|
|
Fishbusters Fishing Club
|
|
|
Fishbustin' Environmental News
WATERGreen Fund Bill To Help BayAlmost a third of the nitrogen polluting the Chesapeake Bay comes from dirty rainwater swept into the water over driveways, parking lots and other concrete surfaces. That's why House leaders and Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) have thrown their support behind legislation that would impose fees on all new development to pay for programs to curb the runoff. The fees, proposed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, have a twist that appeal to Democratic lawmakers: They would act as carrots and sticks to encourage development in urban areas near public transit, rather than add more sprawl. Developers who build in smart-growth areas would be assessed 25 cents per square foot of concrete, versus $2 per square foot in rural areas. They could offset what they pay by 25 percent if they make parking lots and roofs more porous, through rain gardens and other systems that filter storm water into the ground. "It's not just, 'Pay us the money,' " said Kim Coble, the foundation's executive director in Maryland. "There are incentives for good environmental stewardship." Environmental Matters Committee Chairman Maggie L. McIntosh (D-Baltimore) is expected to file the Green Fund bill early this week. Republicans don't like the idea -- Sen. E.J. Pipkin (Queen Anne's) called it "creative gouging" on Friday -- and it faces skepticism from Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert). Bay Cleanup Cuts, Boosts ElsewherePresident Bush's proposed budget would cut spending on Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts but provide the biggest increase in five years to the District and help Northern Virginia's federal contractors by boosting defense spending, lawmakers said yesterday. The capital region's economy as a whole would benefit from increases in military and homeland security spending, lawmakers predicted. They cited the critical role such programs play in the region, where one-third of the economy is federal spending, with the highest share in Northern Virginia. At the same time, however, cuts in domestic programs could hurt the area's most vulnerable populations, some local members of Congress warned. "If you're a millionaire without school-age children, this is the perfect budget for you because you're going to save thousands of dollars in additional tax cuts and you'll have your kids going to private school," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). The proposed budget eliminates some Medicaid programs, including health screening for newborns, which Moran said would affect low-income immigrants in his district and elsewhere. "It means those parents have to wait until the child comes down with a serious illness to go to an emergency room," he said. Area lawmakers applauded the proposal for a 2.2 percent salary increase for both federal civilian employees and military personnel. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said the budget was good news for the region on several fronts, including transportation. The budget proposes $26 million to extend Metrorail through Tysons Corner to Dulles International Airport, a major transportation project for Northern Virginia. The National Science Foundation, based in Arlington, would receive a $78 million increase. But the National Institutes of Health, headquartered in Bethesda, would receive the same level of funding as fiscal 2006, which was $62 million less than the previous fiscal year, lawmakers said. The budget also includes $178.5 million to consolidate Food and Drug Administration facilities at the federal research center at White Oak, the largest request in the eight-year history of the project, according to a spokesman for House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) D.C. leaders praised the budget plan, saying the city's share of federal largesse would jump from $103 million last year to $143 million. "This is a 40 percent increase at a time when most domestic discretionary programs are getting whacked. So this is a good number for us," said Gregory M. McCarthy, the mayor's liaison to Capitol Hill. The budget includes $50 million for two new projects in the city -- $20 million to upgrade the Navy Yard Metro station and $30 million for improvements for the aging library system. The money to upgrade the Metro station dovetails with the city's plan to build a baseball stadium nearby. The number of federal employees in offices nearby is expected to rise, said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). The White House is also proposing to provide full funding for the city's public school choice initiative, which supports vouchers, charter schools and other programs. It would also fully fund a tuition assistance program that allows D.C. residents to pay in-state rates at public universities nationwide. Regionally, the president also proposed spending $60.5 million to have the U.S. Coast Guard take over air defense operations from Customs and Border Protection aviators, who have helped intercept and escort straying aircraft in the no-fly zone over the area since 2003. The money would go to pay for five HH-65 Dolphin helicopters, based at Atlantic City but deployed to Reagan National Airport. The aircraft eventually would be armed with machine guns after the Coast Guard formally took over interdiction operations by October, Rear Adm. Steve Branham said. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the change stemmed from communication breakdowns and confused lines of command in past incidents, such as an incursion May 11 in which authorities were prepared to shoot down two straying Pennsylvania pilots in a Cessna 150. Democrats decried the president's proposed $2.8 trillion budget for fiscal 2007, accusing him of cutting critically needed housing and other social service programs to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) criticized proposals to cut funding to clean up the Chesapeake by more than $20 million and other cuts in housing and community block grants, saying they would hurt elderly and other low-income populations.
Two-thirds of world's resources 'used up'The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure. The study contains what its authors call "a stark warning" for the entire world. The wetlands, forests, savannahs, estuaries, coastal fisheries and other habitats that recycle air, water and nutrients for all living creatures are being irretrievably damaged. In effect, one species is now a hazard to the other 10 million or so on the planet, and to itself. "Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it says. The report, prepared in Washington under the supervision of a board chaired by Robert Watson, the British-born chief scientist at the World Bank and a former scientific adviser to the White House, will be launched today at the Royal Society in London. It warns that: · Because of human demand for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel, more land has been claimed for agriculture in the last 60 years than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined. An estimated 24% of the Earth's land surface is now cultivated. · Water withdrawals from lakes and rivers has doubled in the last 40 years. Humans now use between 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running off the land. At least a quarter of all fish stocks are overharvested. In some areas, the catch is now less than a hundredth of that before industrial fishing. · Since 1980, about 35% of mangroves have been lost, 20% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed and another 20% badly degraded. Deforestation and other changes could increase the risks of malaria and cholera, and open the way for new and so far unknown disease to emerge. In 1997, a team of biologists and economists tried to put a value on the "business services" provided by nature - the free pollination of crops, the air conditioning provided by wild plants, the recycling of nutrients by the oceans. They came up with an estimate of $33 trillion, almost twice the global gross national product for that year. But after what today's report, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, calls "an unprecedented period of spending Earth's natural bounty" it was time to check the accounts. "That is what this assessment has done, and it is a sobering statement with much more red than black on the balance sheet," the scientists warn. "In many cases, it is literally a matter of living on borrowed time. By using up supplies of fresh groundwater faster than they can be recharged, for example, we are depleting assets at the expense of our children." Flow from rivers has been reduced dramatically. For parts of the year, the Yellow River in China, the Nile in Africa and the Colorado in North America dry up before they reach the ocean. An estimated 90% of the total weight of the ocean's large predators - tuna, swordfish and sharks - has disappeared in recent years. An estimated 12% of bird species, 25% of mammals and more than 30% of all amphibians are threatened with extinction within the next century. Some of them are threatened by invaders. The Baltic Sea is now home to 100 creatures from other parts of the world, a third of them native to the Great Lakes of America. Conversely, a third of the 170 alien species in the Great Lakes are originally from the Baltic. Invaders can make dramatic changes: the arrival of the American comb jellyfish in the Black Sea led to the destruction of 26 commercially important stocks of fish. Global warming and climate change, could make it increasingly difficult for surviving species to adapt. A growing proportion of the world lives in cities, exploiting advanced technology. But nature, the scientists warn, is not something to be enjoyed at the weekend. Conservation of natural spaces is not just a luxury. "These are dangerous illusions that ignore the vast benefits of nature to the lives of 6 billion people on the planet. We may have distanced ourselves from nature, but we rely completely on the services it delivers."
