clean Water Act protections for a number of wetlands and streams by requiring waters to be commercially navigable to qualify. That means fewer bodies of water will fall under the significant nexus test, which measures the relationship between upstream waters and the closest traditionally navigable water, devised by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Rapanos decision, the federation said.
The homebuilders, on the other hand, said the guidance's definition of protected waters is too broad.
Susan Asmus, staff vice president for regulatory policy at the National Association of Home Builders, said including waters that are potentially navigable contradicts the intent of the Clean Water Act. She said the law is meant to cover waters that are currently being used for navigation rather than those that are "susceptible" to use.
Despite the criticism, Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, praised the guidance, which he said ensures that the traditional navigable waters test encompasses requirements the agency has looked at over the years.
"We're looking at all the prongs for jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act," Grumbles said. "That includes if it was navigable in the past or is susceptible to commercial navigation in the future." That definition ensures that officials will not solely rely upon the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act when applying Kennedy's significant nexus test.
The Rapanos guidance is able to cover waters that may not have been covered in the past after the Supreme Court decision, Grumbles added.
Confusion remains
The guidance arrived in the wake of the Supreme Court's refusal this week to reconsider its Rapanos decision.
The court's refusal to reconsider the wetlands protection case leaves it to lower federal courts to continue to try to answer the question over how to interpret the high court's splintered opinion. The justices' 4-1-4 decision on the scope of the Clean Water Act has generated conflicting interpretations from lower courts (Greenwire, Dec. 1).
Environmentalists and industry officials agree that much of the language in the new guidance is still unclear.
Asmus said EPA and the Army Corps still need to better clarify which wetlands and streams will qualify as protected.
"I'm not sure that [EPA and the Army Corps] changed it enough to make it workable in the field," Asmus said. "There are still a lot of uncertainties."
Asmus pointed to EPA's new definition of protected, adjacent wetlands as an example. "They talk about adjacency, and they talk about 'reasonable, close proximity,'" she said. "I don't know what that means."
The National Wildlife Federation also panned the terminology as vague and confusing, calling the adjacency standard "ill-defined."
Yet Grumbles said the guidance does provide clarity.
"The guidance makes clear that an ecological connection is the basis for asserting the Clean Water Act safeguard, and we're proud of that," he said. ""We think it's an additional and important clarification."
The guidance also notes that decisions on protected waters do not have to be made on a case-by-case basis, Grumbles said.
"We will infer an ecological connection for those wetlands that are sufficiently close by looking at the movement of amphibians or fish," he said. "We think that type of ecological connection is an important one ... and we think it will lead to additional protections for wetlands."
Congressional fix?
Meanwhile, the National Wildlife Federation and three other advocacy groups -- American Rivers, Environmental Defense and Ducks Unlimited -- are calling on Congress to pass legislation that would override the memo and the split Rapanos decision.
"The Rapanos decision has caused a bureaucratic nightmare, but it is a Supreme Court decision and EPA has no choice but to obey it, " Jim Tripp, general counsel for Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "Congress, however, can -- and should -- step in to fix the problem."
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) may do just that.
Both lawmakers argue that prior to the court's Rapanos decision and the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision, the phrase "navigable waters" had been broadly defined as "waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." They have indicated that during the 111th Congress they will reintroduce legislation aimed at restoring that definition.
Opponents of their legislation say the bill would expand wetland protections beyond the intent of the Clean Water Act and could lead to a spate of lawsuits (E&E Daily, July 8).
While environmentalists call for a legislative fix, the homebuilders indicated they would like to see EPA promulgate a rule on the issue.
"Part of the challenge here is, you've got a Supreme Court who's ruled on something [and] a couple of agencies who don't quite know how to interpret that or are a little afraid to interpret that," Asmus said. "So they interpret it one way, and then everybody comes out of the woodwork and says, 'Hey, wait a minute, I disagree. You didn't interpret this right.' And you're off on a bad foot to begin with."
Click here to view the revised guidance memo.
________________________________________
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
ADEQ Issues Air Permit for Coal-Fired Electric PLant
They tried to build several in Texas but were stopped, so they came to Arkansas. Another in planning stage for Northeast Arkansas and Oklahoma. There are concerns the OK plant will drift over the Ozarks. Note there is no limit on CO2 emissions.
ADEQ ISSUES AIR PERMIT FOR COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC PLANT
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has approved a final air permit for construction and operation of a coal-fired electric power plant in
The permit application had been under review by the ADEQ for more than two years, and was the subject of two public hearings and two separate public comment periods totaling more than three months, during which hundreds of interested parties offered comments on the proposed permit.
“This is a complex and controversial permit application,” ADEQ Director Teresa Marks said. “It has undergone a lengthy review by technical and legal personnel to make sure the permit is protective of public health and the environment by conforming to all applicable air emission standards under state and federal laws.”
The main steam generating unit consists of one ultra-supercritical pulverized coal boiler fueled by low sulfur coal and natural gas which will power a single steam turbine designed for base load operation with a nominal net power output of 600 megawatts.
