• U.S. Understated Agent Orange Use
  
• Government Settles Cleanup of West Dallas Lead Site
  
• Court Keeps U.S. Roads Closed to Mexican Trucks
  
• Animal Rights Groups Sue To Protect Mountain Lions
  
• Teamsters, Republicans Launch New Environmental Group
  
• Poll Finds Environmental Concern on the Decline
  
• Bush Administration Asks Volunteers to Restore Public Lands
  
• New York Eyes Lifting 100 Year Berry Ban
  

U.S. Understated Agent Orange Use

The scientists found that 77 million liters of Agent Orange - seven million liters more than previously estimated - were sprayed during the war. Overall, the scientists estimate the amount of dioxin sprayed during the war was almost double previous estimates.

The results of the five year study examined operational records of individual spraying missions over Vietnam, comparing them to records of which defoliates were sprayed at which times. The U.S. military says it dumped the massive amounts of defoliates to allow U.S. and South Vietnamese forces to better spot enemy forces moving with Vietnam's dense forests.

The extensive analysis of military records uncovered some 200 missions flown prior to 1965 that had not been considered in earlier estimates, including some 2 million liters of Agent Purple sprayed between 1962 and 1965.

Agent Purple has an estimated dioxin content of some 45 parts per million (ppm), compared to Agent Orange, which was found to have 13 ppm. And this estimate for Agent Orange is an upward revision of early estimates that the herbicide had a dioxin content of three ppm.

Agent Orange accounted for some 55 percent of the defoliates sprayed by the U.S. military over Vietnam.

The study indicates that as many as 4.8 million people could have been directly affected by the widespread spraying of herbicides. Prior studies have found Vietnamese in exposed areas have dioxin levels of 135 to 200 times higher than blood from areas not sprayed with the defoliates. Dioxins have been linked to cancer, neurological disorders and birth defects.

The study was supported by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine, which has issued a series of reports looking at the effects of herbicides used in Vietnam.

U.S. veterans groups and some Vietnamese officials say this new study merits more extensive research of the long term effects of the military's herbicide spraying.

Government Settles Cleanup of West Dallas Lead Site

The settlement includes the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the state of Texas. Under the proposed settlement, RSR will pay $13.25 million into the Superfund account and perform cleanup at the site, called the West Dallas Lead Site, valued at $11.6 million. The corporation will also reimburse the state costs in the amount of $870,000.

"This settlement demonstrates our continuing commitment to ensure that those responsible for contaminating our environment share in the costs of the cleanup," said Tom Sansonetti, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.

"We must make certain that we have resources needed to clean up this site in a timely and protective manner," Sansonetti said.

Federal officials said the $13.25 million in cash payments will be placed into a special site account that the EPA can use to perform oversight of RSR's work as well as other necessary cleanup activities at the Site. The EPA estimates that the site work to be performed by RSR could be completed within two years.

RSR and its subsidiaries operated a secondary lead smelter in west Dallas from the 1930s until it permanently ceased operation in 1984. The companies used the smelter to recover lead from used batteries. Federal and state officials say air emissions from the smelter deposited lead and other contamination in some west Dallas neighborhoods.

In addition, the use of battery chips and lead slag as fill material contributed to contamination in the community, and the company improperly disposed of lead slag, battery chips and other waste byproducts at a number of locations in the area.

The announcement represents the latest in a series of settlements that the government has entered into in connection with the RSR Site. According to government officials, these settlements combined have resulted in agreements to perform work, or to reimburse response costs, worth about $39 million.

Court Keeps U.S. Roads Closed to Mexican Trucks

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) petitions for a rehearing by the review court as well as review by the whole court of its January ruling. That ruling found that the Bush administration had violated environmental law by announcing in November 2002 that it was opening U.S. highways to long haul trucks from Mexico.

Bush administration officials say the policy is designed to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement.

A coalition of public health, environmental and labor organizations sued to prevent the administration policy from taking effect.

"Places like Houston and Los Angeles already suffer from strangling smog," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, one of the plaintiffs in the suit. "The federal government should be obeying the laws designed to curtail pollution. We are pleased the court is not backing down."

