• House Refuels Arctic Refuge Debate
  
• Pentagon's Environmentalism Under Fire
  
• Conservationists Aim to Block Utah Wilderness Lawsuit
  
• Perdue Farms Strikes Deal on Water Pollution Claims
  
• Union Pacific Railroad Settles Wetlands Violations
  
• Farmington River Protection Brings Economic Benefits
  
• California Sues Restaurants for Not Warning of Mercury
  
• Automakers Roll Out Liquid Hydrogen Refueling Program
  

House Refuels Arctic Refuge Debate

Last month the U.S. Senate voted not to allow drilling in ANWR, but House members believe the nation's energy woes merit tapping the oil reserves within the nation's largest wildlife refuge.

An amendment by House Democrats to strip the provision from House energy legislation failed by 31 votes, with 197 for and 228 against. The House voted to allow drilling in ANWR in 2001.

The House provision would allow drilling in only a 1.5 million acre portion of the 19.5 million acre refuge, but opponents say this is the biological heart of the area's ecosystem, providing critical breeding habitat for migrating caribou and other species.

But advocates contend they have put substantial environmental protections that safeguard the fragile Arctic environment.

"We have made ANWR eligible for responsible, environmentally sensitive exploration, while placing the most stringent environmental protections on an area limited to 2000 acres," said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, a California Republican and a leading advocate of drilling in ANWR.

Pombo and other supporters argue that the potential for the oil and the nation's need for greater energy independence merits development.

Conservationists expressed disappointment at the vote, but believe the Senate will ensure drilling is not allowed in ANWR.

"The votes are unfortunate but they do not change the fact that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been rejected twice in the past year by the Senate and lacks support," said Brooks Yeager, vice president of global threats for WWF. "We are confident that the final energy bill will not include any measure that authorizes drilling in the refuge.

Pentagon's Environmentalism Under Fire

A representative with the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) told a House subcommittee of the survey results at a hearing Thursday and said that civilian specialists who report environmental problems on military bases risk the loss of their careers.

PEER is a national alliance of local, state and federal resource professionals.

"Environmental management in Defense agencies is essentially voluntary," said Dan Meyer, general counsel to PEER.

"Unless some teeth are put into the system, military standards are not appropriate replacements for civilian natural resource management laws," said Meyer, a former Naval gunnery officer and veteran of the first Gulf War.

Resource specialists at military facilities constitute the biggest source of whistleblower complaints at PEER, an employee protection organization, accounting for one third of PEER's personnel cases, Meyer told the House panel.

Officers in charge of natural and cultural resource programs at military bases frequently lack training, have no career incentives for environmental compliance and are often hostile to the civilian staff who raise environmental issues, according to PEER.

Meyer testified at a hearing held by the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. The committee is reviewing the reauthorization of the Sikes Act, which is the basic law governing military conservation.

The issue of conservation on military facilities is part of larger debate surround military readiness and the environment. The Bush administration is seeking to exempt the Department of Defense from five major federal environmental laws governing hazardous waste, clean air, mammal protection and endangered species. They believe these laws are compromisining military readiness.

The proposal asks that the Sikes Act be used instead of the Endangered Species Act, a move that environmentalists believe would strip away important protections for military bases and training facilities across the country.

Conservationists Aim to Block Utah Wilderness Lawsuit

The state of Utah and the Utah Association of Counties (UAC) filed the suit on March 28, 2003, asking the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the 2001 Wilderness Inventory Handbook, which is a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policy for assessing wilderness protections for federal lands affected by proposed resource development.

The conservationists fear either a court ruling or a secret settlement between the state and the Bush administration could grant the state its desire to be free of the federal policy. Utah Republicans have urged Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton to revoke the policy.

The legal action by the state and the UAC revived a legal saga that stems back to 1996, when the Clinton administration told the BLM to review the Utah wilderness lands.

Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, roadless, undeveloped lands qualify for congressionally designated protection, but Utah's outdated inventory only recognizes three million out of nine million acres of wilderness landscapes.

