Real deal on EPA Rules.
dstaples at livingston.net
Fri Apr 14 17:02:49 EST 2000
Hmm, so perhaps it is not just us "rednecks" in the Ark-La-Tex that are
concerned about rules in place that "were never intended to be used".
Government double talk, and the SAF has remained strangely silent on the matter.
mike peterson wrote:
> EPA has been contending all along that only specific regions are
> concerned with the new TMDL proposal. This will have a drastic
> effect on all regions. WI, MN, MI are all fighting this also.
> Wisconsin has a voluntary Best Mangement Practices program with a
> "bad actor" clause. The last audit of the BMP program showed 90%
> compliance with BMPs which are at least, if not more,
> comprehensive than the proposed EPA rule. EPA is refusing to
> ackowledge the work the Great Lakes States have done to protect
> water quality.
> The latest information is that the TMDL rule will not apply to
> diffuse "sheet" runoff from silvicultural operations. So what
> will it apply to? It seems as if the whole rule will target
> culverts, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If an
> intensive permit process is required to place a culvert, many
> will choose not to use them at all.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The door to my web page: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
For forestry commentary see bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry news groups, as
well as http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/ for a continuing conversation on
More information about the Ag-forst