EPA Allows Dumping in Chesapeake and Shenandoah RiverSerious water pollution is affecting the entire Potomac river basin not just the Shenandoah river tributary described in the piece below. This underscores the consequences of the Bush administration's failure to conscientiously enforce the Clean Water Act for the past six years. It seemed like an excellent solution to a vexing problem-turning waste into fertilizer. That's the theory, anyway, behind Sheaffer International's plan to treat concentrated waste from the Cargill Meat Solutions and Pilgrim's Pride poultry processing plants and use that wastewater to irrigate cropland. The reality is somewhat different. According to a suit filed by Waterkeeper Alliance, Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper, Sheaffer has committed a "multitude" of violations of the federal Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and numerous Virginia environmental laws by dumping excessive levels of major pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay and Shenandoah River. How excessive? Let us count the ways: *384,965 pounds of phosphorous dumped into the North Fork, which exceed federal limits by an astounding 6000 percent. (The federal limit is 7,054 pounds.) *Nitrogen discharges that also exceeded their permitted level by over 1000 percent. These violations continue to this day. State and national environmental agencies have been unable to structure meaningful remedies to what is a potentially irreversible situation. And this despite EPA's own findings that "90 percent of the [Chesapeake] Bay's waters are on the nation's 'dirty waters' list due to nitrogen and phosphorous pollution." Despite that finding, the EPA has painted a deceptively rosy picture of Bay restoration. Waterkeeper Alliance Executive Director, Steve Fleischli, puts it this way: "EPA has wholly abdicated its responsibility to stop even the most flagrant violators . . . [we're] stepping in for government enforcement officials who have failed to stop the pollution." Nitrogen and phosphorous are particularly deadly because they rob water of oxygen needed by aquatic life and vegetation, decrease water clarity and encourage the growth of algal blooms. Explains Ed Merrifield of Potomac Riverkeeper, "…the pollution loads have continued to go up, creating dead zones in our rivers…suffocating marine life." Indeed, Shenandoah's North Fork has seen populations of adult smallmouth bass and sunfish reduced by 80 percent in recent springs, which may explain the declining sales of fishing licenses in the seven counties bordering the river. If this trend continues, its effect may go well beyond fish kills. It will kill tourism and decrease the critical revenue stream river-centered recreational activities generate for the region and the state. For its part, Sheaffer says that the excessive discharges are not due to corporate misfeasance but to state regulations that have limited the amount of water that could be diverted to irrigation. "What we couldn't irrigate had to go into the river," said Jack Sheaffer, company chairman and a hydrologist. "You can't make it disappear." He added that the company is working to "implement changes" that would reduce its emissions. The Virginia State Department of Environmental Quality claims it has been pressing Sheaffer to correct violations. The violations have continued, despite a 2002 settlement in which the company promised to take necessary action. The suit filed by the three river watchdogs gives Sheaffer sixty days to show that it is cleaning up its act. Jeff Kelble of Shenandoah Riverkeepers admits that this is a "very difficult case," but as Ed Merrifield says "…we have to be here for the river itself" and stop the pollution.
Good Fish, Bad FishSorting Seafood's Benefits From Risks Can Leave Consumers Floundering. Here's Help.The conflicting health information about seafood can make you feel ready to go off the deep end. First, fish are touted for their health benefits. Then, sometimes soon after, they're condemned for containing too much mercury, PCBs or other contaminants. Some health experts worry there's enough conflicting advice to make the public avoid fish altogether. "It's a shame that people are running away from seafood at a time when it gives so many benefits," notes William Lands, a retired National Institutes of Health researcher who has studied the healthy fats found in fish. That could be a big mistake. The benefits of eating seafood "are likely to be at least 100-fold greater than the estimates of harm, which may not exist at all," according to Walter Willett, professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. He notes that "the kinds of levels of contaminants that are being talked about are not a reason for people to reduce their fish intake." Rich in omega-3 fatty acids, a healthy kind of fat, seafood is known to help protect the heart, the brain and the joints. Reporting in this month's Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers from the Harvard-affiliated Channing Laboratory found that increased fish consumption is linked with a lower risk of irregular heartbeat, which can lead to death. These findings fit with other studies that suggest eating at least two meals of seafood per week has health benefits, including a reduced risk of stroke. Emerging evidence also suggests that omega-3s, which are most plentiful in deep-ocean fish, could also help prevent, and possibly alleviate, some mood disorders, including depression and bipolar disorder. The health advantages of eating seafood are sufficiently clear that the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the American Heart Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend fish for at least two meals a week (unless it's deep-fried). But concerns about mercury and other potential risks continue to muddy the waters. Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency warn young children, women who might become pregnant and those who are pregnant or nursing to completely avoid eating shark, swordfish and king mackerel and to limit albacore ("white") tuna, all of which can be high in mercury. Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and is also spewed into the air by industrial emissions, particularly from power plants. As the mercury drifts down, it accumulates in streams and oceans, where bacteria convert it to a toxic form of the chemical called methylmercury, which is then absorbed by fish. The higher a fish is on the food chain, the more mercury it accumulates. Experts have worried that this could be damaging, particularly if the mercury crosses the placenta and passes into the fetal brain, where it could affect hearing and intelligence. As with many things in science, there is controversy about what levels of mercury are safe. " There is evidence that mercury taken out of a bottle or out of a smokestack is toxic," Lands says. "But there is no evidence that methylmercury in seafood causes a problem." Both the National Academy of Sciences and the FDA have convened expert groups to study the risks and benefits of seafood consumption. Their findings are expected later this year. Mercury isn't the only concern. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) -- substances linked to skin problems, reproductive disorders, liver disease and neurological problems and suspected of causing cancer -- also accumulate in both wild and farm-raised seafood. So what should consumers do? Whether fish is farm-raised or wild, "it would be unfortunate if people cut their consumption," Willett says. Neither the mercury concern nor the PCB contamination levels are "enough for people to reduce their fish intake." Also lost in much reporting is the fact that any potential problems of mercury contamination appear to be limited to children and to women of childbearing age. " Other adults should not be concerned about mercury at all," notes Joshua Cohen, author of a recent analysis of mercury exposure conducted for the Harvard School of Public Health's Center of Risk Analysis. Some of the environmental groups that see dangers in mercury-tainted seafood also urge consumers to eat at least the federally recommended minimum of two meals a week. "Even the higher-mercury-containing fish, if they are not eaten frequently, are not a big concern," says physician Gina Solomon, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which tracks mercury levels in seafood. There's also reason to think that even fish laced with mercury has more benefits than risks for a fetus. Omega-3s are so crucial for brain and nervous system development "that limiting fish consumption during pregnancy may cause the very harms that everyone involved has been working to prevent," says Nicholas Ralston, who studies mercury at the University of North Dakota's Energy & Environmental Research Center. Those worried about mercury's effects in pregnant women often point to a study recently conducted in Denmark's Faroe Islands. The study found that children born to mothers with the highest levels of mercury had a very slight decrease -- just a millionth of a second -- in the time it took for a sound to pass from their ears to their brains. Recent findings show that the children who are now 14 years old have persistent attention deficits and score lower on tests that measure motor skills and verbal ability. But often overlooked is that the major source of mercury in the Faroe Islanders' diet was not fish, but rather pilot whales, which have very high concentrations of the chemical. Other recent research, including an ongoing 20-year study among residents of the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean, has not linked adverse effects with increased fish consumption. "In fact, some children actually did better on tests," notes the Seychelles study's lead investigator, Gary Myers, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York. "We don't think that is related to mercury consumption, of course, but to fish consumption" and the higher amount of omega-3 fatty acids it contains. Similar results were reported in October from a continuing study in England. One theory is that the mineral selenium may help protect against mercury contamination. Selenium is present in deep-water seafood at five to 20 times the concentration of mercury. When the two chemicals bind, methylmercury appears to become harmless. While the selenium theory is still under investigation, "the conclusion [for now] is to tell people to continue to consume fish," notes Conrad Shamlaye, an epidemiologist and part of the Seychelles study. What makes the Seychelles experience especially relevant is that the fish eaten there contain nearly identical levels of mercury as does the seafood consumed in the United States. The difference is that people in the Seychelles "consume 10 times the amount of fish that we do here," Myers says, noting that his study has found no ill effects in children whose mothers ate a lot of mercury-containing seafood during pregnancy. As Myers notes, "the entire population of Japan also has methylmercury levels that are above the Environmental Protection Agency's reference level for methylmercury, and they don't seem to be having any problems with mental deficits." No one suggests that eating large amounts of mercury is a good idea. But as NRDC's Solomon notes, there are also plenty of low-mercury seafood options. (See the chart for more information on species that pack the most omega-3s and the least mercury.) No matter what kind of seafood you choose, skip anything deep-fried. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Nutrient Database, breaded, fried shrimp -- as well as other similarly prepared seafood -- has few or no omega-3 fatty acids. (Find more details in the sidebar at right.) And depending on the oil used to prepare it, these foods could also come laden with unhealthy saturated and trans fats, both known to increase risk of heart disease. Nutritionally speaking, not a good catch. ·
