• EPA Must Defend Lax Air Monitoring Rule in Court
  
• Reform of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Questioned
  
• Bush Blasted for Backing Off Wetlands Protection
  
• Seven Vanishing American Mussels Unprotected
  
• California Loggers Benefit From Clean Water Waiver
  
• Houston Ranked as Dirtiest U.S. Port
  
• New Partnership Gives $750,000 to Save Yucatan Wetland
  
• Human Hunters Leave Little Food for Tigers
  

EPA Must Defend Lax Air Monitoring Rule in Court

The EPA's new rule, announced on January 22, 2004, allows facilities that emit large amounts of air pollutants to use monitoring methods the agency has repeatedly acknowledged are inadequate to determine compliance, the plaintiffs say.

In their case, filed last week, the groups claim the rule will allow the industry to self-monitor air pollution as infrequently as twice every five years.

They contend this will lead to increased emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and other toxic pollutants linked to childhood diseases, heart disease and premature death.

The Environmental Integrity Project filed the suit with Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Air Council, Our Children's Earth Foundation, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

"The problem is simple - inadequate monitoring results in higher emissions," said Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project and a former EPA official. "The Clean Air Act requires monitoring sufficient to assure compliance - EPA is replacing that with a don't ask, don't tell policy for air pollution."

The EPA agreed to adopt its new rule in order to settle a lawsuit brought by power plant and auto manufacturing associations challenging the agency's monitoring rules.

An almost identical suit by many of these same industry associations was dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year. Instead of fighting this latest suit, EPA agreed to change its interpretation of the rules.

More than 50 health and environmental groups and six states - New York, Illinois, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania - went on record in opposition to the EPA settlement.

The states noted that the EPA's interpretation "would make oversight and enforcement by states, the EPA, and citizens extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible."

The new rule will mean there is less information on which to base health and environmental decisions and less likelihood of identifying illegal polluters.

"This rule is a complete reversal of longstanding EPA policy recognizing the importance of monitoring and requiring that air permits include adequate monitoring," said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council. "The fact that EPA did this as a backroom deal with industry and evaded the normal public participation process is appalling."

Reform of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Questioned

The report can be found here.

Bush Blasted for Backing Off Wetlands Protection

The statement, issued Tuesday by several national environmental groups and more than 50 clean water advocate groups in some 31 states, takes particular aim at the impacts of a decision by the White House to ease federal wetlands protections.

In January 2003 the Bush administration issued new guidance ordering the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers not to require permits under the Clean Water Act for the pollution or destruction of wetlands that are located within a single state and are not associated with any navigable waterway.

The Bush administration said the guidance was in line with a 2001 Supreme Court decision known as the SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County) ruling, which held that the Army Corps could not protect intrastate, isolated, non-navigable ponds solely based on their use by migratory birds.

A plan by the administration to use SWANCC as the basis for further easing federal wetlands protections was withdrawn last December in the wake of strong opposition from states, environmental groups as well as fishing and bird enthusiasts.

Critics of the administration say there is ample evidence, however, that the federal agencies are ignoring parts of existing Clean Water Act rules, and failing to enforce federal pollution limits over many wetlands, small streams and other waters.

The environmental groups cite a letter from the Corps that accompanied a recent General Accounting Office report to Congress that they say shows how the administration is acting as if Clean Water Act regulations have been changed.

In the letter, Assistant Secretary of the Army John Paul Woodley states, "Following the SWANCC decision, it may generally be said that a water (and associated aquatic resources) will be subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction if the water is either a territorial sea, a traditional navigable water, a tributary to a traditional navigable water, or an adjacent wetland."

The groups say this definition excludes the vast and diverse category of other waters - such as lakes, bogs, freshwater marshes, forested wetlands and even seasonal streams - that perform essential chemical, physical and biological functions within stream and river networks.

"The Bush administration's rhetorical commitment to "no net loss" of wetlands and protection of the nations' streams is only window dressing," said Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The truth is they are pushing an industry backed agenda that places the health of our waters and the public at risk."