The state and the UAC obtained an injunction to the Clinton administration's order by the U.S. District Court in Utah. This injunction was reversed on appeal by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and seven of the eight remaining claims were dismissed.

Amending the suit to challenge the Wilderness Handbook keeps the case before the District Court.

The state also asks the court to rule that the Interior Department lacks any authority to recognize and protect the wilderness character of any BLM lands that were ignored in earlier, faulty studies from the early 1980s.

"The Wilderness Inventory Handbook is a valuable tool that corrects past BLM errors, and ensures that both the agency and the public know what irreplaceable jewels are at stake as we face unprecedented pressure to pave and drill our most cherished landscapes," explained Heidi McIntosh of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), one of the coalition members.

"The state's position, that the BLM should manage these lands blindfolded to their beauty, is a slap in the face to all Americans who believe in wilderness preservation and public accountability."

The motion to intervene was filed by Earthjustice and SUWA attorneys, on behalf of SUWA, The Wilderness Society, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, Arizona Wilderness Coalition, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, and Colorado Environmental Coalition.

"The state and federal government are rushing pell mell to develop some of America's last wild lands," said Jim Angell of Earthjustice. "Truly wild lands, like these in Utah, that support native plants and animals, are not being made anymore. It is clear to most Americans that it is best to protect what is left."

Perdue Farms Strikes Deal on Water Pollution Claims

These violations were identified by a joint investigation by the EPA and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in the summer of 2002. The agencies believe the company was illegally discharging wastewater from its processing plant in Accomac, Virginia.

Perdue Farms is one of the nation's largest poultry producers, with annual sales of some $2.7 billion.

The company has a state Clean Water Act permit to discharge treated wastewater into Parker Creek, a waterway that empties into Metompkin Bay.

Parker Creek has been identified by the EPA and the state of Virginia as an impaired waterway and the state permit sets requires Perdue to ensure its treated discharge meets strict effluent levels.

Officials with the EPA and the DEQ argue that Perdue exceeded effluent limits for ammonia on numerous occasions and monitoring reports showed ammonia discharges up to 30 times the permitted level. Although the company did divert the wastewater discharge to a holding pond, an August 28, 2002 inspection found that Perdue was running out of storage capacity in its holding pond, yet was still in full production mode.

This prompted the EPA inspector to direct the company to take measures to prevent a discharge in violation of its permit, but during the Labor Day weekend of 2002, millions of gallons of insufficiently treated wastewater were discharged when storage capacity was exceeded.

EPA and state officials say the company was cooperative in addressing its violations, but as part of the settlement, Perdue Farms neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations.

Union Pacific Railroad Settles Wetlands Violations

The EPA alleged that the company illegally dumped dredged materials into two waterways in Santa Barbara, California in the late 1990s.e

"Railroad tracks cross some of the most sensitive natural areas in California," said John Kemmerer, acting director of the EPA's water division in San Francisco. "The penalties assessed for these Clean Water Act violations also should deter others from damaging important natural resources."

Union Pacific Railroad will pay $55,000 for failing to obtain a federal permit for trenching, dredging and filling activities in 1997. The EPA says these activities damaged a portion of the 230 acre Carpinteria Salt Marsh - half of which functions as a University of California at Santa Barbara research and wildlife reserve.

A similar violation in 1999 damaged Laguna Creek and will cost the company $70,000.

Union Pacific Railroad is the largest railroad in North America, covering 23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States. It is a leading carrier of coal used in electrical power generation.

Dumping materials into wetlands requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Officials with the EPA say Union Pacific Railroad has already restored the damaged wetlands and has adopted measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

Carpinteria Salt Marsh is considered a critically important estuary within Southern California. It provides vital habitat for migratory waterfowl and some endangered plant and animal species, including the endangered salt marsh bird's-beak, light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow.

Farmington River Protection Brings Economic Benefits

The study of the West Branch of the Farmington River found that recreational river use generates an estimated annual economic impact of $3.63 million for the five towns nearest the river stretch. Some eight percent of the value of nearby residential land is based on proximity to the river, according to the study.

