|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Newborns Benefit From Bans on Two Insecticides NEW YORK, New York, March 29, 2004 (ENS) – A new study finds the federal ban on two insecticides has resulted in a significant reduction in their impact on newborns' birth weight and length.The study is the first to demonstrate the benefits of the ban during pregnancy in human subjects. "This study is good news for our nation's children," said Dr. Frederica Perera, director of the Center and the study team leader. "The evidence that birth weight increased following the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory action implies important benefits for the children's future health and development. At the same time, the results highlight the need to address continuing prenatal exposures to these and other toxic pesticides." The study, released by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health, measured the impact on fetal growth of two insecticides - chlorpyrifos and diazinon - whose use in households was banned by the federal government starting in 2000. Chlorpyrifos was the most frequently used residential insecticide in New York City prior to the ban. Both compounds are still widely used in agriculture and continue to be found in the food supply. The insecticides had been among the most commonly used agents for residential pest control. Researchers measured the levels of the two insecticides in blood drawn from the umbilical cords after delivery, both before and after the ban, and correlated those levels with the babies' birth weight and length. They found that prior to January 2001, newborns with combined insecticide exposures in the highest 26th percentile had birth weights averaging almost 200 grams - almost half a pound - less than infants with no detectable pesticide levels. The researchers also noted a highly significant inverse association between the combined exposures and newborn birth length. But when they looked at the relationship between insecticide exposures and fetal growth after January 2001, the exposure levels had been reduced, and the impact on weight and length was no longer apparent. "The differences in fetal growth seen here are comparable to the differences between babies whose mothers smoke during pregnancy and babies whose mothers do not," said Dr. Robin Whyatt, a Columbia University researcher and principal author of the study. "The fact that the ban was associated with such an immediate change in birth weight and length provides considerable evidence of cause and effect."
Supreme Court to Hear Off-Road Vehicle Wilderness Case WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2004 (ENS) – The U.S. Supreme Court will today hear arguments on an appeal by the Bush administration, which seeks to allow Wilderness Study Areas to be opened to off-road vehicle use. A lower court ruled that the courts can force the Interior Department to protect Wilderness Study Areas from damage caused by off-road vehicles.The case could have far reaching implications, as it centers on whether federal agencies can be sued by the public for failing to comply with a Congressional mandate. The decision by the court to hear the case was considered a setback for environmental groups, who first filed the suit in 1999 after the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) refused to protect several Wilderness Study Areas in Utah from off road vehicle use. Wilderness Study Areas are lands that meet wilderness characteristics and are managed to preserve those values until Congress designates the areas as wilderness or releases the areas for non-wilderness management. Such a designation prohibits development and the use of motorized off road vehicles. Conservation groups contend that the BLM is mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act to protect these lands as wilderness until Congress determines otherwise. The case was filed because BLM has “turned a blind eye” to damage from off-road vehicle use to the agency’s most pristine lands, according to Jim Angell, an attorney for Earthjustice. The appeal by the Bush administration and off-road vehicle groups argues that the law does not authorize federal courts to consider challenges of agency inactions – only agency actions. The case is considered of utmost importance by many conservationists, as the Bush administration has pressed ahead with far reaching policy changes to how the BLM protects and manages public lands under its authority. A settlement with the state of Utah – and guidelines released in October 2003 by the administration for the BLM to implement that settlement – barred BLM land managers from designating additional lands as Wilderness Study Areas and prohibits the agency from allocating additional lands for wilderness protection. “The nation’s wilderness quality lands have never been more at risk,” said Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance staff attorney Stephen Bloch. “The administration is trying to evade its own rules and open America’s wildest public lands to development and damage.” The court will also hear arguments concerning whether the public can bring claims relating to the duty of the federal government to update environmental planning documents when there is information indicating that earlier government decisions are having significant and unanticipated environmental consequences. Other arguments set for the hearing will focus on whether the public can bring claims related to the failure of the federal government to follow through on the management commitments made in its land use plans.
