The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new standards requiring sharp reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants over the next decade, fulfilling President Bush’s pledge to complete the rule if his proposed Clean Air Act overhaul failed on Capitol Hill. The EPA ruling followed the defeat of President Bush’s "Clear Skies" initiative in the Senate, after a tie vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee blocked the bill’s path to the Senate floor.

EPA said the so-called Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) would reduce acid-rain causing sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 70 percent and smog-forming nitrogen oxide by more than 60 percent when the standards are fully implemented in 2015.

Pollution limits spelled out in the CAIR plan affect electric utilities in 28 Eastern states and the District of Columbia. They would be achieved through a market-based cap-and-trade system similar to other air pollution programs EPA has put into practice over the last decade.

Separately, EPA released another rule for controlling mercury emissions from power plants (see below). The plan will allow utilities to trade mercury emission credits while still making a 70 percent reduction from the current 48 ton emission level down to 15 tons by 2018.

The Environmental Protection Agency released its first mercury rule, which will mandate the use of a cap-and-trade system to control mercury emissions from power plants.

EPA’s mercury plan formally rescinds a Clinton administration regulatory determination calling on EPA to require the installation of maximum achievable control technologies for mercury on nearly all of the nation’s 1,300 power plants. Instead, utilities will be allowed to either install emission control technologies or purchase credits that essentially allow them to do nothing.

EPA will establish a 38-ton emission limit on nationwide mercury pollution in 2010, with a second tier requirement to lower mercury to 15 tons by 2018. Current levels of mercury emissions from U.S. power plants are now about 48 tons, meaning the first cuts will reduce emissions of the toxic pollutant by 21 percent.

EPA anticipates a series of collateral benefits created through a separate regulation it finalized last week — the Clean Air Interstate Rule — will force industry to reduce its mercury emissions to the 38-ton level. The longer-range cut would hover at about 70 percent and force the electric utilities to go beyond its requirements with the CAIR plan, EPA says.

The rule is almost certain to be challenged in court bycritics of the Bush administration’s regulatory decisions. Many members of Congress are also critical, with 29 senators on record this year encouraging EPA to take a different regulatory route.

Eleven moderate House Republicans formally criticized the mercury ruling in a letter to acting EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, arguing the plan does not go far enough to protect public health and the environment. House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and 10 others said EPA should have done a better job taking into account mercury-specific emission control technologies that can reduce the toxic emissions at upwards of 90 percent from existing levels.

At least a dozen states have pursued their own mercury standards that press for far greater cuts from utilities than would be required under the EPA rule. State and local air pollution officials have predicted that many agencies will reject the federal standard in favor of their own, creating a patchwork system that may create competitive disadvantages for some companies.

The Ecological Society of America, together with the BioDiversity Research Institute, held a Congressional briefing on the environmental effects of mercury on March 9, 2005. Contact Laura Lipps at Laura@esa.org for more information.

President Bush’s long-stalled plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling cleared a major hurdle on Capitol Hill when the Senate voted to include the proposal in its budget, a maneuver that smoothes the way for Congress to approve drilling later this year.

By a vote of 51 to 49, Republicans defeated an effort by Democrats to eliminate the drilling language from the budget. The vote does not ensure that drilling will be approved. But if the budget is adopted, Senate rules would allow the passage of a measure opening the refuge with a simple majority of 51 votes, escaping the threat of a filibuster, which has killed it in the past.

The budget language assumes roughly $5 billion over the next five years in oil drilling revenues from the Arctic over the next decade, with the state of Alaska and the federal government to split the money. But advocates on both sides of the debate dispute how much oil is underneath the tundra, and how much the oil companies care about drilling there. Some opponents hypothesize that drilling in ANWR will open the door for industry to drill elsewhere in the U.S.

Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-NM), a leading proponent of drilling, has said the refuge could produce up to one million barrels of oil per day. He and other proponents of drilling say it could be done with modern equipment that would minimize the disturbance to the environment.

The Ecological Society of America has a position statement on ANWR available at:
http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Statements/ArcticNationalWildlifeRef
uge.php

Two coral species, whose numbers have plummeted by 97 percent, would be the first corals to gain protection from the Endangered Species Act under a new Bush administration plan.

Staghorn and elkhorn corals, which live off the southeastern Florida coast and throughout the Caribbean, have suffered declines of 97 percent across their range, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says. NOAA is expected to formally propose a threatened listing later this month, launching a public comment period that would be followed by a final decision next year.

"These formerly abundant corals have remained at low levels without noticeable recovery, and in cases where we have targeted monitoring data, they continue to decline," said NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher in a written announcement of the proposal last week. "Threats to the species include physical damage from human activities and hurricanes, as well as disease and temperature-induced bleaching."

Classifying the species as threatened could conceivably lead to regulation of fishing (which removes the herbivores that keep algae in check) and emissions of greenhouse gases (which make the seas uncomfortably warm for coral), says marine biologist Ellen Pikitch, Executive Director of the University of Miami’s Pew Institute for Ocean Science. But coral researcher Andrew Baker of Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in New York predicts that the listing would be "no silver bullet, since many of the factors contributing to the decline [of corals] may well be beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act to regulate."

Still, a listing will provide helpful public relations for coral, says Baker. "It will also signal leadership for the U.S. in coral reef conservation in the Caribbean region and hopefully lead to basin-wide initiatives to protect the few remaining populations of these species," adds Tim McClanahan of WCS in Mombasa, Kenya. He notes that many other, less visible coral species are probably also being lost.

At least one Capitol Hill lawmaker agrees that global warming must be addressed to save reefs and other marine resources. House Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) said last week that the time may be ripe for the government to consider larger questions of reef health.

"The local action plans can be very effective with sedimentation or overfishing and those kind of issues," he said in comments to NOAA and Interior Department officials at a hearing on the matter. "But they do not have much effect on climate change and global warming, and that is where the federal government needs to reach in and have some understanding of at least the science on that, and step in and help."

This week, the House took up the emergency supplemental spending bill, including provisions to exempt the Homeland Security Department from environmental and other laws to build fences and roads along U.S. borders.

The DHS exemption language is part of a broader immigration reform bill, H.R. 418, that passed the House in February. But since the Senate has shown little interest in moving H.R. 418, Rules Committee members attached the bill to the emergency supplemental measure. That means new momentum for the proposed DHS exemptions since the supplemental is a must-pass bill that includes $81 billion in funding for the war in Iraq, tsunami relief and other purposes.

H.R. 418 allows the Homeland Security Secretary to waive all laws "necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads." It also bars the courts from hearing claims challenging the secretary’s decision or granting compensation for damages arising from DHS actions.