"These economic contributions are remarkably large considering the short stretch of river and the rural nature of the communities," said Roger Moore coauthor and a professor in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at North Carolina State University.

"Conserving the West Branch's natural, scenic, and recreational resources are the most important things that river authorities can do to keep river benefits high," Moore said.

Jointly sponsored by American Rivers and the National Park Service, the study called on a survey of some 500 Farmington River users that occurred in 2001 and 2002.

It determined that river users are more concerned with the environmental quality of the river than they are with their trip costs.

"Intuitively, we know that people will spend money and go far out of their way to have a great day on the river," said Jack Hannon, American Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Coordinator. "This analysis is important because studies that actually measure economic contribution of protected rivers are scarce."

The West Branch of the Farmington River was added to the national Wild and Scenic River System in August 1994. It contains a nationally recognized trout fishing area.

"The Farmington River Watershed Association worked for a decade at all levels of government and with the public to have the West Branch added to the Wild and Scenic system," said Eric Hammerling, executive director of the association.

"All the while we contended that this would benefit both the river and the communities adjacent to it," Hammerling said. "The findings of this study provide solid evidence that supports this contention and we could not be more pleased."

California Sues Restaurants for Not Warning of Mercury

The complaint alleges that restaurants have violated the "disclosure before exposure" provisions of Proposition 65 to known reproductive toxins like mercury.

Scientific studies have shown that mercury can cause brain and nerve damage, and a recent report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found eight percent of women of childbearing age have unsafe levels of mercury in their bodies.

Seafood is a particular concern because when mercury accumulates in water it is transformed into methylmercury, which fish absorb when they eat aquatic organisms. The element bonds with proteins in fish tissue and accumulates. Humans absorb it when they consume contaminated fish.

Filed in Superior Courts in San Francisco and Los Angeles, the lawsuits seeks to force restaurants to warn customers that of possible mercury in swordfish, Ahi (Yellowfin) tuna, Albacore tuna and shark. These predatory fish are found to have higher mercury levels than other species.

In addition, the suit aims to prohibit sales of seafood until they post warnings.

"Mercury in seafood presents an exposure risk, especially to pregnant women, the fetus and young children," said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project. "Consumers need information about mercury in seafood in order to make informed choices."

The lawsuit was filed against Benihana, Brinker International, Darden Restaurants, Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, McCormick & Schmick Management Group, Morton's Restaurant Group, Outback Steakhouse, Porterhouse of Los Angeles, Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Bennigans, Cheesecake Factory, Claim Jumper Restaurants, Hof's Huts, Landry's Restaurants, Metromedia Restaurant Group, P.F. Chang's China Bistro, TS Restaurants and Yard House Restaurants.

Automakers Roll Out Liquid Hydrogen Refueling Program

"We want to accelerate the progress being made on the distribution and onboard storage of liquid hydrogen as the future fuel," said Lawrence Burns, GM's vice president of research and development. "Both compressed and liquid hydrogen hold promise to be used in hydrogen vehicles.

"The density of hydrogen in a liquid state is especially attractive with respect to fuel distribution and vehicle range."

The goal of the collaboration is to have affordable and compelling hydrogen vehicles for sale by 2010 and the companies need to concentrate on the storage and handling technology to achieve this goal, according to Christoph Huss, BMW's head of science and traffic policy.

"We have to start working on a standard so that customers will not be confronted with various systems," Huss explained. "Standardizing the refueling coupler is a must."

Liquid hydrogen provides the most convenient way in transporting hydrogen fuel before a hydrogen pipeline infrastructure is in place, he said, and teaming together will allow GM and BMW to help bring about the liquid hydrogen infrastructure faster.

The automakers say they will follow draft specifications for liquid hydrogen coupling units that have been developed by the European Integrated Hydrogen Project, which are the basis for current negotiations by the United Nations' Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) over a standard for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

"BMW and GM want this refueling system - with the coupler as a core component - to become a global standard," Huss said.