Old Wilson Bridge is Artificial ReefSlabs of the Old Wilson Bridge Find New Life as a Bay Reef The newest hangout for fish in the Chesapeake Bay is 3,900 tons of concrete that held 200,000 cars a day in its previous life as the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Canes pushed 65 slabs from the old bridge -- each the length of three compact cars -- from a barge into the bay at the southern tip of St. Mary's County, at a spot known as Point No Point. There, one-third of the oft-maligned bridge that tormented an estimated 73 billion commuters over 45 years will form an artificial reef for thousands of rockfish, sea trout, striped bass and other fish. "This whole area is about to become a fish haven," said Gary Madjeski, who captains charter fishing boats from Drury's Marina in Ridge. "This concrete is going to just get better and better in terms of the number of fish." The concrete will provide a habitat for barnacles and oysters, who have nothing to attach themselves to along the soft, sandy bay floor. Those organisms, in turn, will lure fish, which will be inclined to stick around the artificial reef because the current will wash food sources directly over them. "There are all sorts of nooks and crannies in the concrete that fish will love in an area that's been completely devoid of life," said Marty Gary, a fisheries ecologist with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. "This will really change the character of this area." Huge splashes rose as each concrete segment hit the water yesterday, and officials from the Department of Natural Resources and the Wilson Bridge Project celebrated the fulfillment of a project that took several years to plan. Because placing the concrete in the bay cost significantly more than it would have cost to move it to a landfill or recycle it for the new bridge, fundraising had been a major hurdle. The Department of Natural Resources did not provide the cost of the project, but officials said the agency dedicated an initial $38,000 from the sale of fishing licenses to get the effort going, and the contractors chipped in as well. Project managers have not decided what to do with the remaining 9,000 cubic yards of concrete from the bridge, but it also could be headed to the bottom of the Chesapeake if more money comes through. "This could help up to 12 different artificial reefs in the bay and perhaps create two new reefs in St. Mary's County, but we're going to need funding," said Mike Baker, an environmental manager with the Wilson Bridge Project. For the moment, concrete from the bridge will link two barges that sank 60 yards from each other in the mid-1980s. Those barges are both encrusted with oysters so fish should be drawn to the area immediately, Gary said. That's good news for commercial and recreational fishermen, who have long faced dwindling fish populations in the Chesapeake. Adding the concrete will draw hundreds of anglers to the region and provide a major boost to the economy, several local residents said. The number of fishermen in the region has seen a steep decline over the years, putting many charter boat companies and bait stores out of business. Madjeski said his company has already heard from fishermen eager to test the new site. A friend of his, Bill Miles, sat in his boat while the concrete slabs dropped into the water yesterday and planned to fish all afternoon. "I plan to be out here fishing a lot," Miles said. "This is about to become the best fishing for miles."
Study: U.S. Fisheries Discard 22% of CatchAmerican fishing operations discard more than a fifth of what they catch each year, according to a new report by a team of U.S. and Canadian scientists. The study, which was commissioned by the marine advocacy group Oceana and appears in the December issue of the journal Fish and Fisheries, represents the first comprehensive accounting of the amount of "bycatch" in the United States. Fisheries consultant Jennie M. Harrington, Dalhousie University professor Ransom A. Myers and University of New Hampshire professor Andrew A. Rosenberg used federal data collected from 1991 to 2002 to calculate which regional fisheries inadvertently kill the most unwanted fish. The Gulf of Mexico topped the list, largely because its shrimp fishery had 1 billion pounds of bycatch -- half the nation's wasted fish in 2002. Gulf shrimpers, which typically drag trawl nets with steel doors across the ocean floor, discard about four times as many fish as they keep, according to the study. U.S. fisheries on average throw away 22 percent, or 1.1 million tons, of the fish they catch. "The scale of the problem here is enormous," Myers said, adding that the annual wasted fish would fill every bathtub in a city of 1.5 million people. "And it's an insidious problem, because we cannot have the recovery of fish stocks as long as they keep getting caught as bycatch." A variety of unwanted marine species become trapped in fishing gear by vessels seeking a different catch and are then thrown away, including noncommercial species such as jellyfish and small crustaceans. The researchers did not include protected species, such as turtles, as well as mammals and birds in their study. Southern Shrimp Alliance President Joey Rodriguez, a third-generation shrimper in Alabama who represents fishermen from North Carolina to Texas, said that shrimpers have adopted more environmentally sensitive gear in recent years but that they continue to go after shrimp "the only way we know how to catch 'em. You're going to catch a lot of things not trying." Rodriguez, who said the Gulf of Mexico's shrimping fleet is wasting fewer fish because overseas competition and recent hurricane damage has cut its size to half of what it was four years ago, said his members are open to adopting new techniques as long as they are affordable. "We just want to catch shrimp," he said. Bob Mahood, executive director of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, said his region had helped reduce bycatch over the past decade by demanding that fishing operations adopt different gear. In the snapper and grouper fishery, the council has barred entanglement nets, trawling and mesh traps that lure fish with bait. Most of the region's bycatch consists of commercially "nonessential species," Mahood said, though he added, "If you look from an ecosystem point of view, they obviously have some ecosystem value." Mahood said that his regional council had called on shrimpers in 1996 to use gear aimed at reducing bycatch by 40 percent but that he did not know if the strategy had worked. "There hasn't been a whole lot of follow-up," he said. Susan Buchanan, a spokeswoman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the agency "remains committed to further reducing bycatch through innovative technologies and management approaches, and NOAA's investment in bycatch reduction programs have cut commercial fishing bycatch considerably in the last decade. NOAA Fisheries data shows that bycatch has dropped 50 percent in the Gulf shrimp fishery and substantially in virtually all other U.S. fisheries, benefiting the ecosystem and protecting our valuable marine resources." Although federal authorities track bycatch by placing observers on some vessels, their statistics are not comprehensive.
Bay's 'D' is for 'dirty''Dismal' pollution problems persist in Chesapeake Bay despite cleanup campaign Despite ongoing cleanup efforts, the health of the Chesapeake Bay is dismal and has not improved since last year. That's the assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which today released its annual State of the Bay report--a snapshot of problems facing the nation's largest and most troubled estuary. Again this year, the bay received a D on its report card, and a health index of 27--unchanged for the third year in a row. Five years ago, bay states signed the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, calling for a plan to remove thousands of miles of rivers and streams from a "dirty waters" list by 2010. "Today, more than halfway to the 2010 target date, instead of seeing significantly improved water quality, we have a bay that is dangerously out of balance and in critical condition," said CBF President William C. Baker. Since 1998 the foundation has averaged 13 indicators to come up with an overall index it says is a comprehensive measure of the bay's health. A score of 70 or better is an A+; below 20 is an F. Categories include habitat (wetlands, forested buffers, underwater grasses, resource lands); fisheries (crabs, rockfish, oysters, shad); and pollution (toxic substances, water clarity, phosphorus, nitrogen and dissolved oxygen). "It's difficult to distill Chesapeake Bay ecosystems down to a number or grade, but most scientists and policymakers think this is a pretty fair assessment," said Chuck Epes, a spokesman for the foundation in Richmond. Scores for five of the indicators--nitrogen, phosphorus, underwater grasses, oysters and shad--improved slightly, while two--rockfish and dissolved oxygen--declined. Six--water clarity, toxics, forested buffers, wetlands, resource lands and crabs--remained the same. (To view the full State of the Bay report, go to cbf.org/stateofthebay.) To improve the scores, the foundation is pushing for implementation of proven, affordable technology to reduce pollution from sewage treatment plants, and helping farmers intensify conservation efforts. "We do not have a problem in need of a solution, but rather a problem with solutions that need funding," Baker said. The foundation and other environmental groups have been pushing state legislators to commit a long-term source of funds to get the bay cleanup on track. Last month a coalition of Virginia river-protection groups launched the Healthy Rivers Initiative to lobby state legislators to accomplish the same end, asking for at least $160 million each year. The General Assembly this year approved a one-time sum of $54 million from the general fund to upgrade sewage treatment plants. But that's a drop in the bucket, compared with the estimated $2.3 billion it will cost to address river pollution problems over the next decade.