The court has told the government that it must complete an Environmental Impact Statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and a Conformity Statement as required by the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the ruling requires the Department of Transportation to study the impact of increased air pollution on border state communities and, where necessary, develop plans to lessen the anticipated harm, before it can move toward processing applications for cross-border trucking.

The administration's plan would allow some 30,000 diesel trucks from Mexico onto U.S. roads, trucks that the suit's plaintiffs contend are mostly older, more polluting models.

They cite a study that indicates by 2010 trucks from Mexico will emit twice as much particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, both harmful air pollutants, as U.S. trucks.

Animal Rights Groups Sue To Protect Mountain Lions

The coalition says the project allows unnecessary killing of the majority of mountain lions in the Four Peaks Wilderness Area within the Tonto National Forest in southeastern Arizona.

They allege that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act, and other federal laws by authorizing, assisting, and funding the Arizona Game and Fish Department's project.

"This so-called study is simply predator killing disguised as science, and it panders to the trophy hunters who want to mount more bighorn sheep over their mantles," said Michael Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals.

"Killing mountain lions with cruel and inhumane methods such as snaring and hound hunting is appalling to Arizonans and is a fleecing of public monies," Markarian said.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court by The Fund for Animals, Animal Defense League of Arizona, The Humane Society of the United States, Mountain Lion Foundation, Forest Guardians, Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Protection Institute, and Flagstaff Activist Network.

According to the coalition, internal memoranda from Arizona Game and Fish Department biologists indicate that disease transmission from domestic sheep, habitat degradation, and drought are all threats to the bighorn sheep population.

The coalition argues that mountain lions are the least of these threats to bighorn sheep, but this three year, federally funded study seeks to kill some 75 percent of the mountains lions in the study area.

"This 'study' is both bad science and bad wildlife management," said Stephanie Nichols-Young, president of Animal Defense League of Arizona. "Many individuals and organizations, including former department biologists, pointed out the problems in the public process. Unfortunately, these comments were ignored. Mountain lions are the last big carnivore in Arizona, and the agencies will not do their job to protect them."

Teamsters, Republicans Launch New Environmental Group

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy announced Wednesday the formation of the Labor Environment Alliance, which the organizations say is dedicated to ensuring that the highest quality jobs and healthiest environment coexist in the United States.

Both groups have lobbied for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), something environmentalists have strongly opposed. Domestic energy production will be a priority issue for LEA, along with emissions reductions, brownfields redevelopment, road construction.

The new lobbying group also announced support for the Bush administration's Clear Skies initiative, something that has been sharply criticized by most environmentalists.

"LEA will promote responsible environmentalism that walks hand in hand with job creation," said Teamsters General President James Hoffa. "It will recognize politicians who have taken a tough stand for the environment and for labor."

The new lobbying group will focus on the belief that economic and environmental concerns can be balanced.

"This alliance between labor and environment will put to rest once and for all the false notion that we must choose between jobs and quality of life," said Douglas Wheeler, advisory board member of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy.

Some environmental groups were quick to criticize the newly formed organization, which they say will do little to strengthen labor or protect the environment.

"Mainstream labor groups have worked closely with the environmental community for decades to find common sense ways to protect our environment and strengthen our economy at the same time," said League of Conservation Voters political director Betsy Loyless.

"The Labor Environment Alliance is merely an attempt by the Bush administration to scare voters into believing that harmful environmental policies are necessary to America's economic security when the exact opposite is true."

Poll Finds Environmental Concern on the Decline

It found that Americans grew more negative over the past year about the quality of the environment in the United States, but those surveyed were less likely than in years past to favor aggressive action to correct environmental problems.

According to Gallup, which surveyed a random selection of 1,003 American adults, aged 18 and older in March about the environment, this disconnect appears to be largely the result of heightened concern about the U.S. economy.

The percentage of Americans holding a negative view of the nation's environmental conditions increased from 38 percent in 2002 to 47 percent this year.

