The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently announced that it took a considerable amount of actions against people who violated animal welfare regulations.  APHIS has attempted to make the violations transparent and has provided copies of court documents, official warnings, and more. 

The following administrative complaints were filed by APHIS in October for violating the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and Horse Protection Act (HPA):

AWA Docket No. 13-0012; Willa Page

Willa Mae Page was charged with selling dogs at numerous auctions on several occasions without a USDA license—directly violating 9 C.F.R. § 2.1(a)(1).  The USDA has asked her to cease and desist immediately, pay civil penalties, and never again try to obtain a license under the Act again. 

AWA Docket No. 13-0024: David Still; Gloria Still

The respondents were charged with failing to maintain requirements for veterinary care—a direct violation of 9 C.F.R. §2.40.  The shelters for dogs were uncleanly, humid and hot, and cramped.  The dogs did not receive potable water on many occasions, and many APHIS employees were harassed when performing inspections.  The USDA is asking to suspend their licenses and have the respondents cease and desist immediately and pay civil fines. 

A USDA administrative law judge issued decisions and orders in the following case:

APHIS Case No. CA08462; Robert Conyers Customers Brokerage

Robert Conyers was cited for multiple violations in handling nonhuman primates.  He was cited for violating registration requirements, water and food requirements, ventilation requirements, and more during transportation of the primates.  Specifically, he violated 9 C.F.R § 2.25(a), 9 C.F.R § 3.86(c), 9 C.F.R §3.87(c), 9 C.F.R § 3.87(d)(2), and 9 C.F.R § 3.89(c). 

USDA administrative law judges heard multiple other cases, issued multiple decisions, and issued multiple orders in other cases well.  The selections chosen above simply reflect recent cases heard by the USDA. 

The AWA is enforced to make sure minimum requirements and treatment occurs in commercial breeding and selling, research, and transportation for exhibitions.  The Act applies to animals raised for food, and the Act specifically addresses housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from weather and temperature. 

The HPA prohibits horses with soring to participate in shows, sales, auctions, exhibitions, or similar events.  Soring is abusive technique used to highlight the horse’s foot movement, or gait.  The USDA is allowed to conduct random investigations and enforce the AWA and HPA at any time. 

Source: United States Department of Agriculture

According to a recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), organic dairy farms provide more jobs and economic opportunity in rural communities than standard dairy farms.  The study, called “Cream of the Crop: The Economic Benefits of Organic Dairy Farms,” measured the economic value of organic milk. 

The report looked at financial data from two major states in milk production, Vermont and Minnesota.  From 2008 to 2011, Vermont had a total of 180 organic farms that added about $76 million to the state’s economy and supported about 1,009 jobs.  Minnesota had a total of 114 organic farms that added $78 million to the state’s economy and support about 660 jobs. 

The demand for organic milk has greatly increased in the last 10 years for several reasons.  Mainly, consumers are more aware of the nutritional benefits of organic milk over milk produced in crowded and polluted confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  Organic dairy farming is currently a $750 million industry, and sales increased by 12 percent and 10 percent in 2010 and 2011. 

Programs under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (UDSA) and subsidies still favor large CAFOs though.  Jeffrey O’Hara, author of the report and agricultural economist for the UCS’s Food and Environment Program, stated: “Over the past 30 years, dairy farmers have had a choice: either get big or get out. Dairy farmers either had to expand dramatically and become large industrial operations or they went out of business.”

The current Farm Bill provides little support to organic dairy farmer, but the UCS provides several recommendations to legislators now that the elections are over. 

For one, the USDA needs to revise milk marketing orders that have not been revised since the 1930s.  The orders set the minimum prices that dairy processors need to pay farmers, and the old orders do not address organic milk production. 

Secondly, Congress and the USDA need to form a subsidized insurance program for organic farmers.  Current subsidized insurance only applies to standard dairies. 

Lastly, Congress needs to increase funding to organic agriculture entities.  The USDA should also form programs that support development in regional areas, especially rural development grants. 

