|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Hundreds of Major Facilities Violating Clean Water Act WASHINGTON, DC, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - Analysis of data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds more than 60 percent of industrial and municipal facilities across the country exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once between January 2002 and June 2003 - and did so by an average of six times their legal limits.The data on facilities' compliance with the Clean Water Act was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and released Tuesday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). Nationally, 436 major facilities exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits for at least 10 of the 18 reporting periods between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. Thirty-five facilities exceeded their Clean Water Act permits during every reporting period between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. U.S. PIRG environmental advocate Richard Caplan says the findings are an indictment of the Bush administration's disinterest in enforcing one of the nation's most important environmental laws. "We need strong action to address this illegal pollution, but the Bush administration has instead proposed slashing the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement budget and weakening critical Clean Water Act programs," Caplan said. Caplan added that the report's findings are likely conservative, since the data analyzed includes only "major" facilities and does not include pollution discharged by hundreds of thousands of minor facilities across the country. The 10 states with the most exceedances of Clean Water Act permit limits between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003 are Ohio, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and Indiana. The 10 U.S. states with the highest percentage of major facilities to exceed their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once are Rhode Island, New Hampshire, North Carolina, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada. The 10 U.S. states with the highest average permit exceedance between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003 are Hawaii, Rhode Island, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, Connecticut, Nevada, Iowa, Texas and North Carolina.
Judge Slashes Exxon Mobil Gas Royalty Verdict MONTGOMERY, Alabama March 31, 2004 (ENS) - A record $11.9 billion verdict against Exxon Mobil in a natural gas royalty dispute with the state of Alabama was cut to $3.6 billion by a Montgomery court on Monday, but the company says it is still "excessive and unjustified." Circuit Judge Tracy McCooey wrote in her ruling, "This court is thoroughly convinced, as was the jury, that Exxon intentionally and deliberately took actions, from the moment the leases were signed, to commit fraud upon the state." "Exxon engaged in a carefully planned scheme, conceived and approved at the highest echelons of its corporate offices, to keep nearly $1 billion in easy money that it knew was due," she wrote. Still, Judge McCooey said she had to reduce the penalty delivered by a jury in November 2003 to make it conform to U.S. Supreme Court guidelines. But the company said the remaining amount is "clearly contrary to guidelines established by recent United States Supreme Court decisions on punitive damage awards," and it intends to appeal Judge McCooey's ruling. "ExxonMobil's conduct was absolutely proper and lawful, and we believe the appeals process will support our position," said Stuart McGill, president of ExxonMobil Production Company. Attorneys for the state, Jere Beasley and Robert Cunningham, say they preferred the original $11.9 billion verdict, but the reduced amount is more likely to survive on appeal. Since production began at Mobile Bay, the company says it has paid more than $1 billion in royalty and lease payments directly to the state. The case now goes to the Alabama Supreme Court, which in 2002 overturned an earlier a $3.5 billion penalty against Exxon Mobil in the same case because the jury improperly saw a legal memo written by the company.
U.S.-Russia Coalition Petitions to Save Yellow Billed Loon ANCHORAGE, Alaska, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - A coalition of U.S. and Russian conservation groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Monday to list the yellow-billed loon under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).The coalition says the estimated global population of yellow-billed loon is only 16,650 birds - the lowest worldwide population of all loon species. The yellow-billed loon breeds only in Canada, the United States and Eurasia. In the United States, its primary breeding grounds are within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). Some 18 percent of the world's population of yellow-billed loons is estimated to live within the reserve area. The coalition says threats to the yellow-billed loon include oil and gas development, human disturbance, increased predation, marine pollution, incidental bycatch from fishing, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. "Population numbers of the yellow-billed loon are alarmingly low, and the Bush administration's actions are threatening their critical breeding habitat in Alaska," said Corrie Bosman, Alaska program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. Conservationists are critical of the Bush administration's January 2004 decision to open 100 percent of the nearly nine million acres of the Northwest portion of the NPR-A Reserve to oil and gas development. Eighty-seven percent of the 4.6 million acre Northeast Planning Area of the Reserve is already available for oil and gas leasing, and the administration is eager to open the remaining 13 percent originally set aside as wildlife habitat. The Center for Biological Diversity filed the petition on behalf of the U.S. based Natural Resource Defense Council, Pacific Environment, and Trustees for Alaska, as well as seven Russian partners including the Kamchatka League of Independent Experts, Taiga Ranger, Wild Nature of Sakhalin, and the Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of Geography. The Russian partners joined the petition, according to David Gordon, acting executive director with Pacific Environment, in recognition that "a global protection effort is needed."