Court Halts Nevada Federal Land Sale for Impact Statement RENO, Nevada, March 29, 2004 (ENS) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has blocked a plan by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell thousands of acres of public land in eastern Nevada. The ruling, filed last week, found that the BLM’s plan violated the National Environmental Policy Act in several ways.The decision prohibits the BLM from further attempts to sell the lands until the agency has prepared an environmental impact statement addressing the issues raised by the plaintiffs, which are the Western Land Exchange Project, Committee for the High Desert, and Center for Biological Diversity. The proposed land sale stemmed from the Lincoln County Land Act, passed by Congress in 2000. The Lincoln County Land Act authorized the BLM to sell a total of 13,000 acres of federal land in Lincoln County, Nevada over five years. The lands at issue lie northeast of Las Vegas and just north of Mesquite. The court found the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act because the agency failed to analyze the impact of pulling water from nearby basins to supply development of the federal land. The federal agency also failed to develop mitigation plans sufficient to protect five threatened and endangered species and ignored the cumulative impacts of the Lincoln County Land Act combined with other planned development for the region. This development includes additional land privatization, a power plant, and a new Mesquite regional airport. Together, the actions would open more than 36,000 acres to development and would support 200,000 people in the Mesquite area. “BLM acts as though its role is to expedite the rapid development of southeastern Nevada, but this decision says that is not the case,” said Western Land Exchange Project staff attorney Christopher Krupp. “Development cannot go forward until the BLM takes an honest look at its consequences.”
Washington Shuts Down Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge BELLEVUE, Washington, March 29, 2004 (ENS) - Washington's marine waters would gain new protection under a proposed agreement affecting cruise ships that operate in the state.The accord would bar all wastewater discharges in Washington from cruise liners that are members of the Northwest Cruiseship Association (NWCA), except ships equipped with advanced treatment systems (ATS) certified by the Coast Guard. Ships could release ATS treated wastewater at speeds of six knots or more and one nautical mile or more from berth at the Port of Seattle. Ships could discharge in port if they certify additional ATS elements with the Washington Department of Ecology, including enhanced disinfection, real-time monitoring and immediate cut-off capability. Sludge discharges could occur 12 nautical miles or more from shore. Discharges of conventionally treated and untreated waste water could occur only outside state waters, which extend to the boundary with Canada and three miles off the outer coast. Also, all discharges must occur outside an exclusion zone off the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The agreement would provide more environmental protection than current maritime law, which allows ships with conventional treatment systems to discharge treated waste water anywhere and untreated sludge three nautical miles or more from shore. "This accord builds on our strong commitment to protect the environment," said John Hansen, NWCA president. "We're investing in leading edge technology and opening our operations and records to the state, and thereby the public, to underscore that dedication." The agreement was negotiated by the Department of Ecology, the Port of Seattle and the Northwest Cruiseship Association (NWCA), which represents the major cruise lines that dock in Seattle. The U.S. Coast Guard also participated in the talks. "In this agreement, the cruise industry has voluntarily agreed to standards that go beyond what federal and international law would enable us to require," said Ray Hellwig, the northwest regional director for Ecology. "We feel very good about the environmental safeguards this will provide." "We have worked on this agreement over the past year, and have produced a document that provides new protections for the state's marine waters," said Charles Sheldon, managing director of the Port of Seattle. "This shows how government and industry can work together for the benefit of the environment and the economy." ATS treated waste water contains lower concentrations of key pollutants than waste water treated by conventional marine or municipal systems. The Coast Guard evaluates and certifies advanced systems under federal requirements adopted to protect Alaskan waters from cruise ship waste. The proposal would require regular tests and sampling of shipboard treatment systems, with reports submitted to Ecology and available for public review. Ecology staff would be allowed to board NWCA ships to inspect treatment systems, observe sample-taking and take their own samples. The draft agreement would require NWCA ships to comply with Washington's more-restrictive hazardous-waste laws. Garbage could not be discharged in state waters. Ecology, the Port of Seattle and NWCA plan to sign the agreement so it takes effect before the 2004 cruise season begins. The Department of Ecology is inviting public comment on the draft agreement, which is on the Internet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq. A public comment period runs through April 6. Comments may be emailed to: dpal461@ecy.wa.gov.