But Gallup says one of the "most striking findings" in the poll comes from a question that asks Americans whether environmental protection or economic growth should be given priority when the two interests conflict.

This year's results show the lowest percentage ever recorded of Americans choosing environmental protection since the question was first asked in 1984.

Only 47 percent of those surveyed said protection of the environment should be given priority, with 42 percent in favor of economic growth taking priority.

This compares with last year's poll, which found 54 percent in favor of the environment and 36 percent for economic growth, but through much of the 1990s Gallup says the public sided with the environment over the economy by more than a two to one margin.

Compared to last year, the percentage of Americans who believe either "immediate, drastic action" or "some additional action" is needed to prevent major environmental disruptions fell from 84 percent to 79 percent.

Bush Administration Asks Volunteers to Restore Public Lands

The initiative is part of President George W. Bush's USA Freedom Corps, which seeks to encourage Americans to volunteer in their local communities.

"[It] will empower volunteers from every corner of America to restore and improve our parks, refuges, recreation areas and cultural and historical sites," Norton explained. "The program inspires citizen stewardship through a bold and innovative public communication campaign. Outstanding volunteer efforts are rewarded with presidential recognition."

Companies and corporations can help by sponsoring Take Pride In America cleanup days or by committing blocks of volunteer service time to local restoration efforts, Norton explained.

The initiative has more than 100 charter partners, Norton said, including large corporations, conservation groups, service organizations, trade associations and a bipartisan coalition of state governors.

Idaho's Governor Dirk Kempthorne, a Republican, and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, were named as co-chairs of Take Pride's Council of Governors. The Council works with governors to enter into memoranda agreements with the national program.

These formal partnerships with state governments allow federal and state land managers to identify volunteer opportunities and to enlist public service commitments from citizens.

"The best way to ensure preservation and stewardship of public lands is at the state and local level," Kempthorne said. "For too long, federal land management has been driven by Washington, D.C. instead of on-the-ground experts who know how to best manage the resource."

Norton said the initiative will sponsor a national recognition and awards program, with each state submitting its best efforts for four annual national awards. Volunteers receive certificates based on how many hours they contribute to projects within the initiative.

"We want the expertise of our federal conservation agencies to be more accessible and helpful to partners in state, county and municipal governments and to the countless citizen organizations who want to help," Norton said. "We also want the American people to bring their energy and creativity to help our parks, refuges and public recreation areas."

New York Eyes Lifting 100 Year Berry Ban

The news was heralded by New Yorkers keen to grow black currants, which they say are nutritious, delicious and an economic opportunity for the state's farmers.

"This is such exciting news for local farmers, since it is the first time in almost a century that all varieties of currants can be grown in parts of New York state," said Greg Quinn, founder of Au Currant Enterprises a New York company that has been working to bring the black currant back to New York farming.

"Black currants, for instance, are packed with vitamins and antioxidant health benefits, yet this controversial berry - part of the ribes family along with gooseberries - has long been referred to by berry experts as the 'forbidden fruit'," Quinn explained.

The roots of the berry ban stretch back to 1705 when U.S. white pine seedlings were shipped to England. The seedlings brought a disease - blister root - with them and over time plant pathologists mistakenly identified black currants as a link in the disease's spread.

"By 1911, U.S. regulations were passed - and later repealed - which lead to the farming ban of this once popular berry," explained Steve McKay, black currant expert at Cornell Cooperative Extension. "Though based on incomplete knowledge of the ecology and life cycle of the disease, the ban was upheld in several states, including New York."

The law also made it illegal to import black currant plants without a special exemption and three years in quarantine. Some other states that continue to uphold the ban in varying degrees are Maine, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

In the late 1800s, New York was the nation's top black currant producer, and Quinn said a recent feasibility study of the potential black currant industry predicts black currants becoming a $20 million crop in the state and a $1 billion business nationwide.

"This is the first crop to come along in over a half century that can provide New York farmers with a viable alternative to many of the crops which are now unprofitable," Quinn said. "With the farming industry suffering so badly in New York State, as well as other areas, the timing couldn't be better to regain this berry's popularity."