Seven Vanishing American Mussels Unprotected

On March 16, 1998, the federal agency listed the shinyrayed pocketbook, fat threeridge, moccasinshell, Ochlockonee moccasinshell, and oval pigtoe as endangered and the Chipola slabshell under the federal Endangered Species Act. In addition, it listed the purple bankclimber as threatened.

"North America has the world's greatest diversity of freshwater mussels and over 90 percent of those species are found in the southeastern United States," said Sidney Maddock, environmental analyst for the Center for Biological Diversity, which is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We are at risk of loosing our unique natural heritage."

The seven mussel species of concern in the suit are native to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin of southeast Alabama, southwest Georgia, and northwest Florida, and the Ochlockonee River system of southwest Georgia and northwest Florida. They are found nowhere else on Earth.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged that these seven mussels were eliminated from much of their historical range by impoundments, channelization, pollution, and sedimentation, and threats such as erosive land practices, construction of new impoundments, water withdrawals, and exotic species continue.

But the federal agency has not designated critical habitat for these species - an obligation under the Endangered Species Act.

"These mussel species are indicators of the health of our rivers, said attorney Larry Sanders, the Turner Environmental Law Clinic attorney representing the Center for Biological Diversity in the case which was filed last week in federal court. "This is a lawsuit about saving rivers and protecting water quality."

Recent reports by the Fish and Wildlife Service show that species with critical habitat are twice as likely to make progress toward recovery as species without it. But Bush administration officials are keen to revamp the Endangered Species Act and believe the critical habitat provision is in need of reform.

The Bush administration is the first in the history of the law not to have listed any species or designated any critical habitat except under court order.

"Critical habitat is a fundamental tool for conserving and recovering imperiled species," Sanders said. "Congress specifically included provisions to designate and protect critical habitat in the Endangered Species Act in order to conserve the unique ecosystems and processes upon which species depend."

California Loggers Benefit From Clean Water Waiver

The exemption allows hundreds of new logging operations to discharge sediment, herbicides, and other pollutants to rivers, streams, and lakes throughout the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades.

The exemption applies to industrial logging operations on public and private land throughout the Sierra Nevada region and affects the municipal water sources for approximately two-thirds of the state's population.

"The waivers represent an illegal attempt by the water boards to grant politically connected timber interests a de facto right to pollute," said DeltaKeeper Bill Jennings. "There is no right to pollute. Polluting is a regulated privilege, allowable only after the public's right to clean water and a healthy environment is protected."

The coalition consists of the Environmental Protection Information Center, DeltaKeeper, and the Sierra Club. The organizations filed the lawsuit late last week.

They allege that the Central Valley Regional Water Board, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan Region, and the State Water Resources Control Board violated state environmental laws by issuing the waiver.

The two regional water boards cover the Sierra Nevada and Cascades and the Central Valley from Bakersfield to the Oregon border.

Some 45 percent of all industrial logging operations in California occur within the Central Valley watershed, which provides the water supply for the San Francisco Bay Area and is an important source of water for Los Angeles.

"The water boards have taken a very limited exception to the state's water pollution control law and stretched it to the breaking point to allow the logging industry to continue dumping massive quantities of sediment into our rivers, lakes, and reservoirs," said Mike Lozeau of Earthjustice who is representing the coalition in court.

"Because the water boards have failed to enforce California's water quality law," Lozeau said, "we are now asking the Superior Court to step in to do so."

Houston Ranked as Dirtiest U.S. Port

The report grades the 10 biggest seaports, as measured by container throughput in 2001, for their impact on air and water quality, land use, and nearby communities. Houston, Texas is the only port to receive an overall "F."

An "A" designates a model port, whereas an "F" indicates a port that has demonstrated reckless lack of concern for public health and the environment.

The overall port grades are as follows: New York/New Jersey, "C+"; Charleston, South Carolina, "D+"; Oakland, California, "B-"; Hampton Roads, Virginia, "C+"; Seattle, Washington "C+"; Savannah, Georgia "D+"; Miami, Florida, "C-."

The report finds that despite the availability of technology to cut pollution, major seaports are emitting ever-larger amounts of toxic diesel exhaust and other contaminants that damage public health, disrupt local communities and harm marine habitats.