The provision stems from a long-standing dispute over the construction of a 14-mile border fence near San Diego. The California Coastal Commission voted early last year to block completion of a 3.5-mile section, arguing it would remove vegetation and cause environmental damage. Supporters of the fence argued terrorists could exploit the gap to illegally enter the country and target Naval Station San Diego.

The change could potentially affect all areas where the United States borders Canada or Mexico.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) reintroduced his proposal to revamp the Endangered Species Act’s critical habitat requirements, placing the bill, which passed out of the House Resources Committee last year, back into the fray of the debate over altering the Act.

The bill is identical to Cardoza’s measure from last year, which passed out of committee in a 28-14 vote but never made it to the House floor. The measure met with criticism last year from Resources Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV), other Democrats, and environmental groups.

The legislation aims to further define the critical habitat designation process, altering the deadlines for habitat and excluding land that is involved in any other federal, state or local habitat conservation plan from critical habitat consideration. The bill also gives more weight to landowners and state and local governments in the decisionmaking process.

"We need a system that enables the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to make more informed decisions on critical habitat designations and how to actually preserve a species," Cardoza said. House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA), Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) all endorsed Cardoza’s effort.

ESA’s critical habitat requirements have been a source of contention and lawsuits for years. The Act mandates designation of critical habitat — an area deemed essential for a species’ survival and recovery — for almost all federally listed species.

But FWS rarely designates critical habitat when it lists a species. Current and Clinton-era FWS officials have said that in 30 years of implementing ESA, they have found little to no additional protection from the designation.

Environmental groups maintain designation of habitat is crucial for species health and have frequently sued FWS to force the designations. Once habitat proposals are made, they often meet more lawsuits from industry groups, which have dragged FWS back into court for allegedly not weighing economic effects adequately.

Republicans on the House Resources Committee created a task force to investigate the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — the 35-year-old law that requires detailed assessments of proposed federal projects’ effects on natural resources.
The task force’s launch follows years of complaints about the law from western lawmakers and landowners, who have argued that it leads to unnecessary and costly delays in projects that range from timber harvests to highway construction. The task force will travel around the country for six months to study and hold field hearings on the law.

Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) and the task force leader, Rep. Cathy McMorris (R-WA), say the law has spawned too many lawsuits. "NEPA should not be a lawyer’s favorite four-letter word," McMorris said.

The Resources Committee’s Ranking Democrat, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), said Democrats would participate on the task force but he is concerned the law is under attack, noting the various instances where Congress has recently attempted to curtail NEPA provisions.

Although environmentalists and committee Democrats fear the task force will be used to dramatically change the law, Pombo denied that NEPA is under attack and said he believes the task force will recommend "tweaks" to the law rather than wholesale changes.

Pombo said the piecemeal changes are a key driver behind the decision to create the task force. "Instead of doing this on a bill-by-bill basis … I thought it was wise to just look at the whole law," he said.

However, it remains to be seen whether making significant changes to NEPA will have much traction in Congress.

Sen. Tom Carper’s (D-DE) move to block President Bush’s nominee to lead the U.S. EPA until he gleans new data on his air pollution legislation could, if successful, break the ice on stalled Clean Air Act negotiations and lead to the first major set of amendments to the law since 1990.

Negotiations on air pollution legislation have been practically nonexistent since March, when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee deadlocked 9-9 on a version of the Bush Administration’s original 2002 "Clear Skies" bill that had been rewritten by panel Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). Republicans say Democrats obstructed Bush’s Clear Skies in committee, while Carper and his fellow Democrats contend they never received enough information from EPA to allow them to negotiate fairly.

In light of the impasse over information requests, Carper has planted a hold on EPA Administrator nominee Stephen Johnson. Before dropping the hold, Carper told reporters he must get an "ironclad" promise from the Administration that it will analyze his legislative proposal for power plants against Clear Skies and a more stringent plan from Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Jim Jeffords (I-VT). Carper said he would take the information and restart negotiations with the hope Bush will be able to sign a new set of Clean Air Act amendments into law before Congress adjourns for the August recess.

Absent EPA turning over the information, it appears the only way Bush can get Johnson into his post on a full-time basis would be by forcing a Senate vote to override Carper or through a recess appointment.

Some of the estimated 3,500 idle oil and natural gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico could be converted into deep-sea fish farms, under a plan supported by the Bush Administration.
Ocean fish farming is currently limited commercially to waters within state jurisdiction, but a Commission on Ocean Policy report recommended last year that the country should move forward with offshore aquaculture. In response, President Bush listed offshore farming legislation as a priority for this year. Proponents have said that the farms would provide a needed boost to coastal communities that have lost jobs and money as the traditional fishing industry has struggled.

Opponents of the plan have said they are concerned about creating the equivalent of feedlots in the ocean. "It’s much like chickens or hogs or other confined feeding operations on land and putting them in the ocean," said Roger Rufe, President of The Ocean Conservancy. "There are considerable [pollution] issues with that."

The House Resources Committee endorsed drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain as part of a package of energy measures approved by voice vote. Committee members rejected an effort by Democrats to strip the drilling provision from the measure by a vote of 30 to 13.

The legislation approved by the Resources Committee will be merged with energy measures moving through other committees and could be considered by the full House as early as next week. The energy legislation is similar to what was approved by a House-Senate conference committee in 2003 but died because of a Senate filibuster.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), who led the effort to prevent drilling, said automobile mileage standards should be increased as a way to save oil before tapping the refuge. Earlier in the day, the Energy and Commerce Committee rejected his effort to increase mileage standards.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) said residents of his state want drilling because it would provide jobs and fund government services. "If I thought for one moment that the environment would be hurt, I would not be for this," he said.

In March, the Senate included a provision allowing drilling in its budget resolution — the first time the Senate has endorsed development in the refuge since President Bush took office.

Two New England senators introduced legislation requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force power plants and other industrial sources to make deeper reductions of mercury emissions than would be required under the agency’s current regulations. The "Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act" takes aim at a series of controversial EPA rules, including the standard released by EPA in March that would allow the electric utility industry to buy and sell credits to reduce its mercury pollution down to 15 tons by the mid-2020s.

The bill sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would trump the Bush Administration’s mercury trading program and instead mandate strict pollution controls for nearly all the country’s 1,300 coal- and oil-fired power plants. While EPA’s rule calls for a 22-percent cut in mercury emissions by 2010 from today’s 48-ton level, the Snowe-Leahy bill would require a 90-percent cut during the same time period.

The Snowe-Leahy bill, unlike other legislation debated in recent years on power plant pollution, goes beyond electric utilities to address a host of other U.S. mercury sources. Those include solid waste incinerators, commercial and industrial boilers, chlor-alkali plants and cement plants. The bill also would require labeling of mercury-containing products to limit mercury emissions in the waste stream.