Bipartisan House Bill Takes Aim at Global Warming WASHINGTON, DC, , March 31, 2004 (ENS) - A bipartisan coalition of 20 U.S. Representatives introduced Tuesday a companion bill to Senator John McCain and Joe Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act. The bill, cosponsored by Maryland Republican Wayne Gilchrest and Massachusetts Democrat John Olver, would require some sectors of the U.S. economy to enact mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions - the leading greenhouse gas.The bill would set a nationwide cap on industrial emissions of C02 and reduce those emissions down to 2000 levels by 2010 through an emissions trading system. It does not address the C02 emissions from the nation's automobiles, which represent some 20 percent of the U.S. total. With roughly four percent of the world's population, United States is responsible for more than 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Higher temperatures caused by the increased levels of greenhouse gases are expected to result in rising sea levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, erratic and severe weather patterns, northward migration of tropical diseases and a host of other environmental problems that could have far reaching impacts. Environmentalists praised the move, even though the legislation has little chance of passing the House of Representatives. "The announcement of House legislation to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution reflects building momentum in the United States for responsible action to address global warming," said Brooks Yeager of the World Wildlife Fund. McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, have reintroduced the bill in the Senate. It was defeated in the Senate last October by a vote of 53 to 44, but supporters of the legislation said the vote was a watershed moment in the U.S. debate over the issue of global warming. It was the first action on the issue by the Senate in six years. At a hearing on the bill earlier this month, McCain described the legislation as "an incredibly modest proposal. But," he said, "we need a beginning."
Critics Blast Bush Proposal to Ease Mining Waste Rule WASHINGTON, DC, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - The Bush administration's proposed industry friendly revisions to the "buffer zone" rule, which governs permits for coal mining activities that disturb areas within 100 feet of streams, drew sharp criticism Tuesday from environmentalists and Appalachia citizens at public hearings on the proposal.Currently the 1983 regulation prevents federal and state agencies from issuing such permits unless there is confirmation that the activities will not adversely impact water quality, but administration officials say the rule is onerous and confusing. The proposed changes, announced in January by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM), would strike the existing rule and instead call on coal operators to prevent and minimize damage to streams in the buffer zone "to the extent possible." Administration officials and industry groups say the revisions would provider greater clarity to industry and balance the economic and environmental needs of regions that use the technique. But critics contend the proposal will allow coal companies to dump wastes directly on top of streams and is part of the Bush administration's effort to protect a controversial mining practice called mountaintop coal mining. The practice - labeled mountaintop removal coal mining by environmentalists - is a form of strip mining widely used in Appalachia in which mining companies blast hundreds of feet off the tops of mountains to easily access coal deposits. The debris and waste rubble is bulldozed into surrounding valleys and into streambeds - called valley fills - but the practice has fouled hundreds of miles of Appalachian waterways and thousands of acres of forests. "The Bush administration states that a goal of its rulemaking proposal is to minimize the adverse environmental effects of mountaintop removal valley fills. Yet it is proposing to legalize the coal companies' practice of burying streams, an activity not even allowed under the existing rule," said Sarah Wilhoite, policy associate for the environmental law firm Earthjustice. "Replacing a rule that forbids destroying streams with one that sanctions the practice cannot seriously be considered 'minimizing' harm." According to the Bush administration's draft Environmental Impact Statement on mountaintop removal coal mining released in May 2003, more than 1,200 miles of streams have already been buried by mountaintop removal mining waste in the last decade. These same studies found that, without additional restrictions on mountaintop removal mining, at least another 1,000 miles of streams will be added to this toll within the next decade. The proposal, which is open for public comment through April 7, is part of the Bush administration's broad policy to ease regulations on the coal industry - in particular operators who use mountaintop coal mining techniques. The industry remains a key economic engine for Appalachia and other regions of the country and some 50 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by coal. Tighter regulation of mining wastes from mountaintop coal mining would costs thousands of jobs, according to industry groups. The practice is used throughout Appalachia, mostly in the states of Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. In 2002, the Bush administration finalized changes to the Clean Water Act that allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits allowing the dumping of mine wastes into waterways. Environmental groups filed suit in federal court in October 2003 against the Corps for issuing those permits, which they contend violate the Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws.
