EPA WATCH EPA's lax oversight adds to wetlands losses Millions of acres of agricultural wetlands are endangered because EPA has turned a blind eye to improper U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) methods of identifying marshes and vernal pools, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) alleged in June. PEER, a government whistle-blowers group, filed a detailed complaint asking the Inspectors General of EPA and USDA to investigate the agencies' intentional disregard of Clean Water Act (CWA) violations. A Clinton administration official said the allegations are exaggerated and that the two agencies working to correct the problem Under a government reinvention effort to streamline regulations for farmers, EPA, USDA, and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 1994 signed an agreement in which the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—a USDA branch originally created to verify crop subsidies—would be solely responsible for identifying wetlands on farms, said an administration official who asked to remain anonymous. The PEER complaint alleges that the NRCS's determinations were scientifically invalid and biased toward not identifying wetlands Prior to the 1994 agreement, the Corps conducted technical and precise wetlands determinations before issuing permits that allowed farmers to destroy wetlands for tilling, said the official. "The agreement said that if NRCS would change and conduct determinations the way the Corps had, the Corps would accept them for Clean Water Act permits," the official said. A 1997 internal NRCS survey obtained by PEER showed that 60-80% of the 3 million wetlands determinations performed by NRCS since 1985 were faulty and tended to underestimate the wetlands acreage, said Todd Robins, PEER's general counsel. For © 1999 American Chemical Society
example, not only did NRCS not implement Corps criteria when making a determination, it based its determinations on aerial photos taken in late summer when the most vulnerable vernal pools were dry, PEER alleges.
identify wetlands. The agencies have agreed mat die CWA should provide the definition of a wetland. The negotiations, however, are rocky. In response to PEER's complaint, EPA's Inspector General launched a survey in August investigating EPA's oversight of wetlands determinations, said John Walsh, deputy divisional inspector general. But he added that a detailed audit may not be warranted. However, the National Wildlife Federation and three other environmental groups filed a lawsuit in July against the NRCS in South Dakota for relaxing the definition of wetlands in that state.
Scientific evidence does not support TRI lead requirement, critics say Wetlands may be at risk because of faulty estimates of actual wetlands acreage.
Anonymous EPA employees told Robins that top agency officials were aware of NRCS's deficiencies, but under political pressure from the agricultural industry, issued orders to EPA staff not to exercise their legal oversight of NRCS's wetlands determinations, Robins said. An April 1995 memo from Bob Wayland, director of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, to regional wetlands coordinators carried out this order, telling staff that "current wetlands determinations are valid and would not be subject to change " The memo was signed at about the same time that gressional hearing was held to criticize EPA's oversight of the wetlands program Robins said Both Robins and the Clinton administration official agree that the current situation leaves wetlands on farms unprotected from development. The signatories to the 1994 agreement are trying to draft a new pact tiiat will use procedures under the CWA to
EPA's proposal to significantly lower the reporting threshold of lead and lead compounds under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) has the lead industry questioning the scientific justification behind EPA's decision. "Unfortunately, there's no indication that [the proposed rule] will do anything good other than add paperwork requirements," said Jeffrey Miller, executive director of the Lead Industries Association, Inc., a trade organization located in Sparta, N.J., that represents producers, recyclers, and industrial users of lead. "Lead levels in the environment are dropping now, and rapidly, and that's proceeding without any increase in reporting requirements, so it's hard to understand why this is necessary" Indeed, children's blood lead levels, the proposed rule's primary target, have fallen since lead was banned in paint in 1978 and phased out in gasoline during the 1980s, but EPA has determined that the lower reporting threshold is warranted nonetheless. Because lead does not biodegrade, it remains in the environment and available as a hazard, and data show that it concentrates in aquatic organisms and humans
OCTOBER 1, 1999/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS " 4 0 7 A