Rescue Effort For Bay Sinking Lengthy Planning Slows ChangesHalfway through a 10-year program to save the Chesapeake Bay, political leaders are acknowledging that the vaunted cleanup is faltering and are calling for major changes midstream. Once touted as a national model, the cleanup effort has unraveled into what some environmentalists call a bureaucratic farce. Five years of planning, they say, have left the bay no cleaner than it was when the "Chesapeake 2000" pact was signed. An Eastern Shore congressman is contemplating legislation that would replace the voluntary cleanup strategy with strict regulatory requirements. Governors are pledging to walk the halls of Congress lobbying for $12 billion in needed support. And scientists are exploring the mass introduction of a Chinese oyster to replace the vanishing native breed. "Business as usual won't work," said former Virginia governor Gerald L. Baliles, who led a committee that studied the bay cleanup last year. "More of the same is asking for trouble." The agreement to clean the bay in 10 years promised twice as much underwater grass, 10 times as many oysters and water as pristine as in the 1950s. It was touted as "America's premier watershed restoration partnership," supported by the Environmental Protection Agency and representatives from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the District. Thirteen years before, the same entities had pledged to reduce the pollutants nitrogen and phosphorus in the bay by 40 percent. When the deadline came in 2000, they had fallen short. The new agreement, an attempt to jump-start the effort, made more sweeping promises. The idea was, "if we can do this . . . nobody else in the world has an excuse," said William Matuszeski, who was overseeing the bay cleanup for the EPA at the time. It was a daunting task: to reduce pollution spewing from a multitude of city sewers, farms and factories across a 64,000-square-mile watershed. And the tools were unwieldy, including several federal agencies and an array of state governments that eventually expanded to include Delaware, West Virginia and New York. But even so, cleanup officials say, they expected to accomplish more in the first half-decade than they have. "We've made only modest progress," Rebecca W. Hanmer, the current head of the EPA bay program, conceded in a recent interview. Consider: The 2000 agreement promised to attack the bay's problem of low dissolved oxygen, a condition in which fish and crabs can't breathe. To do this, officials would need to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus, which are found in suburban lawn fertilizer, processed sewage and animal manure. When they are washed downstream to the bay, these pollutants feed algae blooms, which suck oxygen out of the water. But large reductions in pollution have not come; at the current rate, the nitrogen goal won't be met until 2038. And the problems with oxygen-poor areas haven't changed. In fact, the summer of 2003 was one of the worst times on record, as nearly 40 percent of the Chesapeake became a suffocating expanse that environmentalists dubbed the "dead zone." The agreement also promised to increase the number of oysters tenfold. Instead, their numbers have fallen off sharply because of pollution, low oxygen and endemic disease. In the past half-decade alone, the Maryland oyster harvest has dropped 92 percent, hitting a record low last year with 26,000 bushels. Underwater grasses are supposed to grow to 185,000 acres by 2010. But they also have faltered, owing to water clouded by algae and sediment, which block sunlight from reaching the bottom. The most recent survey of the bay's grasses, in 2003, found about 64,000 acres -- 35 percent of the goal. Taking all of these indicators of bay health together, some scientists and watermen say even "modest progress" might be an overstatement. To them, the bay shows few signs that anybody has spent five years trying to save it. "There really hasn't been a noticeable improvement," said Denise Breitburg, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater. "The major problems that the Chesapeake Bay agreement was designed to diminish are still there." That conclusion has been echoed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which every year assesses the bay's overall health and gives it a rating on a 100-point scale. In 2000, the foundation rated the bay a 28. Since then, the rating has changed -- to 27. Across the country, environmentalists have watched with dismay as the Chesapeake struggles. "I wouldn't hold it up as a success story, put it that way," said ecologist Robert W. Howarth of Cornell University. The consequences have been even more troubling for watermen, for whom the bay provides both a livelihood and cultural touchstone. Douglas F. Jenkins Sr., 70, of Virginia's Northern Neck said he's seen the signs both on land -- where the number of waterman has dropped because of low oyster harvests -- and in the water. For instance, boat anchors used to come up with a menagerie of tiny bottom-dwelling animals crawling on them: sand fleas, worms, snails. Now, Jenkins said, those animals are gone, and probably dead. "The little shells or carcasses are about all you see," Jenkins said. But how did the bay get to this condition? Experts say the problem was a desire to plan all pollution efforts in minute detail while keeping the major changes on hold. Matuszeski, the bay program's leader from 1991 to 2001, said officials knew that their work would revolve around renovating sewage plants and keeping farm manure out of streams. But first, the bay cleanup bureaucracy worked on official water standards -- figuring out exactly how clean the bay should be. That process was supposed to take one year. It took three, with the District, the states and the federal government spending a combined $1 billion a year. Then the individual jurisdictions had to write detailed plans for cleaning up each tributary. That was supposed to be done by 2002. It still isn't finished. "We could have gotten to work," Matuszeski said. "It didn't happen because people were afraid that we didn't have the numbers right." Some environmentalists have said this planning marathon was actually a delaying maneuver, allowing politicians to avoid changes that would anger farmers and sewage customers. But Hanmer, the EPA's current bay director, defended the bay cleanup's work. It has been slow, she said, but necessary for all the cooperating agencies to buy in. "Now people cannot say, 'Rebecca, we don't know what needs to be done,' " she said. Hanmer also pointed to some of the program's recent successes, including Maryland's passage of a "flush tax" to reduce pollution from sewage plants and the EPA's requirement that plants must further clean the water they dump into the watershed. But even she would not say that the bay cleanup effort is on pace to meet the deadline of 2010. "I'm certainly not going to tell you that we can't meet it," Hanmer said. "I don't think it's the right message to send." Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.) doesn't want to wait for 2010. Gilchrest, who represents the Eastern Shore, said he wants to write legislation now that would force the cleanup to spend less time on bureaucracy. He also wants to exchange the voluntary approach for stronger regulations and punishment for those who pollute. "What we want to do is lock in a better bay program that will be a hundred times more effective," Gilchrest said. Still, he said it might be two years before the changes go through. Another proposal has been approved by state governors from around the watershed. It would create a massive new pool of funding for the bay, with $12 billion from the federal government. But many observers wonder how the states will get the money since the federal government is already tightening budgets. And then there is the Chinese oyster, which governors in Maryland and Virginia believe might resist disease and provide a natural pollution filter. They're awaiting a scientific study due back in summer. Already there is no shortage of opposition to this plan. Scientists worry it will bring in disease, and Maryland state legislators are trying to block it based on scientists' concerns. In short, none of the big ideas for change in the Chesapeake is likely to provide a quick fix. The failures of the bay cleanup leave a bewildering disconnect for those who are removed from the nitty-gritty of environmental policy. On the one hand, they see the bay on paper, a national treasure on the way to resurrection. On the other hand is the bay they know -- sickly and murky and perhaps getting worse. For Jenkins, the Northern Neck waterman, it's been enough to make him skeptical of all deadlines for the Chesapeake's comeback. "It was going to be the '90s . . . then the year 2000, then it was the year 2010," he said. "When 2010 gets here, I guess it'll be 2020."
