Interior’s silence on Army Corps plan questioned

By Michael Grunwald

Jan. 14— In October, after the Army Corps of Engineers floated a controversial proposal that would relax a series of wetlands protection rules, the Fish and Wildlife Service drafted comments denouncing the plan as scientifically and environmentally unjustified.

The service’s 15-page salvo warned that the Corps proposal would “result in tremendous destruction of aquatic and terrestrial habitats,” sacrificing far too many streams and swamps for houses, levees, and coal mines. The plan, the comments stated, “has no scientific basis.”

But the Corps never received those comments. That’s because Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, who oversees Fish and Wildlife, never submitted them. So today, the Corps will announce its final version of its controversial plan without formal input from Interior’s key biological agency.

The only input Interior offered was a memo supporting the coal-mining rule that the wildlife service found, by far, the most objectionable.

“Our job is to make sure the secretary gets our best biological advice, and we did that,” said Marshall Jones, the service’s acting director. “We don’t decide what happens next.”

Interior spokesman Mark Pfeifle said the department had hoped to submit formal comments on the Corps proposal but ran out of time before it could finish ironing out disagreements between its Office for Surface Mining and the wildlife service over the coal-mining rule.

Pfeifle blamed the mix-up on the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has yet to confirm the assistant secretaries or agency directors that President Bush has tapped to oversee the mining office and the wildlife service.

Pfeifle also pointed out that the mining office’s comments on the Corps proposals — which had little in common with the wildlife service’s environmental concerns — were not submitted either. He said the two agencies hashed out a compromise letter two days before the Corps deadline, but Interior’s political appointees did not believe it was ready for submission. The two agencies also have begun to work together on strategies to minimize the environmental damage caused by strip mining and mountaintop-removal mining in Appalachia.

Bush has vowed to protect wetlands in no uncertain terms, and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments objecting to the Corps proposal. But environmentalists and some federal employees argued that the no-comment situation reflects a new hostility toward environmental issues in the Interior. They said they could not recall a previous case when the department failed to supply any formal comments on an issue as important as the Corps program, which provides 80,000 permits to develop in wetlands every year. They also noted that even though the wildlife service’s Oct. 15 comments — which were provided to The Washington Post by environmentalists who agree with them — went well beyond the disputed mining rule, the Interior failed to pass along any of its concerns on other issues.

In general, the critics accused Norton of suppressing the wildlife service’s science to curry favor with industry, noting that both aides involved with the memo to the Corps about the coal-mining rule — Deputy Secretary Steven Griles and counselor Ann Klee — had represented mining interests in the past.

Everyone agrees that the Corps proposals are extremely important. Under the Clean Water Act, anyone who wants to drain or fill wetlands must first obtain a permit from the Corps, which is supposed to make sure the permitted activities do not create significant harm to the environment. Today, the Corps will finalize its rules that determine when developers and other applicants are eligible for “general permits,” which are virtually automatic, and when they must seek “individual permits,” which are somewhat more onerous.

In March 2000, the Clinton administration forced the Corps to propose some revisions to the general permit program to enhance protections for streams, bogs, and other wetlands, which tend to provide wildlife habitat, filter drinking water and absorb floods. The revisions would have eliminated general permits for projects in floodplains, or projects that affect more than a half-acre of wetlands or more than 300 feet of streams. They also would have required all permitees to “mitigate” as many acres of wetlands as they destroy. Environmentalists were delighted, but the National Association of Home Builders filed suit.

In May 2001, the Corps, never known for environmental activism, proposed a new plan that eliminated the 300-foot and mitigation rules, and weakened other restrictions but still promised the permit program would have minimal impact on the environment. The idea, Corps officials said, was to reduce the bureaucratic review processes for minor projects, allowing regulators to spend more time analyzing projects with more significant ecological risks.

Officials at the EPA and Fish and Wildlife did not agree. The EPA dashed off a critical comment. Led by federal program activities chief Benjamin Tuggle, the wildlife service also put together its scathing comment letter, questioning the science behind many of the Corps proposals. Waiving the 300-foot rule, the letter said, “will encourage the destruction of stream channels and lead to increased loss of aquatic functions.” Trusting applicants to enumerate endangered species on their property, it continued, “could be construed to suggest the Corps would be abrogating its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.” Allowing general permits for flood-control projects, it warned, would confer carte blanche upon “a range of undefined, unlimited activities.”

The letter reserved its harshest comments for proposed general permits for surface-mining operations. It argued that the Corps’ own data “speak overwhelmingly” against the rules, showing that mining operations authorized with general permits had destroyed thousands of acres of aquatic habitat and many miles of streams, “far exceed[ing] the Corps’ predictions,” affecting as many as 50 threatened or endangered species. It also chided the Corps for its “lack of basic knowledge of the effects of these permitted losses on the environment.”

