• Bush Plans for New Plutonium Pit Facility Delayed
  
• Hunters, Anglers Blast Energy Bill
  
• Wildlife Service Issues Draft Pauite Trout Recovery Plan
  
• Midvalley Fairy Shrimp Will Not Be Listed as Endangered
  
• Upper Mississippi Barge Traffic Fell in 2003
  
• Wyoming Keen to Reverse Yellowstone Snowmobile Ban
  
• Survey Finds Public Support for More Mad Cow Testing
  
• Florida's Top Environmental Official Resigns
  

Bush Plans for New Plutonium Pit Facility Delayed

The delay is in order to address congressional concerns that it is premature to pursue further decisions on such a facility at this time, said Linton Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

"Restoring our capability to manufacture plutonium pits is an essential element of America's nuclear defense policy," Brooks said. "While there is widespread support in Congress for this project, I believe we need to pause to respond to concerns that some committees have raised about its scope and timing."

The final environmental impact statement, which would guide Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's decision about site selection of the "modern pit facility," (MPF) was scheduled for publication by April 2004.

The decision also delays identification of a preferred site for constructing the facility. A draft environmental impact statement released in June 2003 listed five potential sites for the facility - Los Alamos and Carlsbad, New Mexico; the Nevada Test Site; the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, and the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina.

The Energy Department wants the facility to replace the production site at Rocky Flats, Colorado, which was closed in 1989 for environmental and safety violations. It estimates that the new facility will cost $2 billion to $4 billion to construct, with annual operating costs of some $300 million.

The Bush administration says the need for the new pit facility is based on classified analyses of longterm pit production requirements. It calls for a new facility that could produce in excess of 500 plutonium pits per year.

The NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency of the Department of Energy, will have to manufacture replacement pits to help ensure the safety and reliability of existing warheads, Brooks explained, and to maintain an infrastructure that is responsive to national security needs that may arise in the future.

Critics, including some 130 local and national organizations, say the facility is unnecessary and is the product of the Bush administration's desire to develop new nuclear weapons, including "bunker busters" and low yield weapons.

They contend the costs will run much higher than current estimates and worry that the plan sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world at the same time as the United States is engaged in efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

"The Energy Department has presented no justification for a new nuclear bomb plant to either Congress or the public and thus this delay in the pit plant was inevitable," said Tom Clements of Greenpeace International.

The administration requested $23 million for conceptual design in fiscal year 2004, but Congress provided only $11 million. Federal lawmakers said that committing to a modern pit facility design and to a particular site is "premature" until the makeup of the future stockpile is more clearly defined.

"We are taking a conservative, prudent course to develop a capability that will enable the nation to be ready for future contingencies without wasting tax dollars on excessive capacity," Brooks said. "I have consulted with key officials in the Department of Defense (DOD), who have advised me that a temporary delay will not harm the safety or readiness of the current nuclear weapons stockpile. However, DOD is concerned about a significant delay in the MPF, since the availability of such a facility impacts the nuclear stockpile."

Hunters, Anglers Blast Energy Bill

Wildlife Service Issues Draft Pauite Trout Recovery Plan

The plan was released this week for public comment by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Pauite cutthroat trout are endemic to a nine mile stretch of Silver King Creek, a major tributary to the East Fork of the Carson River located in Alpine County, California in the eastern Sierra mountain range.

"This fish is a fascinating example of adaptation and evolution," said Bob Williams, supervisor for the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. "This species was cut off from its family over 5,000 years ago, and it evolved into a distinct trout species by adapting to this remote nine mile stretch of a creek."

The species, which was granted federal protection as an endangered species in 1970, is threatened by nonnative trout and habitat loss.

The $558,000 proposal recommends the use the pesticide Rotenone to rid the species' critical habitat of nonnative trout - a move that federal and state officials say will benefit other species, including the rare mountain yellow-legged frog.

Scientists have found that the frog occurs in areas inhabited by Pauite cutthroat trout, but not in areas inhabited by nonnative Rainbow trout.

In August 2003 the U.S. Forest Service abandoned a similar plan use Rotenone to poison nonnative trout from Silver King Creek.

Studies show that Rotenone causes significant long term effects on aquatic invertebrates, the food source for trout and other aquatic life.

Environmentalists sued to block the Forest Service plan and force agency to carry out a full public environmental review of the project, including consideration of less harmful means to remove non-native fish.

The Fish and Wildlife Service says the environmental concerns raised over the Forest Service plan will be addressed in a new review set for release this summer.

"This recovery effort will focus on improving the ecosystem," Williams said. "A healthy stream and riparian corridor will benefit all the species that live there."

Midvalley Fairy Shrimp Will Not Be Listed as Endangered

The federal agency said its conclusion not to protect the small crustacean is based on its assessment of the best scientific and commercial information available on the past, present, and future threats faced by the species.

The species is found in shallow seasonal wetlands known as vernal pools in Sacramento, Solano, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Merced, Madera, Fresno and Yolo counties in California's Central Valley.

"The Service has commissioned new survey efforts and will continue to review any new information concerning the status of the midvalley fairy shrimp," said Wayne White, field supervisor of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. "The information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of the species."

The decision comes in response to a petition - filed in August 2001 by the Center for Biological Diversity and VernalPools.Org - to list the midvalley fairy shrimp as "endangered" under the ESA.

The petition filers argued that the species is at great risk of extinction than these species because it has restricted range and inhabits the most shallow, ephemeral vernal pools, which are one of the most threatened habitat types in the world.

More than 97 percent of California's original vernal pool habitat has already been lost due to urban sprawl, agribusiness, offroad vehicles, livestock grazing, and wetland draining.