Arizona Grazing Decisions Appealed PRESCOTT, Arizona, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - Three sets of appeals have been filed with the U.S. Forest Service challenging five grazing permit reauthorizations that cover more than 126,000 acres of public land in Arizona's Prescott National Forest.Forest Guardians, Prescott National Forest Friends, and at least one individual have appealed the five decisions made by the Forest Service's Chino Valley District Ranger Linda Jackson. The conservation groups and individual contend the reauthorizations continue to allow overgrazing on the Antelope, China Dam, Muldoon, and Perkinsville and Sand Flat Grazing Allotments. "Grazing has occurred on these five allotments for over 100 years," said Jim Powers, chair of Prescott National Forest Friends. "As a result, the soil and watershed have been severely degraded." At least 39 percent of the allotments contain impaired or unsatisfactory soils and 38 percent of the area has unsatisfactory watershed conditions, according to the Forest Plan's Environmental Impact Statement. "In conducting the environmental analysis for these allotments, the interdisciplinary team failed to respect and consider the chief foresters' directive to give watershed's the highest priority in managing our national forest," Powers said. The Forest Service said current livestock levels in the allotments can be maintained or increased and soils and vegetation can still be protected through better management. To do so, the federal agency plans to spend $487,000 of taxpayers' money on water and fencing improvements in an attempt keep cattle more evenly distributed throughout the allotments. But the grazers will pay only about $15,000 annually in fees, critics say. The appeal filers contend the agency violated the National Forest Management Act by failing to consider that each of the new water developments will cause significant impacts to the soil and vegetation for up to a mile radius around each of more than 40 new water troughs. In addition, the filers believe the plan for these allotments fails to ensure that there will be forage available for the wild antelope or mule deer in the area. They say the environmental assessment and resulting decisions also violate the National Forest Management Act by failing to meet the requirement that they provide analysis or comparison to demonstrate that the benefits of livestock grazing are "relatively" commensurate with cost. "In this case, the costs and impacts clearly outweigh the only benefit discussed in the EA [environmental assessment] - bolstering these five ranchers through taxpayer subsidies," said Billy Stern, grazing program coordinator for Forest Guardians. "We have a responsibility to protect southwest lands and wildlife that live here."