Arizona Mountain Lions Get Reprieve From Airlift TUCSON, Arizona, March 29, 2004 (ENS) - Conservationists are celebrating a decision by federal and state officials Sunday to suspend the Sabino Canyon mountain lion hunt. The Arizona Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Forest Service called off the hunt after Governor Janet Napolitano, Congressman Raul Grijalva, 27 state lawmakers and others joined a public outcry against it.The agencies had planned an airlift of mountain lions from Sabino Canyon. One or more mountain lions that have been "behaving in an aberrant manner" were to be moved from the canyon and placed into a wildlife rehabilitation facility in order to protect public safety. “There should’ve never been a hunt, and they should not resume it. Game and Fish and the Forest Service have not shown convincing evidence of a threat,” said Daniel Patterson, desert ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. The Arizona Game and Fish Department said in February that professional animal trackers in Sabino Canyon verified the presence of at least three and perhaps four mountains lions in the area. Mountain lion experts in the West, including those with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, say "there are mountain lion danger signals, which are: lions are daylight active, they show no fear of humans and they have been stalking people. The mountain lions in Sabino Canyon are exhibiting aggressive, aberrant behavior." On that basis the agency proposed a mountain lion hunt, but it did not meet with popular approval. On Thursday, several hundred people protested the lion hunt in downtown Tucson. On Friday, public interest organizations from across Arizona issued calls for reform of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department. When questioned at a public meeting, Arizona Game and Fish Deputy Director Steve Ferrell admitted he knew of no examples where adult cougars had been successfully moved to captivity. Government officials have not shown good evidence that lions in Sabino Canyon are likely to attack humans, Patterson said. A March 12 Arizona Game and Fish report obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity showed only one of 36 reported potential lion sightings in or near Sabino Canyon confirmed since 2002, and only three of 36 as possibly confirmed. This report does not confirm recent stalking of humans by lions, as claimed by officials. Recent alleged sightings reported by the media are unconfirmed, and biologists know that most lion sighting reports from the public are inaccurate. There are other easier, safer and less expensive solutions to lion control besides capture or killing. “We will get houndsmen to come out and track the lion to its day bed or denning area, then chase the lion out of the vicinity. Typically, that works pretty well. The lion won’t come back after harassing behavior,” said Steve Nadeau of Idaho Fish and Game, describing cougar management in the urban-wildlife interface around Boise, in the "Arizona Daily Star," on March 11. Eight public interest organizations, including Center for Biological Diversity, reached a settlement last week with the federal government in a lawsuit challenging the killing of mountain lions in the Four Peaks Wilderness Area of the Tonto National Forest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act, and other laws by authorizing, assisting, and funding the Arizona Game and Fish Department's project to kill mountain lions essentially to "study" the impact of those killings on the bighorn sheep population. In the Four Peaks Wilderness, despite the knowledge that mountain lion predation is a minor factor related to bighorn sheep survival - livestock grazing, habitat loss and fragmentation, and drought are more significant - the three year, federally funded Arizona Game and Fish Department project sought to kill 75 percent of the cougars within the study area. "U.S. Forest Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department killed cougars in the Four Peaks Wilderness without solid evidence or trying other options, and they are now repeating the same outrageous mistake at Sabino Canyon," said Patterson. "The government's deadly, out of control cougar policy must stop now. Pumas are essential to ecosystem health, and people need to learn to live with them, especially in the urban sprawl wildlands interface areas." "The frivolous and wanton killing of mountain lions, especially with cruel methods such as snaring and hound hunting, is appalling to Arizonans and is a fleecing of public funds," said Michael Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals.