The lawmakers also include a provision requiring the Defense Department to report on its use of mercury and the steps it is taking to stabilize and recycle old mercury and another directing EPA to work with Canada and Mexico to analyze mercury emissions in North America.

A federal judge ruled the government can no longer allow ships to dump without a permit any ballast water containing non-native species that could harm local ecosystems. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately repeal regulations exempting ship operators from having to obtain such permits.

In 1999, several environmental groups petitioned the EPA to repeal the ballast-water exemption. They claimed the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants, including biological materials – such as invasive species – into U.S. waters without a permit. When the EPA denied the petition, the conservation groups filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco in 2003.

EPA had argued that monitoring ballast water dumping was the responsibility of the Coast Guard, effectively allowing ship operators to release ballast without the permits required by the Clean Water Act.

The Canadian government signed an agreement with automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 5.3 million tons by 2010. The deal includes increased fuel efficiency, more alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles and an advertising campaign urging the purchase of more efficient autos. It avoids a fight between the Canadian government, which is struggling to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol, and the country’s auto industry, which accounts for 12 percent of the country’s manufacturing gross domestic product.

But major automakers said the deal would not change their stance against similar California standards. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry’s main trade group, sued California, alleging its standards overstepped the state’s powers to regulate pollutants.

The Senate confirmed Stephen Johnson on April 29 as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 11th Administrator and the first career staff member to lead the agency. Johnson, the Acting Administrator, won the right to the post when the Senate voted to invoke cloture 61-37 and override a "hold" by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE).

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee endorsed Johnson on a 17-1 vote earlier this month, but Carper blocked his progress as a protest of EPA’s failure to analyze three competing legislative proposals aimed at revising the Clean Air Act.

As the lead Senate Democrat in the various efforts to rewrite the Clean Air Act, Carper had asked EPA to conduct an analysis comparing his air pollution bill with the president’s "Clear Skies" legislation and a more stringent proposal from Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT).

EPA officials met with Carper in recent days to try and satisfy his information request but the meetings came to naught when Carper demanded a more thorough analysis. An EPA spokeswoman said the agency made a good-faith effort to provide Carper with everything it could.

Democratic aides say the administration refused to conduct such an analysis because it would show the downside of one of the administration’s high-priority legislative items. Republicans counter that the EPA rarely conducts the kind of research Carper requested, especially so early in the legislative process.

The House of Representatives approved broad energy legislation that seeks to improve the reliability of the electrical grid, increase domestic energy production and save power by extending daylight saving time. Opponents say it is deeply flawed for its emphasis on traditional fossil fuels.

Republican authors of the measure, which was adopted on a 249-to-183 vote, first had to beat back a flurry of amendments, including a last-minute effort to eliminate liability protection for producers of MTBE, a gasoline additive blamed in groundwater pollution nationwide.

The narrow 219-to-213 vote to retain that provision virtually guarantees a clash with the Senate, where opposition to legal immunity for MTBE blocked the energy bill in 2003, sidelining a chief domestic initiative of the Bush Administration.

Many Democrats and some Republicans said the measure, which provides $8 billion in tax breaks to energy producers and billions of dollars more in direct federal aid, was too friendly to industry and gave short shrift to energy efficiency and renewable fuels.

The House is considering a proposal that contains a provision to give the President the power to abolish any federal agency. The Bush Administration has been pushing the idea since 2001, when it outlined the legislation as the "Federal Sunset Act." After failed attempts, the White House included the measure this year as part of its budget proposal.

The legislation would mandate the periodic review of federal agencies and abolition of those that are unable to justify their existence. Under the plan, every federal agency would have an expiration date at which it would be abolished unless Congress reauthorizes it. The evaluation process would be undertaken every 12 years by a 12-member Sunset Commission, composed of members of Congress and the public. Under the plan, approval from five commissioners could spell the end of any program or agency.

Republicans said they may give Congress — rather than the president — the power to appoint Sunset Commission members, in an attempt to win more congressional support.

The House Resource Committee’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Task Force held a field hearing last week in Spokane, WA. The event was the first public hearing of the congressional effort to examine local effects of the 35-year-old law. About a dozen people spoke before the committee, most of them in favor of the law.

NEPA directs agencies such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to conduct environmental studies of projects or permit applications under consideration to assess the potential effects of those proposals, and allows for public input and comment in government decisions. Supporters say it is an important way to limit development on public land and grant protection to endangered species.

A provision in the House energy bill would limit NEPA reviews of renewable energy projects to two alternatives — the project as it is proposed and the "no action" alternative — instead of studying the effects of a wide range of alternatives. The House task force’s six-month review, scheduled to conclude this fall, is aimed at determining the need for these and other changes to NEPA in a stated attempt to streamline the law and avoid litigation and delays.

The Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), will chair a field hearing Saturday in Jackson, MS, the heart of what lawmakers intent on rewriting the law see as fertile territory for building support for their efforts. Pombo and other Republicans are trying to craft legislation to revise the 30-year-old law.

While the pressure on Capitol Hill for revamping the law comes from Republicans from the West — where the Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.) is the focus of a struggle over use of and access to public lands — the South is home to a large number of listed species. Many of those protected plants and animals are found on private property, and southern lawmakers are beginning to hear more and more from their constituents about conflicts, said the spokesman for the Resources panel, Brian Kennedy. The hearing was requested by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R).

Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that found the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has generally followed its priority guidelines in spending money on endangered species’ recovery — but did so mostly by happenstance. FWS’s funding decisions were based to a "significant extent" without its priority guidelines serving as the driving factor, the report says. While most of the agency’s money is spent on high-priority species, FWS places over 90 percent of its species in its top two priority rankings, GAO says. None of the plants and animals in the highest priority category were among the 20 species receiving the most federal dollars.

Resources Committee spokesman Brian Kennedy said the report shows the priority system is almost meaningless and pointed to the report as another argument that E.S.A. is not working and in need of change.

A White House push for space exploration threatens federal research efforts on climate science, the leader of a federal science panel told lawmakers April 28.

Berrien Moore, the co-chairman of a National Academy of Sciences panel and a University of New Hampshire professor, told the House Science Committee that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) shift toward space exploration is putting current earth research programs "at risk of collapse." At greatest risk, he said, are presidential initiatives such as the Climate Change Research Initiative and the subsequent Climate Change Science Program, the umbrella group that directs the administration’s efforts to study global warming.

"Recent changes in federal support for Earth observation programs are alarming," Moore’s panel concluded. "Opportunities to discover new knowledge about Earth are diminished as mission after mission is cancelled, descoped or delayed because of budget cutbacks."