Va. Remiss in Bay Protection Efforts, Auditors FindVirginia officials have failed to perform required inspections on the state's poultry and livestock farms, part of a broad pattern of lax oversight, funding shortages for anti-pollution measures and other problems that undercut efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay, state auditors have found. Manure is a key source of nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that feeds massive algae blooms in the bay, which in turn suck out oxygen needed for plants, crabs and other aquatic life. Nitrogen compounds in drinking water can also be harmful to people. General Assembly auditors found that inspectors with the Department of Environmental Quality, who are responsible for making sure manure regulations are followed, frequently did not perform mandated yearly inspections. When inspections were done, they generally relied on information provided by farmers rather than firsthand checks, and few fines were imposed, even for repeat offenders, the auditors said. Such a cooperative system makes it difficult to gauge whether farm operators are following the rules, said Eric H. Messick, one of the auditors. "We didn't have a sense for whether people were actually telling the truth or not telling the truth," Messick said. Of the 209 inspection reports reviewed, about one-third showed a problem that needed fixing. Just one fine was issued, he said. W. Tayloe Murphy Jr., Virginia's secretary of natural resources, said he accepted some criticism of the inspection system he oversees but laid the blame on a lack of funding. Murphy said the same auditing operation, known as the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, had in recent years deemed Virginia last in the nation on spending to protect natural resources. "We don't do the inspections to the extent that we should. . . . We simply don't have the financial resources to employ the number of inspectors it would take to be present at every farm" when manure is spread, Murphy said. "When you rank 50th, I think you have a good argument that we don't have enough resources." Some environmentalists argued that the auditors missed the big picture. Ann Jennings, Virginia assistant director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said that although enforcement problems exist, a bigger concern is the fact that the vast majority of farmland in Virginia is not covered by so-called nutrient management plans. Such plans are required on Virginia farms with 20,000 or more chickens, as well as other livestock operations, but not on most farms. The state has a voluntary program that offers incentives for following manure and fertilizer recommendations geared to minimize runoff. In Virginia, about 522,000 acres of farmland are covered by such required or voluntary plans, less than 9 percent of the state's agricultural land. In Maryland, 1.1 million acres are governed by such plans -- 70 percent of the state's agricultural and pasture lands, according to Louise Lawrence, the Maryland official in charge of the efforts. The plans are required in Maryland on farms that take in $2,500 or more in annual sales. "We need many, many more acres" under such plans in Virginia, Jennings said, adding that the best solution is to raise cash for incentives. The foundation is proposing legislation to add a fee of $1 a week to water bills for every household in the state to raise money to clean up the bay. The bulk of the money in the foundation's proposal would go toward upgrading sewage treatment. Sewage plants and industrial facilities are Virginia's top sources of nitrogen, followed by agriculture. Russ Perkinson, an official at Virginia's Department of Conservation and Recreation, said sludge extracted from several states' sewage plants and spread on Virginia farms is another key source of bay pollution.
WASA Sewage Settlement To Clean Up D.C.'S Anacostia RiverHistoric Settlement To Reduce Bacteria And SewageIn D.C. Rivers WASHINGTON D.C. - A milestone legal agreement filed in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia today is expected to nearly eliminate massive overflows of sewage-contaminated storm water into the waterways of the nation's capital, specifically the Anacostia River, the Potomac River and Rock Creek, the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced. The proposed settlement would resolve a lawsuit by the Justice Department and EPA against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) and the D.C. government. The District of Columbia and WASA have agreed on a 20-year schedule, with enforceable deadlines, to complete needed controls. By taking this significant step, WASA and the District have demonstrated their commitment to clean rivers and safe sewage disposal. "The controls contained in today's consent decree will significantly improve the District's waters and protect its citizens for decades to come," said Thomas L. Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "This settlement reflects the federal government's commitment to work with District of Columbia to regulate and control the discharges. This is a good resolution for District residents." "Sewer overflows are a nationwide problem that have real local impacts," said Thomas Skinner, EPA acting assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance. "This plan stands out because it brings all the tools to bear on the problem. This is a major victory for the environment." Each year, an estimated 3.2 billion gallons of untreated sewage flows into the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and Rock Creek, making these waters unsafe for swimming and fishing. Currently, the annual sewage overflow into D.C. waters is an amount that would fill the U.S. Capitol rotunda and dome every day for 11 months. During big storms and sudden snow melts, so much runoff water mixes with sewage in the District's combined sewer system that the flow usually exceeds the capacity of sewers and overflows into creeks and rivers, especially the Anacostia River. In an average rainfall year, District sewers overflow into the Anacostia River over 80 times. Today's Clean Water Act settlement will virtually eliminate overflows into the river. Under the settlement, 96 percent of the District's sewage-laden storm runoff would be captured in three tunnels deep underground for processing later at the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant. These tunnels are the equivalent of a 10-mile long subway 25 feet wide, capable of holding 193 million gallons of combined sewage and storm runoff. This system will eliminate a major source of fecal coliform bacteria in the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and Rock Creek. The estimated $1.4 billion sewage control project, which will take 20 years to completely build, will mark the biggest environmental milestone in the district since the Blue Plains treatment plant opened in 1938. Significant sections of the new system will be placed in operation along the way to obtain greater levels of sewage treatment and control even before all work is completed. Since the mid-1990s, EPA has supported WASA's development of a long-term control plan to correct the problem. That plan is now included in today's consent decree. Congress has already appropriated $84 million to control sewer overflows in the District and EPA has provided $7 million in direct support for the development of and stakeholder input into the long-term control plan. In a companion action today, EPA issued a major modification of WASA's Clean Water Act permit to require immediate implementation of a long-term sewage reduction plan. The settlement resolves the sewage control issues remaining after a partial consent decree entered by the federal court on October 10, 2003. That partial consent decree, done in conjunction with the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Kingman Park Civic Association, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and Mary Stuart Bick Ferguson, required WASA to implement an estimated $140 million in interim sewage overflow controls, including upgrades and repairs to the Blue Plains treatment plant and combined sewers. WASA also agreed to pay $250,000 civil penalty for past permit violations, undertake $1.7 million in storm-water pollution prevention projects and fund a $300,000 "green roof " demonstration project by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Shark Attack TipsThere were only 55 confirmed unprovoked attacks by sharks on humans worldwide in 2003, according to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF). Only four people died: one each in California, South Africa, Australia, and Fiji. Still, the threat, however small, is real. And the best way to prepare yourself for a possible shark encounter is to know how to avoid an attack, what to do if you are bitten, and how to help attack victims. HOW TO AVOID AN ATTACK
WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE ATTACKED
HOW TO HELP A VICTIM
Eco-Friendly SeafoodWe need healthy oceans to sustain a healthy planet. Responsible fishing means leaving plenty of fish for the future, catching only the fish we want, and making sure the oceans and all marine life stay healthy. Born free: Farmed salmon eat several times their weight in seafood. Choose wild Alaskan salmon over farmed Atlantic salmon, and save some sea creatures while helping to keep the oceans healthy. Did you know that in 1998 the illegal catch of Patagonian toothfish (often called Chilean sea bass) was ten times the legal catch? These fish are being wiped out, so consider substituting striped bass. It's not only delicious, but also in good supply. Find out which fish are best and worst choices. Other Get Green food choices you can make: Consider serving a healthy vegetarian dish, like bean enchiladas, instead of meat once a week. Growing crops to feed livestock on a factory farm uses vast amounts of water and fuel and takes a toll on our environment. It is more efficient to feed your family low on the food chain. Look for the label: USDA Organic seals certify food that is good for the environment and doesn't use pesticides, genetic engineering, growth hormones, irradiation, or antibiotics. Cook certified organic pasta for dinner; it's delicious and often better for your heart, too! "Get Green" is a service mark of Environmental Defense.