Support Grows for Grazing Buyout Bill WASHINGTON, DC, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - Two national conservation groups - the Sierra Club and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition - have endorsed federal legislation that would compensate public lands ranchers who voluntarily relinquish their federal grazing permits.The House bill, titled The Voluntary Grazing Permit Buyout Act would allow federal public lands ranchers to waive their interest in grazing permits in exchange for compensation in the amount of $175 per animal unit month (AUM). An AUM is defined as the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month. The buyout program is endorsed by more than 200 conservation groups across the country. The bill was introduced in October 2003 by U.S. Representatives Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, and Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat. A similar bill by the same two Congressmen applies specifically to Arizona - the Sierra Club and Greater Yellowstone Coalition have also endorsed that bill. "We are pleased to join nearly 200 ranchers [in Arizona alone] and numerous other conservation organizations in supporting this legislation," said Don Steuter, conservation chair of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter. "These bills will help restore public lands that have been impacted heavily by drought and livestock grazing." The buyout initiative was conceived by the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign (NPLGC) to protect 257 million acres of federal public lands from livestock grazing. The plan is also designed to provide a financial alternative for cash-strapped public lands ranchers with investments stranded in grazing permits. Conservationists contend that ranchers do not have an inherent right to use public lands, and say the current system often encourages overgrazing and provides a large subsidy to a relatively small group. Only three percent of U.S. livestock producers have federal grazing permits and an October 2002 study by the Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) found that the minimum cost to U.S. taxpayers of the federal grazing on public lands is $128 million. But this number could be as high as $1 billion, the CBD determined, because of indirect costs from resource damage and subsidies. "Species, ecosystems and watersheds are failing even faster than public lands ranching," said NPLGC director Andy Kerr. "Public lands ranchers and all other Americans deserve better. Our society and government have a duty to leave no American behind as the economy grows and changes." Under the terms of the buyout, public lands permittees would be paid about four times the average market value to yield their grazing permits. A permittee with 300 cow/calf pairs that graze on federal public lands for five months of the year would receive $262,000. "This is a simple step which allows struggling ranchers a chance to get out of public lands grazing without serious economic consequences," said Wayne Hoskisson, chair of the Sierra Club's national grazing committee. "At the same time, natural processes can be restored on some of the nation's most marginally productive rangelands."
Commuters Not Reaping Benefits From Gas Taxes WASHINGTON, DC, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - Commuters' gas taxes are being diverted to far-flung rural and exurban areas within their states, rather than relieving taxpayers' commutes through expanded commuter mass transit options, according to a new investigation of spending patterns by state departments of transportation.The investigation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington, DC research group, finds these patterns hold true even within states that are net beneficiaries of federal highway funds relative to what their citizens collectively pay to the federal highway trust fund program. EWG issued the study as Congress debates how to spend some $280 billion in transportation money across the country for the next six years. For many fast growing, sprawling communities without strong mass transit options, gas tax payments are being spent by state departments of transportation in areas where most tax paying commuters are not. "Basically, commuters are paying to sit in more traffic than they ought to - or have to," said Dusty Horwitt, EWG analyst and principal author of the study. "Their communities could see revenue and jobs if Congress just altered spending formulas for our tax money." In more than 90 major metropolitan areas nationwide, gas tax payments to the highway transportation trust fund well exceed spending on transportation. EWG's report finds that 20 metro areas topping the list of those short-changed each netted at least $247 million less in transportation project funds from 1998-2003. Commuters in 54 metro areas netted a loss in excess of $100 million each over the period. Commuters in the two most short-changed areas, the Los Angeles metropolitan area and the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area, each saw $1 billion less than they paid. EWG's investigation is the first nationwide look at disparities in spending within states, but its findings are consistent with state-specific studies of Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado undertaken by other organizations. The metro areas that are net winners in transportation funding tend to have a well established, ambitious bus, subway, or light rail system, and often a combination of those mass transit options. The organization performed several million computer-assisted calculations on three million Department of Transportation records. The results are posted at: http://www.ewg.org. "Commuters can now see how their money is being spent within their states, and the findings are stark and clear," said EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles. "We will not ever build the rail and bus systems needed to relieve congestion when the money is getting spent somewhere else."