Overall, President Bush requested $2.06 billion for earth science programs in his fiscal year 2006 budget, down from $2.2 billion requested last year.

Timothy Killeen, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, tried to put the NASA funding in perspective for committee members. "In sheer budgetary terms, NASA is the single largest environmental science program supported by the federal government," he told lawmakers.

NASA’s Associate Administrator Alphonso Diaz contended that the agency is in a transitional phase, shifting some of its earth research responsibilities to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has similar equipment to conduct research.

Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said it is clear that NOAA is "not ready" for the transition and urged Diaz to work more closely with that agency.

Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) is working on his own reauthorization bill of the country’s largest fisheries law, with the hopes of introducing a bill later this year. Gilchrest said he would like to work on a reauthorization of Magnuson in a way that ensures retention of environmental protections while making sure assessments are done in a timely way.

"Nobody, especially myself and Mr. [Ranking Member Frank] Pallone (D-NJ), wants to see environmental protection rolled back, especially as we move toward ecosystem management. We don’t want to reduce science, public input, alternative or environmental protection," Gilchrest said. "But we don’t want to make it so cumbersome that reviews are outdated by the time they are done."

Gilchrest noted the concern that fishery management actions may take too long if all the plans and regulations that Magnuson requires are subject not only to its own review process but also to the full NEPA review. He said one concern is that the reviews take so long, they are outdated by the time they are completed.

Gilchrest joins Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) in the effort to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Stevens has vowed to usher a bill through his own committee this year. Gilchrest said he would work as closely with Stevens as he could and try to parallel his efforts but would definitely have his own bill.

The Magnuson bill dates to 1976 and has formed the basis of U.S. fishery management in waters between three and 200 miles offshore, an area known as the Exclusive Economic Zone. The bill’s funding authorizations expired five years ago, and congressional efforts to reauthorize it have been stymied by debates over how to balance the need to restore depleted fish stocks while ensuring the economic livelihood of the nation’s seafood industry.

ESA scientists from West Virginia and Pennsylvania met with the congressional offices of their Senators and Representatives to emphasize the importance of funding basic research across scientific disciplines. The meetings formed part of Congressional Visits Day, a two-day annual event that brings scientists, engineers, researchers, educators, and technology executives to Washington to raise visibility and support for science, engineering, and technology. ESA helped to sponsor and organize the event.

In addition to meeting with members of Congress, participants themselves were briefed on federal science budgets by key policy makers from a range of institutions, including the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, House Science Committee, Smithsonian, and AAAS. ESA also organized an additional session focusing on ecological and agricultural sciences.

Scientists’ perspectives on federal funding of science come at a crucial period in the year, as congressional committees are crafting multiple appropriations bills for fiscal year (FY) 2006 and attempting to reconcile them with the President’s budget request for federal agencies.

The Bush administration repealed the Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule, replacing it with a program allowing governors 18 months to petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to protect inventoried roadless areas on national forests in their states.

As Democratic lawmakers pledged to fight the repeal, many western governors and industry groups celebrated the release of a new Bush Administration rule that they say would lead to a more balanced use of national forests with expanded community and state involvement.

Under the final rule, officially the “State Petitioning Rule”, the advisory committee — a 12-member panel of representatives from "diverse national organizations interested in the conservation and management of National Forest System inventoried roadless areas" — will have 90 days to review each petition submitted by the states. The Agriculture secretary would then have 6 months to accept or decline the petition. If a petition is accepted, USDA and the state would cooperate in a state-specific rulemaking that would be subject to public review and National Environmental Policy Act analysis. As with the proposed rule from last summer, the Agriculture secretary would have the final say.

If a state fails to petition USDA or if an application is rejected, roadless areas would be subject to the management plans of each forest. Some of those plans allow for long-range development of logging, mining and other commercial activities, but agency officials have noted the majority of roadless areas would be protected under current plans.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), Ranking Member of the House Forests Subcommittee, said he would reintroduce legislation this year that would codify the Clinton roadless rule. Although the roadless rule is an administrative rulemaking, congressional Democrats have attempted in previous years to make it permanent.

"A salient underlying assumption here the White House made is that the national forests belong only to the people who live within those states," Inslee said. "You and I own those national forests in Alaska just as much as Don Young does," he added, referring to the Alaska Republican Congressman.

But such an effort likely has little chance in the House, where western GOP lawmakers have lamented restrictions on industry activities in national forests.

Defense Department (DOD) efforts to win flexibility and exemptions under several environmental laws are reaching a key stage this week as the House and Senate Armed Services Committees move ahead with defense authorizing bills. As in past years, military officials are seeking language easing application of several statutes to firing ranges and other training activities, claiming the provisions are needed to help ensure readiness.

Environmental groups and other opponents are ramping up pressure to stymie the Pentagon in efforts to win relief from the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Superfund.
The military has won new flexibility and relief under the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in recent years, but has not made headway with the air, waste and Superfund laws.

A suite of environmental groups, local and state government officials, water utility associations and several other opponents are opposing the exemptions. Groups are in particular pressing Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to claim jurisdiction over the environmental statutes and keep the issue in his committee instead of the Armed Services Committee.

"If he [Barton] fails to assert jurisdiction over DOD’s proposals, then it sails," said Grant Cope of the Sierra Club. An Energy and Commerce Committee aide said that no decision had yet been made.

Pressure is gathering on lawmakers. On May 9, for instance, state and local air quality regulators in a letter to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee urged them to block the effort.

"The CAA exemptions DOD is seeking are unwarranted and would impede local, state and federal efforts to attain and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards and deliver healthful air to the citizens of our nation. Such exemptions would also interfere with efforts to protect air quality in national parks and other important ecosystems," said the letter from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.

Opponents are also reiterating claims that existing environmental laws do not impede military training and readiness.

ESA has issued comments in the past on proposed environmental exemptions for the Defense Department:

http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Letters/dodEnvironmentalLaws.php

Facing stringent salmon restrictions in the western U.S. due to record low runs, members from Oregon’s and California’s Democratic Congressional delegation asked federal officials for disaster relief for fishers and others in the industry.

"This will result in catastrophic economic losses for fishing families and for fishing dependent communities," wrote 37 House Democrats in a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. "The estimated loss to the West Coast commercial fishing fleet could, by conservative estimates, be tens of millions of dollars."

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries is looking into whether losses suffered by the salmon industry qualify for a disaster declaration. Such a move would qualify fishers and others for long-term, low-interest loans and other assistance.

A wide range of international requirements on labeling and traceability of genetically modified (GM) crops has made compliance by the U.S. food industry complicated and costly, says a newly released report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The report, which was issued by an USDA advisory committee, said clarifying some requirements and putting some testing mechanisms in place could help the U.S. food sector meet the challenges of new international regulations on products of biotechnology.

