• Vermont Senate Votes to Hold Biotech Firms Liable
  
• New Insights Into North Pacific Ocean's Climate
  
• Michigan Requires Pesticide Notices at Schools
  
• Methanex Arbitration Panel Hears Defense of MTBE Ban
  
• Bush Fire Rule Called Bad For Endangered Species
  
• Court Orders Wildlife Service to Consider Prairie Dogs
  
• Conservationists Challenge Mt. Hood Logging Plan
  
• North Carolina Losing Private Forests
  

Vermont Senate Votes to Hold Biotech Firms Liable

The debate revolved around patent laws that allow biotech corporations like Monsanto to sue farmers for patent infringement whose fields are contaminated with genetically modified pollen or plant materials.

Senator Vincent Illuzzi, a Republican representing Essex-Orleans, illustrated cross-pollination of corn varieties with multi-colored ears of Vermont corn.

The vote comes after 79 Vermont towns have passed Town Meeting measures calling on lawmakers in Montpelier and Washington enact a moratorium on genetically modified organisms and 10 percent of Vermont's conventional dairy farmers have pledged not to plant the crops.

"The Farmer Protection Act is a pre-emptive strike to stop predatory lawsuits against Vermont's family farmers by biotech companies like Monsanto," said Ben Davis with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). "Today the Vermont Senate took the first step to defend family farmers from these kinds of intimidation suits and the hazards of genetically engineered crops."

VPIRG is among a coalition of groups including Rural Vermont, Institute for Social Ecology, and Vermont Genetic Engineering Action Network who are spearheading the grassroots campaign for the first state in the union that is free of transgenic crops.

"Big biotech corporations are writing the rules in their own interests at the national and international level, and using their patented GMOs as a tool to contaminate and control farmers," said Doyle Canning, a campaigner with the GE Free VT campaign. "Vermont is showing that a little state can make a big statement against corporate greed and work towards a Time Out on this technology.

"We are working in concert with the folks in Hawaii, Mendocino County, and in the 30 nations around the world where GMO crops are stringently regulated, to put farmers first," said Canning.

New Insights Into North Pacific Ocean's Climate

Michigan Requires Pesticide Notices at Schools

The signed the bill into law on Wednesday by Governor Jennifer Granholm requires schools and day care centers to post advance notice of pesticide application at the entrance to the facility and in public places inside the facility.

Granholm said, “This new law will protect children from coming into contact with chemicals and materials that could be hazardous to their health.”

The law contains provisions requiring that schools and day care centers prohibit children from entering areas where pesticides were applied until it is deemed safe.

Pesticides that linger in a child’s “breathing zone” pose a risk that the child could become ill or develop long term effects of pesticide exposure including neurological, respiratory, immune, or endocrine problems.

“Parents have the right to be notified when their children could be exposed to pesticides at their school or day care center so that they can make informed decisions about what to do, such as restricting a child’s access to certain areas or withholding the child from attending for a period of days,” Granholm said.

“This new law arms parents with that knowledge, so they can protect their children as they see fit.”

The facilities also will be required to give annual notice of pesticide use on the premises. The annual notice requirement allows parents to review facilities’ past pest management practices and applications.

Methanex Arbitration Panel Hears Defense of MTBE Ban

In 1999, Methanex Corporation, a Canadian corporation that manufactures methanol, a component of MTBE, brought a $970 million NAFTA lawsuit against the United States.

The company is demanding compensation for profits and business opportunities it claims to have lost because of California's phaseout of the gasoline additive. Such "investment protection" lawsuits are allowed under NAFTA's Chapter 11 rules.

MTBE is added to gasoline as an oxygenate to make it burn more completely, allowing fewer air polluting emissions to reach the atmosphere. It has helped reduce emissions, particularly in urban areas that fall short of the federal clean air standards, but MTBE is readily soluble in water and its foul smell has been detected in ground and drinking water in every state in the nation.

In their submission to the panel, three environmental groups - Bluewater Network, Communities for a Better Environment, and the Center for International Environmental Law - argued that international law requires the tribunal to respect the right of governments to take action to protect important public values like the right to clean water.

"The state of California has both a right and an obligation to protect public health," said J. Martin Wagner, the Earthjustice attorney who represented the groups.