The permit contains emission limits for such pollutants as particulates, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury. There are no limits in the permit for carbon dioxide (CO2), which currently is not subject to emission limits under federal or state regulations.
However, the Turk plant design includes a 20-acre area for the inclusion of CO2 capture equipment, should future regulations impose CO2 emission limits.
“It is quite possible CO2 emission standards will be adopted at the federal level and in
Currently, Arkansas has six permitted coal-fired electric generating units; two near Redfield in Jefferson County, two near Batesville in Independence County, one near Gentry in Benton County, and one near Osceola in Mississippi County.
A fact sheet with additional information about the Turk Plant permit is available on the ADEQ internet web site, www.adeq.state.ar.us, in the “Hot Topics” box on the right-hand side of the web site home page.
Tammi Trotter Receives Clean Water – Stronger Communities Volunteer Award
TAMMI TROTTER AWARDED BY STATE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORK
Little Rock, Ark. – Nov. 1, 2008 – Tammi Trotter, leader of the Friends of the Mill and Piney Creeks environmental organization, was today given the “Clean Water – Stronger Communities Volunteer Award” of the Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group (AWAG), a part of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The award was presented at a ceremony held at the Hilton Little Rock Metro Center in conjunction with the 2008 AWAG conference.
Trotter helped found and organize the Friends of the Mill and Piney Creeks just months ago in an effort to curb and correct significant environmental damage on Mill Creek and the Piney Creek below it, caused at least in part according to ADEQ, by the unpermitted mining activity of B&H Resources, LLC., a company co-owned by George Bartmess of the Brockwell area.
Trotter’s leadership resulted in the issuance of an emergency order from ADEQ to B&H Resources to halt activity. ADEQ is also demanding from B&H Resources a plan for remediation of damage done.
Media throughout the state have covered the conflict and a groundswell of public support for the Friends organization has occurred.
Mill Creek and Piney Creek, both completely contained in Izard County, are two of the most beautiful streams in Arkansas. They are small streams with towering bluffs dotting their banks and are frequently visited by nature lovers, fishermen and others seeking to enjoy their beauty.
Trotter lives with her family at the mouth of Mill Creek where it flows into Piney Creek. She was alerted to the environmental damage when the gravel stream bottom near her home was suddenly inundated with several feet of silt. She decided to alert neighboring property owners, some of whom live in different counties and even in different states. Still, Trotter managed to contact those owners and in June held in a meadow near her home the first meeting of what that day became the Friends of the Mill and Piney Creeks. Nearly 40 people attended – many of whom had never before met but who shared the goal of protecting the creeks.
Working with this group, Trotter successfully alerted ADEQ staff about the damage, leading to several investigations by them and the resulting emergency order.
At Trotter’s invitation and encouragement, ADEQ Director Teresa Marks personally visited the damaged area on August 27 and spoke to a group of 75 concerned citizens at the Calico Rock Music Hall.
Trotter remains vigilant and watchful about environmentally-adverse activities along the creeks. Friends of the Mill and Piney Creeks is now a vibrant organization holding meetings and conducting activities on a regular basis.
___________________________________________
Congratulations Tammi and everyone with the group for this well deserved award! We are so proud of you!
Call for better EPA/States relationships
A comment... almost everything Arkansas does to protect water is required by the Feds through the EPA and the Clean Water Act. In fact, the EPA has delegated many of their programs, including stormwater regulation, to Arkansas. From what I hear, the relationship could use some work.
Point source pollution (stuff coming out of a pipe) has been regulated for some time, but "non-point source pollution" (runoff) has no teeth. All the programs are "studies" and planning for education and encouragement of voluntary actions. I support that approach, however, there should be some minimum base regulation and enforcement.
Gene
The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators has just released the final version of a document entitled "Call for Change-Water Quality Improvements for the 21st Century."
The document addresses the need to improve the working relationship between EPA and the states as well as more specific programmatic issues. It looks like we have some similar ideas. The document can be found here:
http://www.asiwpca.org/home/cfc.htm
Documentary on Buffalo River to show in Fayetteville and Little Rock
Dear all,
As you know, the Buffalo is in our watershed. We do not focus on the Buffalo, but work closely with the Ozark Society who is focused on that beautiful stream.
Here's a note from Debbie Doss with the Canoe Club on an upcoming documentary. Debbie and the club have been big supporters of our efforts.
Gene
As you know, the Buffalo is in our watershed. We do not focus on the Buffalo, but work closely with the Ozark Society who is focused on that beautiful stream.
Here's a note from Debbie Doss with the Canoe Club on an upcoming documentary. Debbie and the club have been big supporters of our efforts.
Gene
Two more screenings of the documentary, The Buffalo Flows, have been announced. Arkansas Canoe Club members are featured in the film and I must say, we were pleased with the way it has turned out.
The first screening is in Fayetteville on Nov. 14 at the U of A.
Get the details here:
http://www.uark.edu/depts/jourinfo/publ ... ews/?p=112
The second is at the Cinton School in Little Rock on Nov. 20th. You will need to call them in order to reserve a seat.
Get the details here:
http://www.clintonschool.uasys.edu/news ... spx?id=485
Thanks, Debbie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