Meanwhile, some in the U.S. food industry struggle to comply with the new European Union rules on labeling and traceability of biotech foods. Under the rules, all food containing more than 0.9 percent of GM material would have to carry a label indicating the presence of the technology. U.S. officials have blasted the requirements as a trade barrier.

The requirements have been further complicated in recent months by the discovery of an unapproved genetically modified strain of corn that recently contaminated U.S. stocks. In April, the E.U. last month issued a list of 26 biotech products that are approved for use in its member states and voted to block imports of U.S. maize animal feed and grains unless accompanied by analytical reports that guarantee them to be free of the strain.

The United States is looking to join an international treaty calling for the phase-out of a dozen of the world’s most hazardous pesticides and chemicals, a U.S. official said as delegates from 130 nations met for high-level talks in Uruguay.

The United States and Russia are the biggest industrialized countries that have yet to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants– a U.N.-sponsored treaty seeking to restrict 12 chemicals commonly known as the "dirty dozen."

"Our hope is that next year we will be a party to the treaty," said Claudia McMurray, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Environment.

Some 98 countries have ratified the convention that calls on countries to stop production, sale, and use of the substances, many of them found in poisons used to fend off or kill mosquitoes, termites and other insects found on crops or in homes.

Among them are Polychlorinated Biphenyls, or PCBs, dioxins, and DDT. Others include furans and the pesticides aldrin, hexachlorobenzene, chlordane, mirex, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin and heptachlor.

While having widespread support among U.S. lawmakers, the treaty remains stuck before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is waiting for other Senate and House committees to draft legislation that would bring U.S. law into alignment with other signatories over the methods by which toxic chemicals would be added to the restricted or banned list in the future.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the energy bill, voting 21-1 to send the measure to the Senate floor. The bill is now headed for a near-certain floor fight over climate change, renewable energy, fuel efficiency, offshore oil and gas drilling, liquefied natural gas, electricity regulations and ethanol.

Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden cast the lone vote against the bill. Wyden said after the session that his "no" vote centered on "cars, carbon and corn," as the bill has no increase in auto fuel efficiency standards, does not directly address climate change, and provides what he considers to be unnecessary subsidies and incentives to the ethanol fuel production industry.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) had been expected to propose an amendment in committee that would allow states to petition to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration and give states that allow offshore drilling a 50-percent stake in royalties. The royalties provision is seen as an incentive for states that do not now allow offshore drilling to reconsider their positions.

Landrieu withdrew her amendment in favor of a proposal, which the committee accepted, to establish an inventory of outer continental shelf oil and gas resources.

When the floor debate begins, Democrats are expected to raise issues that were not addressed during the markup, including proposals by committee Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to impose a carbon cap-and-trade program to control greenhouse gas emissions and to include renewable sources in energy portfolios.

Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) predicted the Senate would take up the energy bill shortly after it returns from the Memorial Day recess June 6.

A federal judge rejected the Bush administration’s strategy for protecting endangered salmon in the Columbia and Snake rivers for failing to fully consider the effect of dams on the species and ordered the government to rewrite the plan for the second time in two years.

At issue was the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 2004 biological opinion, in which the agency decided against analyzing the wide range of 14 dams’ effects on salmon because some dam operations are not discretionary and, therefore, are not under the jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.).

But Judge James Redden of the U.S. District Court for Oregon disagreed. He found only one exemption from the law: decisions of the so-called God Squad, a committee of Cabinet-level officials who can exempt projects from E.S.A. review.

"If Congress had meant to provide additional exemptions, it would have done so," Redden says in his 58-page opinion.

According to Redden, NMFS should have also considered what it would take to recover the fish when deciding whether the dams jeopardize salmon. NMFS primarily analyzed whether the dams would degrade habitat enough to diminish salmon survival and did not take into account the larger goal of recovery. While a biological opinion is written to maintain survival, and a separate recovery plan is required to lay out how to recover the stocks, survival includes an element of recovery and the opinion should lend itself to recovery of the species, Redden wrote. In both the 1995 and 2000 opinions NMFS did work toward recovery, and the agency’s regulations and handbook on E.S.A. also call for this.

The Ecological Society of America issued comments on the NMFS’ 2004 biological opinion:

http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Letters/LetterNMFSColumbiaRiver11292004.php

Several lawmakers are preparing climate change amendments for the energy bill that goes to the Senate floor in June.

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) formally introduced a new version of their "Climate Stewardship Act," that includes a cap-and-trade plan and new incentives for nuclear power and other technologies that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Another climate amendment will come from Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Ranking Member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Bingaman’s planned amendment would essentially codify climate recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy. An Energy Information Administration analysis requested by Bingaman found the commission plan would harm the economy less than other climate proposals. The commission’s proposed system would reduce emissions at a slower pace than the McCain-Lieberman bill and would advance a "safety valve" to prevent economic harm if the price of carbon credits rose too high.

The House Resources Committee passed legislation that would reauthorize the Marine Mammals Protection Act. The watershed 1972 Marine Mammals Protection Act established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on taking marine mammals in U.S. waters and the high seas, as well as on importing marine mammals and marine mammal products.

H.R. 2130 would add several provisions to the act and broaden its oversight for take reduction plans in fisheries. The bill would also add a $1.5 million authorization for marine mammal research grants to federal or state agencies and public or private institutions. It would authorize $1.5 million for research and development to improve fishing methods and gear to reduce bycatch.

After objections from Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV), Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) pledged to examine outstanding issues such as bycatch, the definition of harassment, the relationship with the military, and research questions. "It is not a final solution," Gilchrest said of the bill.

Gilchrest has tried to pass full reauthorizations of the act in the past, but legislation has been hung up by inability of members to agree on a definition of "harassment" caused by Navy sonar equipment, among other disputes.

Gilchrest’s bill would strike the word "commercial" in the current legislation’s fisheries take reduction language, opening it up to recreational fisheries as well.

The House Science Committee moved legislation that would codify the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the first time, giving the agency a mission and further defining its responsibilities. The committee handily passed the measure by voice vote, along with another bill that would establish a college scholarship program for science students that agree to work at NOAA after graduation.

The NOAA Organic Act, H.R. 50, came from Environment Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI). The bill defines NOAA’s mission as understanding and predicting changes in the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere, conserving and managing ocean and coastal ecosystems, and educating the public.

The legislation maintains a NOAA leadership structure similar to what currently exists, keeping the agency within the Commerce Department, with an undersecretary at the helm along with an assistant secretary of Commerce for oceans and atmosphere. The bill also would establish a deputy assistant secretary for science and technology within the NOAA leadership to oversee the agency’s wide-ranging research programs.