"Methanex's claim is tantamount to extortion, undermining health protections by demanding that the government pay nearly a billion dollars to protect citizens from harm. Our submission defends the right of California and all governments to protect public health and the environment without paying a fee to a corporation."

MTBE has been used in U.S. gasoline at low levels since 1979 as an octane enhancer and in larger concentrations since 1992 to reduce harmful emissions from gasoline.

In 1999, California decided to phase out MTBE - the ban went into effect on January 1, 2004.

Because the tribunal’s decision in this case will be considered by tribunals in future investment arbitrations, its decision will help determine the rights and obligations of governments in implementing future health and environmental measures, Wagner argued.

"A decision requiring the United States to compensate Methanex will not only pressure California to rescind important environmental and health measures," he said, "but will also compromise the legitimate powers of governments to protect the health, safety, and the environment of their citizens.”

For its part, Methanex presented a request to be allowed to gather evidence in the United States. Methanex said it wants to obtain testimony and documents from the government of California, its officers, employees, and agents, both present and former, including lobbyists or legislative consultants; as well as Archer Daniels Midland Corporation, and Regent International.

Methanex alleges that U.S. officials acted improperly to protect the domestic ethanol industry, which competes against methanol as a gasoline additive. NAFTA prohibits unfair protection of domestic industries.

Methanex claims that $210,000 in campaign contributions from food giant Archer Daniels Midland improperly influenced then California Governor Gray Davis to impose the MTBE ban.

Similarly, Methanex alleges that Regent International CEO Richard Vind "arranged for and attended meetings between California officials and ethanol producers," and he has personal knowledge of what was discussed, and negotiated in those meetings.

Bush Fire Rule Called Bad For Endangered Species

Forest Service officials say the new rules, announced in December, will not reduce the level of protection for endangered species. But conservationists believe the decision reflects a far reaching White House policy to undermine and roll back protections for imperiled plants and animals.

Under the ESA, land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, are required to consult with biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service before authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that could harm species or critical habitat protected by the law.

The December regulations remove that obligation for actions that fall under the National Fire Plan. Instead of consulting with either agency tasked with enforcing the Endangered Species Act, biologists within the federal land management agencies will make the initial determination of whether there is likely to be an adverse effect on listed species or habitat.

Administration officials say the new regulations will allow federal land managers to better protect communities and wildlife habitat from catastrophic wildfires, and contend they will free biologists to address projects that have an impact on threatened and endangered species.

But conservationists are far from convinced. They see an inherent conflict in allowing the decision of impact to imperiled species to be made by agencies charged with approval of logging projects.

The coalition says the forest fire rules allow the Forest Service to designate virtually any project as a fire prevention activity, opening the door to hundreds, perhaps thousands of projects harmful to endangered wildlife.

"This administration is irresponsibly using last year's devastating wildfires as an excuse to further undermine the Endangered Species Act," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife. "It is a dangerous diversion from the real job at hand, protecting our communities from wildfire."

The groups sending the notice of intent to sue include Defenders of Wildlife, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Predator Conservation Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, The Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the U.S., Restore: The North Woods, Superior Action Wilderness Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Kettle Range Conservation Group, American Lands Alliance and one individual, Mark Skatrud.

The coalition says the Bush administration has failed to put forth any evidence to support its claim that the ESA consultation process has ever hindered legitimate fire prevention projects. Nor has the administration shown that the existing regulatory structure - which has been in place for nearly 20 years and with which every other federal agency must comply - is in any way incompatible with ongoing efforts to reduce wildfires, the groups maintain.

"We can have safe communities while we help endangered wildlife recover from the brink, but not if the federal government refuses to even ask how the two can fit together," said Schlickeisen.

In the same notice, the groups also notified the Fish and Wildlife Service of their intent to challenge the agency for not protecting the lynx and its habitat under the Endangered Species Act.

Court Orders Wildlife Service to Consider Prairie Dogs

The petition seeks protection under the federal Endangered Species Act for the white-tailed prairie dog, a species that has vanished from at least 92 percent of its historical habitat.

White-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys leucurus) occupy sagebrush habitats in central and western Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, northeastern Utah, and Carbon County, Montana. As this listing petition states, this animal "deserves aggressive conservation attention because of its highly imperiled status and its crucial role in its ecosystem."