On Friday, Jan. 11, Tuggle said he was encouraged by the wildlife service’s improved relationship with the Mining Office, but he was clearly disappointed that the Interior had failed to challenge the Corps with formal comments. Fish and Wildlife, an agency dominated by biologists who tend to tilt green on environmental issues, has an often tense relationship with Norton and her aides, most notably over oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“Fish and Wildlife is getting rolled,” a federal official said.

Pfeifle said Norton is committed to protecting wetlands and other natural resources. But he said she is also committed to developing natural resources such as oil, gas, and coal, a commitment to energy production he suggested was lacking in the Clinton administration.

Source: Washington Post

Energy Sec. Abraham got thousands from nuclear industry

By William Spain

Las Vegas, Nevada, Jan. 11— Although Enron’s large contributions to key legislators and members of the Bush administration apparently were not enough to pull its financial fat out of the fire, one group of major energy-business political donors just hit the jackpot.

While it will be at least a decade — if then — before radioactive waste begins pouring into Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, the Department of Energy’s decision to recommend the site is a big victory for the nuclear power industry.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Thursday, Jan. 10, he plans to formally recommend the Silver State site as a new federal repository for nuclear waste — delighting plant operators and infuriating Nevada businesses, politicians, and environmentalists.

Transporting all of its radioactive byproducts to one central location and storing it there — both at taxpayer expense — has long been at the top of the nuclear industry’s wish list. Currently, most nuclear waste generated from commercial plants is stored on-site, a cost shouldered by the operators.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) wasted no time in hailing Abraham’s decision: “Safely transporting nuclear waste from 35 states to one secure, specifically designed federal disposal facility underground is the best solution to protect our environment and our national security,” said Joe Colvin, president of the trade group.

Companies backed Senate bid

Abraham received thousands of dollars in contributions from the industry in his campaign for reelection to the US Senate from Michigan in 2000. In addition to NEI’s $4,000, private nuclear-plant operators DTE Energy with $5,000, Exelon at $2,000, Constellation $2,000, and FirstEnergy, also $2,000, ponied up for his failed bid.

Abraham also accepted at least $9,500 from energy-trading company Enron between February of 1999 and October 2000.

Although Attorney General John Ashcroft recently recused himself from involvement in the criminal probe of Enron because he had accepted over $50,000 of the company’s money in the past, Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, insisted that Abraham has no such conflict.

Abraham based his decision solely on “sound science and compelling interests [of] national security and environmental protection,” he said.

While the nuclear industry has given to both major parties, the GOP has long received the lion’s share of the booty. For instance, the Center for Responsive Politics said that in the last election cycle Republican candidates got more than two-thirds of the $335,000 given by NEI and nearly three quarters of $819,000 contributed by leading nuclear operator Exelon.

The next call in the ongoing battle will be made by the White House, which is on record as being in favor of both expanded nuclear power and the establishment of a central repository for nuclear waste.

If, as expected, the Bush administration approves the site, Nevada’s governor or state legislature gets a chance to veto the decision, which will stop the project until and unless Congress overrides it.

Furious members of the state’s congressional delegation, including Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid, have vowed to do whatever it takes to keep the Yucca from opening. And, even should they fail, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, has vowed a court battle.

Source: CBS Market Watch

Critics say Bush fails as environmental defender

San Fransisco, California, Jan. 8 (ENS)— In the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency, environmental protections have taken a back seat to industry concerns, according to attorneys who represent environmental groups in court.

“Under this administration, the courts have become the forum of choice for rolling back environmental protections,” Earthjustice Executive Director Buck Parker said today.

Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm based in San Francisco with offices across the United States. Its attorneys work to protect natural resources and wildlife and to defend the right of all people to a healthy environment.

Attorneys from across the country told reporters that Bush administration officials have been keeping the American public out of environmental decision-making by holding closed-door meetings with some industries, allowing other industries to rewrite environmental rules, and refusing to produce documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Bitterness over the Bitteroot Forest

A perfect example of a Bush administration official sidelining the public process was reversed in a Montana federal court late yesterday. Federal District Judge Donald Molloy, in Missoula, issued an injunction that halts nearly 41,000 acres of proposed logging in the Bitterroot National Forest.

The ruling was based on concerns that the Forest Service illegally shut the public out of its decision-making process for the controversial timber sales.

Conservation groups filed suit in December after US Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey announced his decision to approve the massive sale and exempt the project from administrative appeal. On behalf of The Wilderness Society, American Wildlands, and Pacific Rivers Council, Earthjustice lawyers asked Judge Molloy to stop the Forest Service from allowing logging to go forward until it honors the public’s legal right to pursue an administrative appeal of the Bitterroot project decision.