EPA May Allow the Discharge of Partially Treated SewageThe Environmental Protection Agency is close to issuing new guidelines making it easier for sewage authorities to dump partially treated wastewater during heavy rainfalls, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. EPA officials said they had not made a decision, but agency staffers have begun to brief senior political appointees on the plan, which is outlined in a 10-page document titled "Final Policy." The proposal, which was first aired in November 2003, would allow authorities to release a blend of fully treated and partially treated sewage during peak flows. Some scientists, environmentalists and state and local officials object to blending because it could foster the spread of disease. But others, including local sewage agencies and some government officials, say the approach strikes a safe middle ground between releasing untreated sewage and spending billions on plant upgrades. The debate over how to process waste comes as much of the nation's wastewater treatment infrastructure is crumbling, and federal officials estimate it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to cope with the increased demand for sewage treatment. "Blending is acceptable if the sewage is treated enough to meet Clean Water Act requirements at the end of the pipe," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant EPA administrator. "Never doing any blending would lead to multiple billions of dollars in costs." Sewage treatment consists of two stages. Plants first remove solids from the waste and then use bacteria to kill the dangerous viruses, parasites and bacteria that remain. During heavy rains, however, the wastewater in many systems becomes diluted by storm runoff and cannot be fully processed to remove the pathogens. Under current policies, plants are supposed to discharge partially treated waste only when there is no alternative, but the EPA's proposal would allow them to do it more often as long as they monitor the waste and ensure it meets federal water quality standards. Although the permits governing wastewater treatment are usually issued by state agencies, they look to the federal government for guidance. Nancy Stoner, who runs the Natural Resources Defense Council's clean water project, said the new policy "means more people will get sick and more people will die. This is really a very significant issue from a public health standpoint." Joan B. Rose, a water pollution microbiologist at Michigan State University, said the EPA's proposal ignores scientific findings that link wastewater to the spread of disease, adding that the Clean Water Act does not cover many unhealthful viruses and parasites. "Sewage is the source of a lot of major pathogens," Rose said, adding that one study found the risk of disease from blended waste was 100 times greater than that associated with fully treated waste. The EPA estimates swimmers experience 3,500 to 5,500 cases of "highly credible gastrointestinal illness" each year because of improper sewage treatment. Sewer authorities and city governments argue that blending does not pose a major health risk and makes more sense than spending money on expensive upgrades. Without blending, said Ken Kirk, executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the industry will have to "spend $200 billion to fix a problem that doesn't need fixing." Last week, the National League of Cities endorsed the EPA's plan as long as the blended waste meets federal water quality standards and has undergone initial treatment. "The feeling was particularly in disadvantaged areas and some cities with serious infrastructure problems, this would save ratepayers a huge amount of money while protecting their water quality," said Joanna Liberman, the league's senior policy analyst. The EPA has often joined with environmentalists in pressing for plant upgrades in a number of communities. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority agreed to build three underground water storage tunnels over the next 20 years to eliminate the sewage overflows that dump as much as 3 billion gallons of raw waste into local rivers and creeks each year. In Michigan, 50 billion gallons of raw and partially treated sewage flows annually into the state's waterways. John Dunn, chief engineer for the D.C. authority, said he was waiting for guidance from the EPA because blending "should reduce our capital costs while maintaining the same effluent quality." Jim Connolly, executive director of the Anacostia Watershed Society, which sued for the D.C. plant upgrade, said he would oppose the new EPA policy if "it waters down the [progress] we've seen with this long-term plan."
LANDBush Administration Squelches Bad News on ParksCandidate George W. Bush made two promises on the environment when he ran for President in 2000: he would regulate carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, and he would close the $5 billion maintenance backlog for our national parks. It took President George W. Bush a mere 53 days to break his promise on reducing greenhouse gases. [1] And to the dismay of environmentalists and career park officials alike, America's national parks have been steadily deteriorating since the President took office. To deter public awareness of his national parks reversal, it appears the President has imposed a gag rule on park managers to prevent them from disclosing just how underfunded the parks have become. Since 1998 the Park Service has been collaborating with the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), a nonprofit advocacy group, to create business plans for the country's parks. With federal funding, NPCA and the Park Service recruited graduate students from the country's top business schools to identify funding problems and develop management solutions for the parks. The 64 reports produced so far portray a Park Service woefully short of money, with most parks showing annual budget shortfalls of around 30 percent. This information has apparently not been sitting comfortably with the administration. The business plan for Olympic National Park in Washington, for example, was kept from the public after it found that funding shortages were crippling the park. The report found that Olympic, which had 3.2 million visitors last year, receives only about half the money it needs. The Washington Post last week quoted a Park Service official, who spoke anonymously out of fear of retaliation, as saying that the report was withheld because the Bush administration "...doesn't like bad news. They don't like to see or hear about it or fix it. And they punish the messenger." Ron Tipton, senior vice president for programs at NPCA, told BushGreenwatch, "It's really regrettable that the Department of Interior appears to be uncomfortable with full public disclosure of the results of these business plans. The public and key decision-makers need this information to assure the parks are adequately funded and staffed so their visitors have a high quality experience." The superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park was forced to cancel a scheduled press conference to announce that park's business plan, which showed budget shortfalls. The plan was later made public on the park's web site. The press conference was canceled, according to a Park Service spokesman, not to hide the plan but because NPCA "might go out there and say a lot of things that our superintendents aren't comfortable saying." Apparently, however, it appears to be the Park Service's political appointees who are uncomfortable. To solve the problem of reports informing the public of chronic underfunding, the Park Service has canceled its partnership with NPCA. As NPCA's Tipton explained to the Post: "We were not seen as a friendly voice."
Study: Everglades Effort Needs More LandThe state and federal governments should buy more land, and do so quickly, in order to restore the Everglades before the property becomes developed or too expensive, according to a new report. The report released is the seventh and final in a series by the National Academy of Sciences to advise federal and state agencies and others engaged in restoring the greater Everglades. The government is spending $100 million to $200 million each year to buy land for the restoration, according to the report. But "it seems certain that some land not soon acquired will be developed or become significantly more expensive before the two-decade-long acquisition program can be completed," the report said. "Protecting the potential for restoration, i.e. protecting the land, is essential for successful restoration." The 30-year, $8.4 billion federal-state program is intended to restore some of the natural water flow through the sensitive Everglades ecosystem.
AIR POLLUTIONEx-EPA Chiefs Agree on Greenhouse Gas LidSix former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, including five Republicans, said that the Bush administration should impose mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming. The group, which came together in Washington for a roundtable discussion to celebrate the agency's 35th anniversary, said the White House is not moving fast enough to address the global threat that human-generated climate change poses. "This is not a sort of short-term cycle problem. This is a major disaster for the world," said Russell E. Train, who served as EPA administrator under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford from 1973 to 1977. "To say we'll deal with it later and try to push it away is dishonest to the people, and self-destructive." Lee M. Thomas, who headed the agency from 1985 to 1989 under Ronald Reagan, said U.S. businesses would welcome federal regulation at this point because it would allow them to plan for the kind of investments that will be needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change. Companies want "certainty as to what is required down the road," Thomas said. "You've got to put an international scheme in place that says 'We're going to start action today' and periodically we're going to review these things and see if we need to tighten things or loosen them. You can't wait until you have certainty on these issues. Then it's way too late." The only living former administrators who did not join in the panel were Mike Leavitt, who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services and could not attend because of a scheduling conflict, and Douglas M. Costle, who served under President Jimmy Carter. Costle could not attend for health reasons. Carol M. Browner, the lone Democrat present, told reporters after the session that the panel's consensus on the need for regulation is "huge," calling it "a testament to the reality of the issue and a recognition that it's time to do something." But the agency's current head, Stephen L. Johnson, said the administration remains committed to pursuing voluntary emission reductions and technological innovation rather than requiring mandatory cuts. Noting that automobiles account for a significant portion of carbon dioxide emissions, Johnson said: "Are we going to tell people to stop driving their cars, or do we start investing in technology [to cut emissions]? That's the answer, investing in those technologies." The EPA announced that four corporations -- Baxter International Inc., General Motors, IBM, and SC Johnson -- and the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory had met their voluntary greenhouse gas reduction goals through the government's Climate Leaders program. A total of 79 American firms, which generate roughly 8 percent of the nation's total output of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, have vowed to reduce their emissions by an amount equal to taking 5 million cars off the road each year. Environmentalists said the fact that so many EPA administrators could agree on the importance of mandatory carbon limits shows the extent to which most policymakers want more sweeping action on climate change. "I can't remember anything quite like it," said Jeremy Symons, who directs the global warming campaign for the advocacy group, the National Wildlife Federation. "It should be an unprecedented wake-up call for anyone concerned about our planet. The question is whether President Bush is going to listen, since he's ignored scientists in the past." But the administrators' statements failed to move Myron Ebell, who heads the Competitive Enterprise Institute's global warming policy program. "EPA administrators like to regulate things," said Ebell, whose think tank receives contributions from companies opposed to mandatory carbon limits. "That what EPA does. That's their only approach to anything."