"The Fish and Wildlife Service always complains about how citizen lawsuits are keeping them from doing their job," said Jay Tutchton, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Denver College of Law. "In fact, the situation is just the opposite. Citizen petitions and lawsuits are the only things that force the Service to step outside of its bureaucratic bunker and act."

"Prairie dogs are absolutely essential to maintaining a healthy balance in nature that supports many species of native wildlife," said Gene Byrne, a retired Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist who is not a party to the lawsuit. "Some species such as black footed ferrets cannot survive without prairie dogs. Prairie dogs supply nearly 100 percent of the ferrets' food and shelter."

Endangered black-footed ferrets depend on prairie dogs for food and on their burrows for shelter. Prairie dogs also are preyed upon by badgers, ferruginous hawks, and golden eagles.

Sylvatic plague, a disease accidentally introduced to North America around 1900, has caused largescale prairie dog population declines.

Oil and gas drilling, suburban sprawl, off-road vehicles, mining operations, and conversion of land to agriculture have also destroyed prairie dog habitat and killed the animals.

Most white-tailed prairie dogs live in small, isolated colonies that are easily wiped out by plague outbreaks, poisoning, or target shooting of live prairie dogs.

Between 1999 and 2001, the Colorado Division of Wildlife estimates that between 65,000 and 122,000 white-tailed prairie dogs were shot in the state.

Endangered Species Act protection would require the federal government to develop a long-term recovery plan for the species and its habitat

The coalition, led by Center for Native Ecosystems, also includes Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Forest Guardians, the Ecology Center, Sinapu, and the naturalist and author Terry Tempest Williams.

Conservationists Challenge Mt. Hood Logging Plan

The area slated to be logged, called the Slinky Timber Sale, is located east of Estacada in the Oak Grove and Upper Clackamas watershed.

The plan would clear cut trees as old as 450 years and would negatively impact northern spotted owl habitat at a time when the species is thought by many experts to be at risk of extinction, the conservationists say.

"The Forest Service is out of step with the public's desire to preserve Oregon's remaining ancient forests," says Sandi Scheinberg, Bark's executive director. "The Forest Service's documents say they need to log these forests because they are old growth. We feel that this is the very reason that they should be protected."

The lawsuit claims that the Forest Service is violating federal environmental laws by authorizing logging without doing the required environmental analysis, including failing to provide information about the presence of and risk to old growth dependent species, which are indicators of a forest's health.

"The Forest Service's environmental assessment for the Slinky Timber Sale does not comply with the requirements to ensure the continued viability of old growth dependent species, and fails to adequately analyze the impacts of the Slinky Timber Sale on the environment," said Scott Jerger, the attorney representing Bark in the case.

Scheinberg says the Clackamas River District on Mt. Hood is currently planning 15 other logging projects totaling 5,195 acres.

Concern about the cumulative impact of these projects on drinking water and wildlife is what spurred Bark to take action.

Current timber sales are expected to remove over 1,355 acres of spotted owl habitat, equivalent to more than two square miles of forest.

North Carolina Losing Private Forests

"North Carolina's private forest lands are at a crossroads," said Will McDow, forest economist with the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense. "The state lost more than one million acres of forest over the last 12 years."

For the first time, more timber is being cut than is being grown, and forest acres are expected to decline for the next 40 years, McDow maintains.

The report, based on analysis federal Forest Inventory and Analysis data, finds some 76 percent of all tree harvests were clearcuts, which can increase runoff and impair water quality.

The state has policies and programs aimed at protecting water quality and air quality, but it does not have effective policies to protect forests, according to the report.

"Almost 700,000 individuals own forestland in North Carolina and virtually every one of them manages his or her land in a vacuum," said Dan Whittle, senior attorney with the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.

"Existing state programs and policies promote timber production and conversion to non-forest uses over forest stewardship," Whittle said. "Only by overhauling these programs can the state reverse current trends."

Environmental Defense reports that lack of planning, inadequate incentives, and poor forest management are among the root causes of the problems facing North Carolina's forest.

"The forests are more than just a stand of trees," McDow said. "Forests produce private and public benefits, including a steady supply of timber and other products, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, clean water and healthy soil."

"If North Carolina fails to take action soon, the economic productivity and ecological health of our forests could be threatened forever," he said.