Nicaraguan Spiny Lobster Smuggler Sentenced MIAMI, Florida, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - Neptune Fisheries, Inc., a Norfolk, Virginia seafood company, and Aaron Candella, were sentenced in Miami Federal District Court Monday for conspiracy to import more than $2 million worth of undersized spiny lobster tails from Nicaragua into the United States.Neptune and Candella, a director and vice president of the company, were charged with conspiring over a five year period to import 190,000 pounds of undersized frozen spiny lobster tails into the United States contrary to the laws of Nicaragua, which set a legal minimum size of five ounces and contrary to U.S. smuggling laws. Since 1988, Nicaragua has placed size limits on the spiny lobster harvest to protect that segment of its domestic fisheries from overfishing and collapse of the species by loss of the reproductive stock. Below a certain size, the lobsters are not mature enough to reproduce and repopulate the species. Judge Shelby Highsmith placed Neptune on probation for two years and fined the company $250,000. Candella was sentenced to a criminal fine of $5,000 and placed on probation for 10 months and two weeks. Judge Highsmith ordered that Neptune’s payment of $250,000 be forwarded to the responsible Ministry in Nicaragua, which will use the funds for training, equipment, and enforcement activities, both civil and criminal, to address the harm caused by the criminal conduct and to protect the fisheries resources of Nicaragua's Moskito Coast. Between March 1996 and June 2001, Neptune and Candella were involved in more than 80 shipments of lobster which included more than 791,000 undersized tails, harvested in Nicaragua and destined for Neptune. The Caribbean, or Florida, spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, is found in salt waters from Florida to Brazil, including the waters off Nicaragua, comprising one of the world’s largest commercial lobster fisheries. The spiny lobster fishery is a significant source of employment and revenue in Nicaragua, particularly for the indigenous people of the Miskito Cays. Biologists believe that the offspring of lobster populations off the Western Caribbean coast, including Nicaragua, are key sources for replenishing the lobster stocks in the Southeast United States. Spiny lobsters must mature to 5.5 inches in tail length, before they are able to reproduce. To promote reproduction, Nicaragua has established a size limit for spiny lobster of 13.5 cm in tail length or five ounces. The case was investigated by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Thomas Watts-FitzGerald.
New Hope for American Chestnut Trees WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana, March 31, 2004 (ENS) - A new study offers some renewed hope that the American chestnut tree can be restored throughout much of the range it once dominated.The species was a familiar sight from Maine to Mississippi before it was driven to near-extinction by a fungal disease introduced some 100 years ago. In a paper to be published in the April issue of "Forest Ecology and Management," Purdue University forestry researcher Doug Jacobs reports that American chestnuts in a study plantation grew as much as 77 percent taller and 140 percent wider than two other forest species - black walnut and northern red oak - in the same plantation over an eight year period. On average, the chestnut trees in the plantation grew to 6.4 meters in height, while black walnuts and northern red oaks only grew to 4.4 and 3.6 meters, respectively, in the same time period. "This data tells us that American chestnut is such a fast growing species that it should do very well in future restoration programs," said Jacobs, director of the Indiana chapter of the American Chestnut Foundation. "A lot of other species are much more sensitive, grow more slowly or just do not make it, but this tree tends to just explode out of the ground." Jacobs is studying how well American chestnut trees grow in plantations and is developing a hybrid resistant to blight that can be used in future planting projects. His research is part of a larger initiative by the American Chestnut Foundation to restore the tree to its historic range. The species was nearly wiped out by a fungal disease known as chestnut blight, which was introduced in the United States on imported Asian chestnut seedlings. The fungus enters through injuries in the tree's bark, spreads to the inner layers and blocks the flow of nutrients through the tree, eventually killing it. Jacobs said the disease first appeared in 1904, and within 40 years, it had spread to every area of the tree's range. "Nearly every tree in the range was killed," Jacobs said. "Ninety-nine point nine percent were killed in that 40 year period." The fungus persists today, killing chestnut trees that sprout throughout the former range. A blight resistance breeding program, Jacobs said, offers promise to re-establish the tree throughout the eastern United States. Isolated mature trees are occasionally found today in parts of the tree's native range, and the American Chestnut Foundation's state chapters use these trees as a resource in the breeding program, Jacobs said. "It is important to the program that we have trees from multiple areas," he said. "The state chapters allow us to develop regional breeding programs to produce seed specific to the climate and other variables in different areas." Jacob said by 2006 he expects to have blight resistant chestnut seeds to release on a limited basis. The breeding program involves many generations of crosses between American chestnuts and the blight-resistant Asian chestnut, Jacobs said. By crossing hybrids, the breeding program will produce trees that are genetically 94 percent American chestnut and six percent Asian chestnut. Trees with this genetic makeup exhibit the resistance of the Asian chestnut but have the growth characteristics of the American chestnut, he said. "Chestnut is a wonderful wildlife tree," he said. "It is unusual among forest trees in that it can be counted on to produce a good seed crop every single year - chestnuts were a valuable resource to many species of mammals and birds." |