But while it is a NOAA Organic Act, the bill does not deal with any of the issues under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, most notably fisheries, coastal zone management and ocean mapping and charting. Those matters could be contentious as the legislation heads to Resources.

NOAA was created by executive order in 1970 under the Nixon administration and has been operating without a congressional mandate ever since.

The House passed a nearly $17 billion fiscal year 2006 agriculture bill, providing over $2 billion for various conservation and environmental programs but still falling millions of dollars short of conservation levels set in the 2002 farm bill. The Senate is expected to take up its farm spending measure in late June.

Several environmental riders made it into the bill — including amendments to increase funds for watersheds and invasive species.

The spending measure includes almost $940 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and $794 million for conservation operations, cutting the program by over $60 million from the FY ’05 funding levels. It also limits a number of conservation programs below the level authorized by the farm bill.

The 2002 farm bill had the largest conservation title U.S. agriculture had seen, creating an array of programs to pay farmers to idle farmland for wildlife habitat or make environmental improvements on working land. The legislation set mandatory funding levels and called for them to increase each year.

But in the face of tight budgets, appropriators have set limits on the programs every year. Farm bill conservation programs have already seen cuts of $3.8 billion below the levels set in the landmark agriculture authorization, according to the American Farmland Trust.

The programs have been very popular with farmers, with the NRCS only able to fund one out of every four farmers who applies for the programs.

The Conservation Security Program, the new "green payments" program for working lands, would come in at $258 million — more than $50 million higher the program has ever seen before but not up to the levels of uncapped entitlement as was envisioned in the farm bill.

Lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill introduced two separate comprehensive oceans bills. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) floated a new wide-ranging oceans bill, while Reps. Sam Farr (D-CA), Tom Allen (D-ME) and Curt Weldon (R-PA) from the House Oceans Caucus took the cover off a revamped version of their large oceans bill, similar to an effort they put forward last year.

Both bills push for greater research, investment and protection of ocean resources, in response to calls last year by the nonprofit Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for better ecosystem-based management. But it remains questionable if the bills will see attention in committee, since the chairmen of those panels are already gearing up for oceans legislation of their own.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) has said he would like to work on his own fisheries bill, a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And House Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) has also said he would work on Magnuson-Stevens, as well as adding resources elements to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) organic Act already passed by the House Science Committee.

Boxer’s legislation would restructure oceans governance, making NOAA independent and creating a Council on Ocean Stewardship. The bill revamps fishery management, requiring NOAA and regional fishery councils to develop plans to protect and sustain fish populations and requiring an ecosystem-based approach to determining the health of a fishery.

The House proposal — the "Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act" (OCEANS-21) — would put ecosystem-based management as a top priority and create a Cabinet-level committee on ocean policy.

The Bush administration unveiled legislation aimed at increasing five-fold the amount of fish produced in domestic fish farms by 2025. The legislation would establish a process for setting up farms in federal waters three to 200 miles off the coast, where private companies would be able to operate farms under 10-year renewable leases — a significant departure from current regulations, which confine fish farming to near-shore state waters. Officials hope to grow the U.S. fish farming industry from $1 billion per year to $5 billion per year and cut seafood imports, which now constitute more than 70 percent of U.S. production. The legislation, which would open 3.4 million square miles of ocean to fish farming, follows the recommendations of the Commission on Ocean Policy.

"We need to operate our fisheries in the U.S. as a business," said National Marine Fisheries Service Director William Hogarth. "Wild-capture fisheries will not be able to meet future demand.”

Fish farming is controversial, however — disease and parasites sometimes spread from farms to wild fish, farmed fish can interbreed with wild species, and chemicals from the farms can accumulate in coastal waters.

"I believe aquaculture is incredibly important," said Ecological Society of America member Jane Lubchenco, an Oregon State zoology professor. "Now is the time to make sure it grows in a way that is good for human health and the environment. I would like to see the right kinds of checks and balances before we launch into this massive offshore experiment and it is too late."

Lubchenco, a member of the Pew Oceans Commission that recommended in 2003 halting the expansion of fish farming until national standards are developed, said fish farms should focus on herbivores and omnivorous freshwater fish due to their lower environmental impact.

The Senate Finance Committee will forge ahead this summer with a proposal to revamp federal tax law for donations of land and conservation easements, according to the panel Chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

Changes sought by the committee include creation of an accreditation system for conservation groups and increased public disclosure for charities. Additionally, Grassley’s committee will examine changes to the tax code recommended by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Those changes include reducing the deduction taken on donation of land easements from 100 percent to 33 percent or less and limiting farmers’ ability to deduct the value of easements if they continue to live on the property.

Conservationists said such changes would severely impact nonprofit groups’ ability to preserve open space. "If those recommendations were enacted, it would virtually stop private donations of land conservation in America," said Rand Wentworth, president of the Land Trust Alliance.

Concerns over the use and abuse of easements for tax purposes began in part after a Washington Post series alleged the Nature Conservancy spent millions of dollars to buy land, placed development restrictions on it and then resold it to the group’s supporters at a discount.

Mayors of 50 cities worldwide convened at an annual U.N. World Environment Day conference and marked the event by signing a set of 21 urban environmental accords. The ratification of the Urban Environment Accords, designed to fight global warming and increase sustainability, was the capstone of the meeting, which this year focused on "green cities." The signatories pledged to improve the environment of their cities in seven broad areas: energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health and water.

Pollution and consumption of water in China are growing so fast that more than 100 of the country’s biggest cities could soon be unable to quench the thirst of their populations, a Chinese cabinet minister warned.

Qiu Baoxing, Deputy Minister of Construction, said urgent action was needed to halt the deterioration of water supplies, which is increasingly cited as an economic risk and a cause of public protests.

Home to the world’s biggest population – 1.3 billion people – and some of the driest regions on the globe, China has always had a water problem, but the strains have steadily worsened in the past 25 years as industrialization and urbanization have surged ahead. While international attention has focused on economic growth rates of more than 9 percent a year, local concerns have increasingly centered on the decline in water and air quality.

The assessment came after a Chinese government report admitted the country failed to improve its environment last year despite a series of policy announcements and speeches on the subject by leaders. According to the report industrial toxins, human waste and agricultural fertilizer have polluted all seven of the country’s major rivers and 25 out of the 27 major lakes.

"China has taken many steps to control the water contamination, but its speed across the country has not been arrested," Liu Hongzhi, the official responsible for pollution control in the state environmental protection agency, said. "China has failed to list water conservation in its social and economic plan in the past several years." A quarter of the population lacks access to clean drinking water.

Federal police targeted Brazil’s environmental protection agency Thursday in a crackdown on illegal logging, arresting 48 officials and several independent businessmen. Authorities alleged that officials within the agency, Ibama, were responsible for allowing the illegal clearing of 119,000 acres of Amazon rainforest over the past two years — much of it on Indian reservations and in national parks.