The Fish and Wildlife Service says its assessment of the current range and distribution of the species indicate that the midvalley fairy shrimp is well represented on protected lands and in areas with little or no current threat.

In addition, the agency said existing regulatory mechanisms under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Clean Water Act, and the ESA - while not directly applied to the midvalley fairy shrimp - are likely to moderate the rate and extent of habitat loss for this species.

Upper Mississippi Barge Traffic Fell in 2003

The watchdog group says the Army Corps data shows large, cumulative decreases in barge traffic at nearly all locks, with the most heavily utilized locks exhibiting a 25 percent reduction in traffic.

The analysis comes as the Army Corps finalizes its draft recommendation regarding replacement of the existing river locks on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway with new locks designed to accommodate future growth in barge traffic.

The Corps is trying to explain why it is worth spending some $1 billion to modernize the waterway system despite criticism the project is unnecessary and would damage the environment.

"With each passing month, the Corps forecasts veer farther and farther from reality," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.

The Army Corps has been considering the modernization plan since the late 1980s and is keen to build longer locks on the waterway to accommodate barge traffic.

In December 2003 PEER filed suit in federal court alleging that the Army Corps economic study for its Mississippi River plan does not meet legal standards and must be withdrawn.

That same month a federal panel of experts issued a report calling on the Army Corps to slow down its review of how best to ease traffic congestion through the lock and dam system that covers the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

Most of the locks on the river system are 600 feet, while most tows today push multiple barges of 1,000 feet. This has caused traffic congestion on the waterway, the Corps says, but its efforts have been mired in controversy.

The agency was forced to abandon its initial plan in 2000 after the Corps economist for the project, Dr. Donald Sweeney, filed a whistleblower disclosure saying top commanders had altered key numbers in an effort to "cook the books" so that the project would appear justified. Army Corps projects must be shown to have benefits that outweigh the costs in order to receive Congressional approval.

A Pentagon investigation - and the National Research Council - verified the findings of the whistleblower, two generals were disciplined and the agency began work on a new plan.

But PEER says the new barge traffic data underscores its view that the Army Corps is trying to justify a plan that is not needed.

"Right now, the Corps is thrashing around to find any way to justify this mega-project that passes the straight face test," Ruch said.

Wyoming Keen to Reverse Yellowstone Snowmobile Ban

The testimony was part of an effort by Wyoming and snowmobile advocates to convince a Wyoming federal judge to reverse a December ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan that bans snowmobiles in the two national parks.

In his ruling, Sullivan ordered the Bush administration to reinstate a 2001 Clinton administration ban on snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks - the decision puts the Park Service back on track to phase out snowmobile use in the parks by next year.

Judge Sullivan ruled that the Bush administration failed to explain why the policy should be reversed in light of ample evidence that snowmobiling causes adverse effects on wildlife and resources within the parks.

Over the past decade the Park Service has studied the impacts of snowmobile use on park wildlife, air quality, human health and visitor experience. The agency's research, which included 375 scientific studies and 22 public hearings, revealed that snowmobile use was negatively affecting each of these factors.

The state of Wyoming, along with the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, appealed Sullivan's ruling and also asked a Wyoming federal judge for a preliminary injunction to block the Park Service from implementing the Clinton ere rule.

The groups asked U.S. District Court Clarence Brimmer to either order reinstatement of the Bush administration's plan to allow limited snowmobile use in the parks or to return to unregulated snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton.

And there are signs the Wyoming federal court judge could be sympathetic to snowmobile interests.

"I do not see any reason why a judge 2,000 miles from here ought to be deciding things that affect the people of Wyoming," Judge Brimmer told the court.

The hearing concluded Tuesday and the judge offered no insight into when a ruling might be issued.

Some House Republicans are keen to see the ban lifted and believe the economic impact on Wyoming overrides widespread opposition to snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton.

"The decision to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone is more about getting Bill Clinton in the environmental hall of fame than it is about protecting the jobs of folks or protecting the environment," sand U.S. Representative Barbara Cubin, a Wyoming Republican.

Survey Finds Public Support for More Mad Cow Testing

The poll found 95 percent of those adults said they would pay 10 cents more a pound to ensure their meat was safe.

"The public overwhelmingly supports testing to ensure that the beef they eat is safe, and what is more important, this poll shows they are willing to put their money behind it," said Michael Hansen, senior research associate with Consumers Union.

The survey, conducted January 14 through January 21 also found that nearly six in 10 respondents strongly believe that all cows at slaughter should be tested for mad cow disease, officially known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

The disease spreads from one animal to another by consumption of feed that has been contaminated by protein - such as blood or meat meal - from an infected animal.

Beef from infected cattle is believed to cause a variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, which is fatal for humans. Consumers Union says the findings support its call for widespread mandatory BSE tests on all cattle 20 months or older to ensure safety of the food supply.

In 2003 the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) tested only 20,000 animals a year for the disease - less than one-tenth of a percent of the 36 million cattle slaughtered that year.

In testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman said the government will test 40,000 cattle for BSE this year and stressed that federal testing is in line with international standings.

The survey, which has a margin of error of three percentage points, also found that 89 percent of respondents strongly believe the USDA should have the authority to recall contaminated meat from the food supply.

And 78 percent strongly agree in the event of a recall, the USDA should make public the names of stores and restaurants where contaminated meat was sold.

Meat recalls are currently conducted by the USDA on a voluntary basis, and the federal department has entered into secrecy agreements with several states to keep this information from reaching the public.

"Consumers expect the federal government to have the authority to recall contaminated meat, and most are shocked when they discover the USDA will only provide states with information about tainted product if they keep it secret," Hansen said.

Florida's Top Environmental Official Resigns