Comment Welcome on Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat Reports WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2004 (ENS) - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released draft reports on the potential economic and environmental impacts of a proposed designation of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. The owl’s habitat varies from canyon to mountain forest habitats across a range that extends from southern Utah and Colorado, through Arizona and New Mexico, to the mountains of central Mexico.When specifying any particular area as critical habitat, the Endangered Species Act requires the Service to consider economic and other relevant impacts of the designation. If the benefits of excluding an area outweigh the benefits of including it, the Service may exclude an area from critical habitat, unless such action would result in the extinction of any of the species in question. The two analyses are prepared to assist in these decisions. Critical habitat is a term used in the Endangered Species Act to identify geographic areas essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and may require special management considerations. The Service proposed critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl on November 18, 2003 in response to a court order. This proposal includes public and tribal lands in four states: 4.96 million acres in Arizona; 569,125 acres in Colorado; 4.63 million acres in New Mexico; and 3.3 million acres in Utah. The draft economic analysis estimates that conservation measures range from $ 0.9 to $3 million annually. The analysis suggests that most of the expected economic impact is due to previous and continuing conservation measures that are not related to the critical habitat designation. In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act, the Service says it has found that the designation of critical habitat "provides little additional protection to most listed species, while preventing the Service from using scarce conservation resources for activities with greater conservation benefits." "In almost all cases," the Service says, "recovery of listed species will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat." Habitat is also protected through cooperative measures under the Endangered Species Act including Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements and state programs. In addition, voluntary partnership programs such as the Service's Private Stewardship Grants and Partners for Fish and Wildlife program also restore habitat. Habitat for endangered species is provided on many national wildlife refuges, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife management areas. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area, nor does it allow government or public access to private lands, the Service says. But in the draft reports the Service lists issues associated with designation of critical habitat - all negative - that appear to be in contradiction to that statement. These issues were identified in comments received during the re-opened public comment period of November 18 through December 17, 2003 on the July 2000 critical habitat proposed rule. • Indian tribes are the appropriate entity to manage natural resources on tribal lands to their benefit; designating critical habitat on tribal lands would infringe on that capability and would also be in contradiction their tribal rights and trust responsibilities. Designation of critical habitat on tribal lands would adversely affect the relationship between tribes and the Service. • Designation of critical habitat on tribal lands would negatively affect existing forest resource management programs, including commercial and recreational uses and may affect traditional uses of the land such as firewood gathering, cutting timber for traditional lodging, gathering berries, use of sacred sites, and other spiritual uses of the land. • Designation of critical habitat would inhibit forest restoration programs and projects and result in increased risk of catastrophic wildfire and decreased water yield from forest watersheds. • Designation of critical habitat may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. • Critical habitat designation may limit or severely affect access to public lands, oil and gas development activities, livestock grazing, recreation, and logging practices on federal lands. But The Center for Biological Diversity, Navajo environmental group Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment (Diné CARE), and Colorado based Center for Native Ecosystems disagree. These groups originally sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to overturn the agency's critical habitat designation for the Mexican spotted owl because the final rule eliminated more than nine million acres of proposed habitat, largely within Arizona and New Mexico National Forests, where 90 percent of known owls exist. The final rule also eliminated proposed habitat on Navajo Nation tribal lands. "The ultimate survival and recovery of the Mexican spotted owl will require protection of the owl's habitat on Arizona and New Mexico National Forests," saidd Brian Segee, forest watch coordinator with Center for Biological Diversity. "Critical habitat provides permanent protection from shifting political winds and the Forest Service's consistent attempts to log, graze, and mine the owl's habitat," continued Segee. "The Service has taken the remarkable position that the best habitat for the Mexican spotted owl should not be included in its critical habitat designation. That approach makes no sense, and certainly does not comply with the Endangered Species Act," said Matt Kenna, attorney for the groups. The public is invited to submit comments on the proposed designation or the draft reports by April 26, 2004. In addition, an informational meeting will be held on April 20 in Las Cruces, New Mexico from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Corbett Center on the New Mexico State University. Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule and draft economic and environmental analyses are online at: http://ifw2es.fws.gov/NewMexico/ Written comments and information can be emailed to: R2FWE_AL@fws.gov.