Among those arrested was Hugo Jose Scheuer Werle, Ibama’s top official in Mato Grosso state. Werle is accused of accepting money from loggers in exchanges for documents declaring the wood was legally removed from the rainforest.

The crackdown, announced by Justice Minister Marcio Thomaz Bastos and Environment Minister Maria Silva in Brasilia, the capital, comes just weeks after the government said the Amazon rainforest was disappearing at an alarming rate. In May, the government announced that the Amazon rainforest shrank by 10,000 square miles in the 12-month period ending last August.

Almost half that destruction occurred in Mato Grosso state, where Werle was in charge of approving forestry management plans submitted by loggers to ensure they complied with strict environmental laws in the Amazon.

Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton announced the resignation of Dr. Charles Groat as Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), effective June 17, 2005. Dr. Groat will resume his academic career at the University of Texas at Austin.

In his letter of resignation to President Bush, Groat said his term as USGS Director has been the most challenging and rewarding part of his career.

"As the need for a more thorough understanding of complex natural systems and their interaction with human activities has grown, I have endeavored to increase the ability of the USGS to provide this knowledge,” he said. “By reducing internal organizational barriers to collaborative research among our geology, water, biology, geography, and geospatial information disciplines, we have been a leader in integrated approaches to scientific inquiry."

A permanent replacement must be nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

After firmly rejecting an energy bill amendment that would set mandatory caps on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Senate agreed to a nonbinding resolution urging Congress to enact such market-based limits.

Lawmakers in a 38-60 vote defeated a plan by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for limiting greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. Afterwards, the Senate in a voice vote approved New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s “sense of the Senate” resolution that puts the chamber on record for the first time as saying it agrees that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to global warming.

The resolution urges Congress to "enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such emissions." It also includes the caveat that the cuts must not significantly harm the U.S. economy while also seeking comparable action by foreign countries that are U.S. trade partners and key sources of greenhouse gases.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici called for a series of July hearings on global warming legislation that would establish mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. officials have worked to weaken sections of a proposal for joint action on climate change prepared by the Group of Eight industrialized nations in advance of a July summit in Scotland, according to leaked drafts of the plan. At the request of the United States, negotiators working on the document have deleted mentions of how rising temperatures are affecting the world, targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and tougher environmental standards for World Bank power projects.

One section deleted at the insistence of the United States reads: "Inertia in the climate system means that further warming is inevitable. Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans." U.S. negotiators replaced that passage with this sentence: "Climate change is a serious long term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose country holds the G8 presidency, has said he intends to make climate change one of two top issues at the talks in July.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing that it would relax regulations limiting grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study.

A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired recently from the BLM, said their conclusions that the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers.

Eliminated from BLM’s final draft was a conclusion that read: "The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general."

The regulations, expected to be published in July, will leave rangeland health standards and guidelines developed by BLM’s Resources Advisory Councils intact. BLM officials said the regulations are meant to give land managers and ranchers more flexibility. The changes, they said, were part of a standard editing and review process.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a proposal that rewrites federal guidelines for restoring depleted fisheries. The proposal would overhaul the guidance for the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the landmark law that forms the basis of fisheries management, and replace the existing 10-year standard for rebuilding depleted stocks.

NMFS officials said the plan would speed the recovery of depleted fish stocks, but some independent fisheries experts said the changes would have the opposite effect for many species.

"It will drag out the rebuilding process and lengthen it in all respects," said Ecological Society of America member Andrew Rosenberg, a former NMFS Deputy Director and a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The proposal would not change the underlying rules of Magnuson-Stevens but overhaul the guidance for how the nation’s eight regional fishery management councils must meet the overall goals of the law. The guidance gives the councils more specific guidance but greater flexibility to develop their management plans, according to Rebecca Lent, the Service’s Deputy Director.

The rulemaking comes as the Bush Administration, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) and House Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) all prepare to introduce their own versions of a Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill.

A new Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) policy in the Southwest that limits the use of genetic data in determining if a species should be taken off the Endangered Species List violates the agency’s directive to use the best available science, according to a letter of protest sent by more than 160 scientists.

"This is a pretty powerful weapon to disable protection for endangered species," said Sally Stefferud, a retired Fish and Wildlife Service biologist and spokeswoman for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "If you accept the premise that all populations of a species are interchangeable, you have much more leeway to let some be wiped out," she said.

The policy, announced in January, applies only the FWS’s Southwest Region. In essence, the ruling says that the information used to determine whether all distinct lines within species need to be protected is limited to data available when the species was first listed.

Regional Director Dale Hall said opponents have misunderstood the intent and that the rule was made to be consistent with a federal judge’s ruling in an Oregon case regarding protections for salmon.

More than 130 strains of hatchery salmon will remain protected under the Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.) in the Northwest, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) said. The announcement comes after NMFS promised last year that it would begin to count hatchery-bred fish along with wild-spawning salmon when considering whether to protect the fish.

Both environmentalists and property-rights advocates criticized the new policy, which agency officials said would emphasize protection of wild-spawned salmon. However, in some circumstances hatchery fish could be counted as part of the salmon stock in question.

"We have a very clear decision in 2001 by Judge [Michael] Hogan, who indicated we are required by law to take into account hatchery fish," said Bob Lohn, Northwest Regional Administrator of the agency. "This rule is our way to say how we take them into account. We think it is consistent with the best science."

Critics, however, charge that the decision will make it easier for the government to remove runs from protection because counting hatchery fish could exaggerate the health of a particular salmon population.

The Ecological Society of America has issued comments in the past on hatchery-bred salmon: http://esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Letters/Lettersalmon06302004.php

The House passed a multiagency spending bill with over half a billion dollars in funding cuts to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) oceans and research programs.

The bill provides $3.43 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $526 million less than the agency received in Fiscal Year 2005 and $200 million below the Bush administration’s budget request.

The White House Office of Management and Budget had asked the House to restore funding for climate research and key ocean and coastal programs, including a fishery research vessel and protected species programs. But members approved an amendment from Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) that would divert $50 million from NOAA funds to the Justice Department.

The amendment would include cutting $12 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service and $8 million from the National Oceans Service, according to Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Alan Mollohan (D-WV), who opposed the measure.

The House bill also funds the National Science Foundation at $5.64 billion, an increase of $171 million over last year and $38 million above the budget request. The bill includes $4.38 billion for research, $157 million over last year; and $807 million for education and human resources, $70 million above the request.

The bill is now being considered by the Senate.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton’s (R-TX) request for the personal and financial records of three scientists who wrote a controversial climate change study is an attempt to intimidate them, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) said.