The judge granted a temporary restraining order against logging in December and yesterday wrote, “It is presumptuous to believe that the agency’s final decision has a perfection about it that would not be illuminated by interested comment, questioning, or requests for justification of propositions asserted in it. Congress wanted the opportunity for full democratic participation in Forest Service decision-making when it created a statutory right to an administrative appeal. Neither the Secretary of Agriculture, the Undersecretary of Agriculture, nor the Forest Service can take away a right the Congress granted or a process Congress demanded.”

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth defends Rey’s decision not to hear public comment on this issue. The forest service chief says the public would still be involved in the Bitterroot timber sale without an administrative appeal. “I am confident that under Regional Forester Jack Blackwell’s leadership, he will formulate an aggressive plan to implement my decision that continues to engage local individuals and communities to protect and restore the health of the land,” Bosworth said.

Each of the nine Earthjustice attorneys who briefed the media today reported different circumstances in which public participation in environmental decision-making is being circumvented by Bush administration officials.

Denver attorney Eric Huber says Earthjustice has filed a lawsuit to force disclosure of information about closed-door negotiations between the federal government and the state of Utah concerning the state’s claim to more than 10,000 roads and trails crossing federal lands. The lawsuit, filed in the federal district court in Washington, DC, alleges that the Department of Interior is violating the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to release documents pertaining to the negotiations.

Roadless, but maybe not forever

In one of the single largest conservation measures enacted in the last 100 years, the Clinton administration protected 58.5 million acres of wild national forest lands with a ban on building roads in currently roadless areas. On Inauguration Day, the Bush administration froze action on this rule. But, says Earthjustice, in the face of broad public support for the roadless policy, the administration has been reluctant to openly reverse or undo it.

In March, the Bush administration failed to mount a defense of the roadless rule in a legal challenge to it brought by the state of Idaho and Boise Cascade Timber Company. Federal Judge Edward Lodge stopped the rule from being implemented. The government failed to appeal and instead initiated a new rule-making process to weaken the roadless policy — or eliminate it altogether.

Nine separate lawsuits have been filed to challenge the rule, including suits by timber industry associations, off-road vehicle groups, livestock companies, and states eager for revenue from development on federal land. The Bush administration has failed to fight off any of them, according to Earthjustice attorney Abigail Dillen.

The loss of protection for roadless public lands will hit Alaska’s Tongass National Forest especially hard, Earthjustice attorney Eric Jorgensen said from his office in Juneau.

America’s largest national forest and one of its richest ecologically, the Tongass National Forest, at 17 million acres, has about 2.5 million acres of roadless forests open to logging if the Bush administration weakens or abandons the roadless rule. Within these 2.5 million acres, the Forest Service is currently planning many timber sales.

A second Bush administration rollback affecting the Tongass occurred when the Bush administration decided not to defend against a timber industry lawsuit aimed at opening more of the Tongass to logging. Unlike the roadless rule, this lawsuit challenged the management plan each national forest is required to develop and implement. Hanging in the balance is half a million acres of old growth forest in roadless areas protected during the Clinton administration.

Out in the blue Pacific

Far from the western forests, protection for another vast ecosystem is being undermined by the Bush administration, according to Paul Achitoff, managing attorney for Earthjustice Mid-Pacific. From his Honolulu office, Achitoff said the Bush administration is opposing protection for the 1,200 mile long Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, “the second largest marine-protected area on earth after the Great Barrier Reef.”

These reefs and islands are the foundation of a largely untouched ecosystem that is inhabited by over 7,000 marine species, half of which are unique to the Hawaiian islands, including the endangered Hawaiian monk seal and the threatened green sea turtle.

After more than a dozen public hearings in Washington, DC and Hawaii, and 9,000 written comments expressing public support, President Bill Clinton established the reserve by executive order on Dec. 4, 2000 and confirmed it by another executive order on Jan. 18, 2001 during his final week in office.

The 1,200 mile long reserve was to be managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with input by stakeholders, including native Hawaiians, with the object of eventually turning it into a marine sanctuary. But, Achitoff says, the Bush administration is under pressure from the fishing industry to gut the protections and has announced it will review the reserve’s protected status.

“Essentially what we have is a stealth rollback by pocket veto,” Achitoff said. “The administration has tried to stop the reserve from ever being established, and we fully expect the administration to now try to strip the reserve of its protections against over-fishing, threats to endangered species, coral harvesting, fish collecting, and other industry that will benefit a few at the expense of everyone else.”

Similar patterns of Bush administration inaction and obstruction of environmental protections was detailed by Earthjustice attorneys in relation to Coho salmon in Oregon, water allocation for the restoration of the Florida Everglades, critical habitat for Steller sea lions in Alaska, Yellowstone grizzly bears, and industrial pollution of America’s air and waterways.