Ag Department Issues Animal Disease Response CD WASHINGTON, DC, March 26, 2004 (ENS) – To prepare for the introduction of animal diseases into the U.S. meat production pathway - whether by terrorists or by accident - Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman has released an informational compact disc for federal and state agriculture first responders.“This new tool provides federal, state and private veterinarians immediate access to resources and relevant information to help them more effectively identify, respond to, control and facilitate recovery from a foreign animal disease outbreak,” Veneman said. The compact disc, “Food Security: The Threat to American Livestock,” was developed in conjunction with Auburn University. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, (APHIS) helps to ensure the safety of all animal and plant products from the farm to the food distribution centers located around the country. The agency has begun an extensive program to enhance its readiness to detect, deter and respond to terrorist events involving plant or animal pathogens. State and federal officials who have a role to fulfill in the event of an unintentional or intentional threat to U.S. livestock will also have access to this data bank. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Veneman formed a Homeland Security Council within the Agriculture Department to develop a plan and coordinate efforts among all USDA agencies and offices. The council focused on food supply and agriculture production, USDA facilities and staff and emergency preparedness. APHIS’ compact disc addresses emergency preparedness. It attempts to place homeland security issues front and center for private veterinary practitioners and other agricultural first responders, as they conduct their daily activities. The CD offers comprehensive information on infectious disease threats to livestock, animal disease awareness briefings, standard veterinary medical information for diagnosing such diseases, and emergency information gathering and reporting mechanisms. The CD outlines routine biosecurity measures for on-site farm visits, recommends emergency response plans and suggests disease monitoring methods.
Florida Hands Out Solar Water Heaters WEST OCALA, Florida, March 29, 2004 (ENS) - Florida is providing solar water heaters to seven households in the Ocala area – part of 150 that will be delivered to residents in underserved communities throughout the state. Named Front Porch Sunshine, the program puts Florida first in the nation to install solar energy technology in weatherized, low income homes.“Energy conservation protects the environment and saves money,” said Governor Jeb Bush. “Extending the environmental and economic benefits of conservation to Florida’s neediest citizens improves our quality of life and strengthens our communities.” The reliable, low maintenance solar systems use the sun’s energy, instead of electricity, to heat water. A solar collector installed on the roof holds water that is heated by the sun. A traditional water heater serves as a backup supply of hot water on overcast or rainy days. “Harnessing the power of the sun is clean, free and expands energy savings to Florida’s underserved communities,” said Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Colleen Castille. “By providing weatherization and energy saving opportunities to our residents, families that need it most are able to minimize their energy bills and dedicate their financial resources to other important items in their monthly budgets.” The Florida Energy Office, Florida Solar Energy Center and Florida Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation established a partnership with Front Porch Florida, a program launched by Governor Bush in 1999 to revitalize low income neighborhoods, to improve energy efficiency of homes in designated communities throughout the state. State agencies are assisting 20 designated neighborhoods with community driven initiatives for economic growth, education and environmental preservation. “The solar water heater program is a perfect compliment to the Front Porch Florida initiative,” said Interim DCA Secretary Heidi Hughes. “These dynamic neighborhoods have continued their legacy of promoting economic revitalization and community education while embracing this environmentally friendly technology.” “I am thrilled the West Ocala Front Porch community will benefit from this groundbreaking program,” said Patricia West, director of Florida’s Office of Urban Opportunity. “Bringing the power of solar energy to our communities is a wonderful way for residents to take advantage of the successful collaboration between the Department of Community Affairs, Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation and community partners.” |