In a letter to Barton, AAAS Chief Executive Officer Alan Leshner said the "aggressive congressional inquiry into the professional history of scientists" could intimidate other researchers. He said the Barton’s requests "give the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."

At issue is a four-year-old graph, published in the journal Nature by the three scientists that depicts global average temperature records stretching back 1,000 years. It shows a sharp increase during the 20th century, with an upward curve resembling the blade of a hockey stick. Often cited as evidence that human emissions are the dominant cause of rising global temperatures, the graph became controversial after it appeared in a 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

Barton’s request came after two Canadians with no expertise in climate change published academic papers and opinion articles challenging the methods used to generate the graph. He requested detailed explanations as well as raw data, documents and financial information from the scientists.

The inquiry has since been criticized by scientists, Democratic lawmakers, and the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), who sent a letter to Mr. Barton calling the investigation "misguided and illegitimate."

Larry Neal, a spokesman for the Energy and Commerce Committee, responded to Mr. Boehlert’s letter. "Requests for information are a common exercise of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s responsibility to gather knowledge on matters within its jurisdiction," he said. "When global warming studies were criticized and results seemed hard to replicate by other researchers, asking why seemed like a modest but necessary step. It still does."

Scientists expressed concerns about Mr. Barton’s apparent presumption that Congress might reveal truths that the scientific process cannot. That sentiment was echoed in a letter sent to Mr. Barton by Ralph J. Cicerone, the new president of the National Academy of Sciences and one of the country’s leading atmospheric chemists.

Dr. Cicerone said a Congressional investigation “is probably not the best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating.” He offered the services of the academy, which traditionally has served as an arbitrator on complicated, controversial scientific issues.

Advocates for creating national fishing quota standards are hoping a pending bill on Capitol Hill will help influence lawmakers to deal with the issue while debating fishery management reauthorization.

Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME), William Delahunt (D-MA) and Robert Simmons (R-CT) introduced "The Fishing Quota Standards Act of 2005", which draws on recommendations for quota standards from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) systems are market-based approaches to fishing. Under an IFQ, a fisher is allocated a certain percentage share of a fishery that can be used at any time during a fishing season. IFQs are controversial, with some conservationists arguing that standards need to be instituted to avoid privatizing a public resource at the expense of ecosystem health. Congress previously placed a moratorium on IFQs to study their potential effects, but that expired in 2002.

The President’s Ocean Action Plan last year endorsed IFQs, and several are under development in different fishery management councils, including red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and the Alaska and West coast reef groundfish fisheries.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) and House Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) have each said they would like to introduce and pass their own Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bills. The large fisheries management bills would likely deal in some way with IFQs.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is also working on its own Magnuson-Stevens proposal, which it is expected to release later in July.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) plans to reintroduce legislation to permanently place 58.5 million acres of national forests off limits to roadbuilding, logging and other development. He will be joined by House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and over 150 original cosponsors, said an Inslee spokesman. A "Dear Colleague" letter on the roadless issue was circulated shortly after the Bush administration officially replaced the Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule in May. The proposed legislation would codify the Clinton rule.

Inslee and Boehlert introduced a similar bill during the 108th Congress, as did Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Warner (R-VA). The only vote on the issue came in 2003 during debate over the FY ’04 Interior Department spending bill; the House defeated an Inslee amendment to codify the Clinton rule, 185-234.

Many Western lawmakers and industry groups criticized the 2001 Clinton rule as a last-minute, arbitrary move to limit industry activities in forests. Critics said the roadless designations were often drawn randomly with little input from communities or businesses and applauded the effort to get states involved. The Bush administration officially repealed it in May 2005, replacing it with a program granting governors 18 months to petition the Agriculture Department to protect inventoried roadless areas on national forests in their states.

A House Resources Committee spokesman said it is doubtful Inslee’s bill will receive a hearing.

ESA has issued comments on roadless areas in the past:
http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Letters/roadlessStatePetition10202004.php

Congressional Democrats called U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft plans for crafting a new environmental justice strategy badly flawed because they "disregard" consideration of race. Several — including Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) are considering a bid to add new language to the Interior and Environment spending bill in conference, a House aide said. The provision would say EPA’s plans contravene a Clinton-era executive order and bar spending on any efforts to violate the order.

More than 70 Democrats sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson that also includes other criticisms. It raises concern that the draft plan is too tilted toward crafting national environmental justice priorities, without sufficient regard to the needs of specific communities. EPA hopes to create about a half-dozen priority areas and has floated possibilities, including reducing asthma attacks, revitalizing contaminated sites and providing safe drinking water.

Two draft documents EPA released in June — the "Environmental Justice Strategic Plan Outline" and "Framework for Integrating Environmental Justice" — are meant to form the basis for the environmental justice strategic plan for 2006-2011. EPA is drafting the plan to integrate its environmental justice efforts into the planning and budgeting process.

Environmental justice refers to addressing the problem that minority and poor areas bear disproportionate environmental effects from industrial facilities and other sources of pollution. The 1994 executive order instructs federal agencies to make environmental justice a part of their missions by addressing the disproportionate effects of their policies on low-income and minority populations.

But lawmakers who signed the letter fault the planning documents for failing to address race specifically when making decisions on environmental justice policies.

"This is a significant departure from existing environmental justice policies and is in direct contradiction with the intent of the Executive Order. We believe it will do nothing to reduce the existing disparate impacts suffered by low-income and minority communities and may contribute to the future increase of these impacts," the letter says.

An EPA spokeswoman said the agency is committed to environmental justice and implementing the Clinton order. "The draft Environmental Justice Strategic Plan Framework is designed to ensure significant, measurable environmental and public health benefits for communities that have disproportionate environmental burdens, many of which have predominantly minority and low-income populations," said spokeswoman Stacie Keller.

European Commission members are expected to proceed with tough new environmental regulations after meeting to address the future of the European Union’s (EU) environmental policy.

The 25 members of the European Commission debated whether to postpone proposals concerning air pollution and carbon-dioxide emissions, but a majority of members favored going ahead with the regulations. Commission President José Manuel Barroso had called for a delay to the debate after seeing the details of a plan to tackle air pollution, leading some to think the laws would be shelved in favor of pro-business regulation.

At issue is whether the 25-nation bloc can accelerate economic growth while maintaining its environmental commitments. Earlier in July, the commission delayed plans to carry out environmental initiatives in the European Union while members reconsidered the financial effect on Europe’s economy. Additionally, Barroso called for a review of six other strategies that propose environmental policies that would have entailed a series of new regulations on water quality, waste, soil, natural resources, pesticides and the urban environment.

Experts said that the latest meeting was just the first in what is likely to be an ongoing battle over the regulations’ economic impact.