Panel: Plan Lowers Clean-Air StandardsThe Bush administration's bill to curb air pollution from power plants would reduce air pollution less than the current Clean Air Act rules, according to a preliminary report by the National Academy of Sciences released yesterday. The 18-member panel's initial assessment of proposals to regulate aging coal-fired power plants represents the latest salvo in the ongoing battle over how best to clean up the nation's air. The president's "Clear Skies" bill would set up a cap-and-trade program that aims to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury pollution from utilities by 70 percent after 2018; the Senate will conduct hearings on the plan in two weeks. The administration has also retooled federal "New Source Review" (NSR) rules, which require plants to install costly emissions controls if they increase pollution when modifying the facilities. The administration's revised rules, which have been blocked by a federal judge since late 2003, would require new controls only when the modifications equal 20 percent of a plant's replacement cost. The academy report, commissioned by Congress in 2003 after Democrats tried to stall the administration's revision of NSR regulations, said it is difficult to gauge the effects of that plan because data are scarce. But the committee, which consists largely of academics, said in its 160-page report that it is "unlikely that Clear Skies would result in emission limits at individual sources that are tighter than those achieved when NSR is triggered at the same sources. . . . In general, NSR provides more stringent emission limits for new and modified major sources than" Clear Skies. The panel will issue a final report by the end of the year. The NSR rule triggered dozens of state and federal suits against more than 50 power plants during the 1990s and forced some to install new pollution controls. The administration argues that this approach costs jobs and keeps plants from running at full capacity. Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), the ranking minority member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report "provides further proof that the Bush administration has been recklessly tinkering with the Clean Air Act for several years and wants to go even further. They want to replace existing programs, like New Source Review, that have documented benefits, with a proposal that is weaker and slower when it comes to reducing emissions and protecting health and the environment." But Environmental Protection Agency officials and Senate Republicans questioned the academy's assessment. They said it ignores the success of cap-and-trade programs such as the one for acid rain, which has cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions about a third since 1990, and that new plants would have incentives to reduce emissions because they would get no pollution allowances, unlike older plants. "It's the same argument we've had before," said Will Hart, spokesman for Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). "Overall, Clear Skies is more protective of human health because we know we're going to get early and guaranteed reductions from it. New Source Review is a piecemeal approach, while Clear Skies is certain." Population in Danger, Report Says More measures are needed to prevent an environmental breakdown in the crab population of the Chesapeake Bay, according to a pending report from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The warning comes despite steady or slightly rising crab harvests in the bay. Rom Lipcius, a professor at the institute and the report's senior author, said the recommendation is intended to raise concern before it's too late. "We don't want to get to that point," he said. Poor environmental conditions and heavy fishing could leave the crab population more susceptible to disease and predators, enough to decimate it, Lipcius said. A population collapse would devastate what is left of the bay's struggling crab industry. The problem is that fewer female crabs are reaching the spawning grounds in the lower bay. That could be the result of crabbing and predators eating the crabs, Lipcius said. Virginia and Maryland have instituted several restrictions in recent years, including limiting crabbers to eight-hour workdays and prohibiting them from catching male crabs under a certain size and from harvesting in a 927-square-mile sanctuary in the middle of the bay.
Excess Mercury Levels IncreasingSurvey Shows Fifth of Women of Childbearing Age Are AffectedOne-fifth of women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their hair that exceed federal health standards, according to interim results of a nationwide survey being conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Asheville. The study, which was commissioned by the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, offers the latest evidence of how much mercury Americans are absorbing by eating fish. Coal-fired power plants and other sources release mercury into the air, which ends up in water and is absorbed by fish. The pollutant, which is a neurotoxin that can cause developmental problems in fetuses and young children, makes its way into the bloodstream when people eat contaminated fish. Researchers at UNC's Environmental Quality Institute based their findings on hair samples from nearly 1,500 people, many of whom learned of the study through the Internet. Participants either paid $25 to submit hair samples with a home testing kit or got free tests at 27 hair salons across the country sponsored by Greenpeace, Aveda salons and state and local environmental groups. Study participants were not randomly chosen, but the report's author, Richard Maas, said they were evenly distributed geographically and that he believes the results reflect overall mercury contamination levels among Americans. He said the tests showed a correlation between how much fish people ate and their mercury levels: One-third of people who ate canned tuna four or more times a week, for example, had mercury levels above Environmental Protection Agency recommendations. "There is no other pollutant out there that has anywhere near this high a percentage of the U.S. population with exposure levels above the government's health advisory levels," said Maas, co-director of the Environmental Quality Institute. "Not lead, not arsenic, nothing." The last major national study of Americans' mercury exposure, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1999 and 2000, concluded that about 12 percent of women of childbearing age had mercury levels that exceeded EPA's safety standard. The new study found excess mercury levels in 21 percent of the 597 women of childbearing age who were tested. The UNC researchers said they could not explain why their subjects had higher mercury levels, as 80 percent of study participants said they had no reason to think they had high concentrations of mercury in their blood. Men and women in the study had similar mercury levels. Greenpeace officials said the survey, which will have drawn on at least 5,000 hair samples when it is completed in March, will be used to lobby for stricter curbs on mercury pollution from power plants. The EPA is drafting rules that officials predict will cut power plant emissions by 70 percent after 2018. Greenpeace energy campaigner Casey Harrell said that Bush's proposal is too weak, and that the government should require plants to reduce mercury pollution by 90 percent "as soon as possible." "People should not have to stop eating fish because they're afraid they'll get poisoned by mercury," Harrell said. EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman and Frank Maisano, a utilities lobbyist, said the administration's proposal would address the problem of mercury pollution. Bergman, who called the Greenpeace study helpful, said, "We are addressing this shared concern on all fronts -- making sure consumers, particularly pregnant women or women who may become pregnant, have clear guidance about the benefits and risks of fish consumption -- as well as attacking the problem at its source -- regulating mercury emissions from power plants for the very first time. Mercury is a serious health risk." This spring, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration recommended that young children, nursing mothers, pregnant women and women who may become pregnant should not eat more than two servings, or 12 ounces, of fish per week. David Acheson, chief medical officer at FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said women would have to "be quite a bit above" the government's recommended safety level before they or their children would be at risk. Climate Talks Bring Bush's Policy to ForeIn the four years since President Bush took office, scientific sleuths trying to understand the extent of global climate change -- and finger the culprits -- have come up with several important new clues:
The president's scientific and policy advisers on global warming do not dispute these findings, but none of them has persuaded the White House to alter its current climate policy. Rather than endorsing mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions linked to warming, the course embraced by most of America's allies, the White House is focusing on technological fixes: developing energy sources that burn cleaner or finding ways to extract excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. "Our approach is founded on sound science, and on trying to address, with different strategies, climate change," said Paula J. Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs. International negotiators are to embark on a new round of climate talks tomorrow as researchers are still struggling with how to measure the effects of global warming and to predict what's in store. "We're learning fast, but part of what we're learning is the climate system is really complicated. . . . I don't think we'll ever make the kind of prediction Bush would want," said Wallace S. Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Broecker believes the United States has to act quickly to counter its contribution to global warming. "If we don't pick up the pace, we're not going to get there." The United States is taking part in the Buenos Aires talks even though the administration opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, which will restrict carbon emissions in most industrialized nations starting in 2008. Dobriansky said U.S. officials will try to convince their counterparts that technological change, not government mandates, offers the best chance to preserve both economic growth and the environment. As a candidate in 2000, Bush flirted with the idea of limiting carbon dioxide emissions, but he dismissed that option during his first year in office, saying that "given the limits of our knowledge," the nation was better off focusing on voluntary emissions reductions and better energy sources. To that end, the administration has poured nearly $8 billion into climate change research since 2001. James R. Mahoney, who oversees this research as assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, said even though researchers have refined computer models, helped design a more sweeping global observation system and improved the world's overall knowledge of global warming, "We continue to be humbled in the limits of our own knowledge. . . . It's a daunting challenge." But some of the government's own scientists, as well as many independent researchers, reject this assessment. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told a University of Iowa audience in October that the administration is ignoring evidence of "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate. "Anthropogenic" means human-caused, and his phrasing is significant because the United States pledged in 1992, as part of an agreement called the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, to take all necessary steps to combat such interference. "As the evidence gathers, you would hope they would be flexible," Hansen said of the administration in an interview. "You can't wait another decade" to cut carbon dioxide emissions, he added. Hansen and other proponents of restricting greenhouse gases point to several recent studies that make the case for immediate action. These include a paper this year showing that ocean heat storage -- which reflects the difference between the energy the earth receives from the sun and the heat it emits back into space -- rose between 1993 and 2003 at a rate that conforms to current climate models. It also indicates that global temperatures will rise by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the next several decades. Scientists have also refined their understanding of other factors that could accelerate or temper climate change. At one point, researchers thought warming would cause more water to evaporate and form clouds, which cool the atmosphere. They recently discovered this was not the case. They also have begun to grasp the complex role that aerosols -- the fine particles emitted by cars, power plants and other sources -- play. Lighter-colored aerosols, such as car exhaust and power plant pollution, reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect, while darker ones, such as soot, absorb it. Both types of emissions will affect warming in the future, though scientists are still gauging their influence. Other researchers have documented concrete indications of global warming's effects, such as these: Plants worldwide are blooming an average 5.2 days earlier per decade, according to Stanford University senior fellow Terry L. Root; and the opossum, an animal that confined its range to the South as recently as the Civil War, can now be found as far north as Ontario. When all these indicators "line up in the same direction, what's the possibility that's all an accident?" asked Stephen H. Schneider, who co-directs Stanford University's Center for Environmental Science and Policy and advocates stricter carbon limits. But some scientists do question the evidence. John R. Christy, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that despite a recent study suggesting the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the globe, the hottest years for Arctic temperatures in recorded history are 1937 and 1938, and current Greenland temperatures are not higher than they were 75 years ago. And Myron Ebell, who directs global warming and international environmental policy for the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, said some studies cast doubt on a U.N. pronouncement in 2001 that the 20th century was likely the warmest in a millennium. Christy said, given the economic costs of imposing tighter controls on energy production, "The Bush administration is doing a more reasonable approach, considering that mandating carbon restrictions will have no measurable effect on what the climate will do." Several senior administration officials said that while they agree that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide contribute to climate change, restricting these emissions right now would cost jobs. Instead, they said, the government should continue to focus its efforts on promoting technologies that will curb pollution. One example is FutureGen, a $1 billion, decade-long power plant project to convert coal into gas and store carbon emissions underground. Bush has also sponsored a $1.7 billion, five-year hydrogen car project aimed at eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. "The U.S. position is maybe the only rational position, to identify and promulgate application of new technologies," said White House science adviser John H. Marburger III. "To do anything meaningful [on limiting greenhouse gas emissions] requires a dramatic cessation or reduction of economic activity. It's simply not practical at the present time." Advocates of limiting greenhouse gases, however, remain optimistic they will eventually prevail. Christine Todd Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency administrator in Bush's first term, said mandatory carbon dioxide reductions are "going to happen at some point," in part because multinational corporations will demand that U.S. policy mirror European standards. Larry J. Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation, said Bush has an opportunity to outline a new climate policy in his second term. "If President Bush personally sits down with the scientists and hears what has happened since he first came to office, we can work together to make progress on global warming," he said. "The president has an opportunity to leave behind a strong legacy of addressing one of the biggest challenges the world has ever faced. He shouldn't squander that opportunity."
FORESTSLawsuit Filed Against New National Forest RulesBush Administration Regulations Reverse Decades of Progress in Forest Management, Eliminate Wildlife and Natural Resource ProtectionsWASHINGTON, D.C. -- A coalition of conservation groups lodged a complaint today in Federal District Court in San Francisco challenging the Bush administration's new rules for managing the nation's 192 million acre National Forest System, a magnificent network of forests and grasslands in 42 states that encompasses 8 percent of the country. The challenged regulations are supposed to govern activities on all national forests and ensure the protection of wildlife and the environment, but the Bush administration has watered them down to the point where they are virtually meaningless. Earthjustice represents Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and Vermont Natural Resources Council as they challenge these regulations on the following grounds: they fail to include the environmental protection measures mandated by Congress in the National Forest Management Act of 1976; they reverse more than 20 years of protection for wildlife and other resources without any sound or scientific basis for doing so, or any adequate replacement; requirements to use quantitative measurements of wildlife populations and mandatory duties to conserve wildlife on national forests have been eliminated or made discretionary; they were crafted through a flawed process – the environmental impacts of this far-reaching action were never analyzed and many significant changes first appeared in the final rule, depriving the public of an opportunity to comment on them. “The nation's forests and the people who own them deserve better than this,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife. “We are hopeful the courts will send these rules back to the industry lobbyists who wrote them, stamped ‘illegal'.” “The new Bush forest rules aren't rules at all – they're more like suggestions. They turn forest management to mush, mocking the intent of Congress and undermining public participation in the process,” said Trent Orr, an attorney with Earthjustice. “Agencies need leadership and clear guidance, not this wink and a nod that encourages the exploitation of the public's resources.” “Some basic protections for non-timber resources like wildlife and water made sense to the Reagan administration, which put them in place,” said Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society. “But this administration just went on a search and destroy mission for any environmental safeguard that might stand between the administration's industry donors and the public's trees.” The Bush administration is eliminating national forest wildlife protections that have been in place and effective for decades,” said Sean Cosgrove, forest policy specialist with the Sierra Club. “Americans want to protect the places where they hike, hunt, and fish, not turn them over to the logging companies.” Local conservation groups are concerned and have joined this legal challenge. The ramifications of the new regulations may be felt in Vermont, where the Forest Service is updating a plan to manage the Green Mountain National Forest. “The regulations seemingly instruct the Forest Service to ignore the monitoring of wildlife species that Vermonters and visitors value and cherish,” said Jamey Fidel of the Vermont Natural Resources Council. The complaint is being filed as a supplement to a lawsuit filed by the same plaintiffs in November against a related rule more specifically attacking national forest wildlife and other resource protections. The lawsuit is Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns, and was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. For more information on these regulations, including opposition from Congress, scientists, and the public, visit: www.SaveNationalForests.org. Read the complaint online here: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/2-05/NFMASupplementalComplaint.pdf ### Defenders of Wildlife is a leading nonprofit conservation
organization recognized as one of the nation's most progressive advocates
for wildlife and its habitat. With more than 480,000 members and supporters,
Defenders of Wildlife is an effective leader on endangered species issues.
To stay current on hot topics in wildlife conservation, subscribe to DENlines,
Defenders of Wildlife's electronic update and action alert network.
POLITICSPesticide Testing On Humans QuestionedA new rule by the Environmental Protection Agency governing pesticide tests on humans is sparking protests from congressional Democrats and environmentalists, who say it fails to adequately protect vulnerable test subjects. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Hilda L. Solis, all California Democrats, have obtained a copy of the regulation, which must be finalized by the end of the month, but said they could not release it for fear that it would hurt the career of the government official who leaked the document. After Congress attached language to a spending bill last fall instructing the administration to ban pesticide testing on humans, the EPA altered its proposed rule, but lawmakers said the final rule still allows for unethical testing. " The regulation is an open invitation to test pesticides on humans, wh |