"Every stage of container handling can be improved to protect the health and environment of local communities; from retrofitting ships, to improving cargo handling equipment, to utilizing diesel pollution control devices on the trucks and trains that transport cargo," said Todd Campbell, policy director of the Coalition for Clean Air.

With cargo volume at some ports expected to triple in the next 20 years, the report urges quick action by port operators and policymakers to implement cleaner practices.

Most major ports in the United States are undergoing expansions to accommodate even greater cargo volumes. The growth of international trade has resulted in corresponding rapid growth in the amount of goods being shipped by sea.

Despite the enormous growth within the marine shipping sector, most pollution prevention efforts at the local, state, and federal levels have focused on other pollution sources, while the environmental impacts of ports have grown.

"These are not the kind of report cards you want to bring home to your parents," said Gail Ruderman Feuer, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Southern California Air Program. "The good news is that some port officials and shipping lines now see that greening their operations is essential for long term economic success."

New Partnership Gives $750,000 to Save Yucatan Wetland

The organizations say their new International Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (ICWRP) will engage the private sector and develop cohesive partnerships that join technical, financial, and administrative resources to help reverse the disappearance of wetlands.

The parties kicked off the project by donating $750,000 to conserve freshwater, marine and coastal resources in and around Mexico's Sian Ka'an site, a wetland of vital importance located just south of Cancun that has been recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention.

"This partnership gives a diverse group of organizations the ability to work together to preserve our world's natural treasures," said Kathy Bushkin, executive vice president of the United Nations Foundation. "We are proud to be part of this project helping to protect a UN World Heritage Site in Sian Ka'an."

The ICWRP Partnership will follow a two-pronged approach, based on the size of projects that are developed. Large scale projects will be implemented at World Heritage sites, for which the UN Foundation will provide matching resources to private investment.

Small scale projects will be addressed through a recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Coastal America Foundation and the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, utilizing the Convention's existing project selection framework.

Wetlands are vital habitats that are shrinking the world over, the partners point out. For example, 200 years ago the United States had twice the wetlands acreage that it has today, now estimated at around 100 million acres.

Coastal development, unregulated tourism, and unsustainable farming and fishing practices threaten Sian Ka'an. The inaugural project seeks to protect these coastal habitats and ensure the viability of the region's freshwater and marine ecosystems.

The funding will help put tools in place such as easements and will be used to promote "best practices for wastewater management contributing to the conservation of the region's wetlands, freshwater springs and coastal lagoons," said Marco Lazcano, executive director of Amigos de Sian Ka´an, the Mexican environmental organization tasked with implementing the project.

Human Hunters Leave Little Food for Tigers

"Conservationists should direct their concerns at reducing such negative human impacts," says the study's lead author Dr. Ullas Karanth, who is associated with the Bronx Zoo based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

Karanth says the rigorous methods and extensive field component of this study set it apart from most population ecology research, which is often carried out on smaller animals in laboratories.

"When it comes to macro-ecological studies on far ranging landscape species like tigers and their prey, the biological, statistical and practical problems involved have proved too daunting in the past, compelling scientists to draw weak inferences, usually based on secondary data," Karanth said.

"We tackled this problem head on by immersing ourselves for eight years in the secret world of the tiger."

A study centered on the model was created by WCS scientists and their collaborators from the U.S. Geological Survey's wildlife research center in Maryland. The paper appears in the latest edition of the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

The researchers say their model can accurately predict tiger density over a variety of habitats, and can help safeguard dwindling tiger populations by pinpointing the causes of their decline.

They tested their model by sampling tiger and prey populations in 11 ecologically distinct sites in India - from grasslands to dry forests - over the eight year period. Teams of biologists walked more than 4,200 miles to count prey animals, and set hundreds of camera traps over 8,600 days of effort.

Densities of ungulate prey such as deer, antelopes, wild cattle and wild pigs ranged from a low of 5.3 animals per square kilometer in Meghat Reserve, to more than 63 per square kilometer in Pench Reserve. The model predictions matched the measured tiger densities ranging between 3.2 to 16.8 tigers per 100 square kilometers.

WCS’s conservation efforts to save tigers in India and throughout their range are featured in “Tiger Mountain,” a new exhibit that opened at the Bronx Zoo last May.