O’Hara commented, “More and more consumers across the country are choosing organic milk, but Washington hasn’t gotten the message.  Investing in organic dairy production would pay off in multiple ways by keeping small farm businesses afloat, promoting local economic growth, reducing farm pollution, and meeting growing consumer demand.” 

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

On November 13, 2012, the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) approved new nutrient standards for the six major Panhandle estuaries.  The new standards now apply to 72 percent of all state estuaries, including 4,290 coastal miles. 

The new standards apply to the following areas: Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay (and Escambia Bay), Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrew Bay, St. Joseph Bay and Apalachicola Bay.  The new nutrient standards apply to total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and chlorophyll.  The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) was required to form new criteria by June 30, 2013, but they were able to establish new criteria and have the standards approved by the ERC ahead of time. 

At the moment, Florida observes nutrient standards under Chapter 62-302.530 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC).  The chapter states: “in no case shall nutrient concentrations of body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of flora or fauna.”  The chapter also states: “the discharge of nutrients shall continue to be limited as needed to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter.”

The chapters under FAC seem ambiguous because nutrients and nutrient enrichments are not like other pollutants under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  Other pollutants must fall below specific thresholds and concentrations because of known effects to health, but nutrients occur naturally in marine systems.  The problem was finding an appropriate level of nutrients to discourage over-concentration, and the new numeric nutrient criteria attempts to eliminate the ambiguity. 

Drew Bartlett, the Director of the Department’s Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, stated: “Floridians depend on healthy water resources for their livelihoods and everyday enjoyment. We have demonstrated once again, through cutting-edge science and aggressive action, that the Department meets its responsibilities to protect those resources ahead of its own and EPA’s schedules.  We are gratified by the ERC’s action.” 

An overabundance of nutrients in the water can result in a bad taste or bad odor.  Additionally, abundant levels of one nutrient over another can cause algal blooms and large blooms of invasive aquatic weeds that can choke out other natural flora and fauna in certain areas. 

The original DRAFT Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan was submitted to EPA Region IV in May of 2002.  The plan was mutually accepted, and there have been several revisions throughout the last 10 years.  In order to established nutrient levels for waters, the state of Florida receives recommendations from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

On November 19, 2012, Region 7 of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that soil sampling data on Route 66 State Park in Eureka, Missouri, proves the park is not hazardous to workers or the public.  The soil sampling tested for dioxin. 

Starting in the 1980s, the federal government set a goal to reduce industrial dioxin levels from emissions.  More and more sites contaminated with dioxin underwent cleanups because technology could better detect the true level of dioxins and scientific information showed the dangers of the chemicals. 

During the testing, the EPA only found dioxin soil levels of 640 ppt (parts per trillion) in the Route 66 State Park.  Areas such as trails, shelters, picnic areas, playgrounds, dog parks, utility installation areas, and more were tested.  The level is considered safe to all visitors and maintenance, operational, and landscaping workers. 

The area was originally contaminated with high levels of dioxin during the early 1970s when waste oil was sprayed on streets to controls levels of dust.  The spray contained high levels of dioxin, and much of the spraying occurred around the Times Beach area. 

During the 1990s, Times Beach underwent a series of cleanups by the EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).  Some areas of the soil had dioxin contamination levels of 1,000 ppt, and these areas were excavated and backfilled with clean soil.  After the cleanup, the State of Missouri formed Route 66 State Park in 1999. 

Dioxins cover a large category of chemicals that are produced from the burning or processing of chemicals. 

EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks stated: “This is good news for the thousands of people who visit Route 66 State Park each year, and good news for the state employees and others who earn their living there.  It confirms that the work EPA and MDNR did in the 1990s to clean up this site continues to provide a safe recreational area for the public.”

The new wave of testing for dioxin this June in 2012 used more advanced techniques and allowed investigators to detect smaller amounts of dioxin than before.  The EPA approved a new set of dioxin toxicity standards in February 2012, and the testing in June used the newest standards. 

Brooks explained some of the new standards: “EPA Region 7’s risk assessors carefully analyzed the results from all of these samples and applied the new science.  EPA considered multiple factors, including the frequency and duration of an individual’s time spent at the park, to make these calculations.”

The newest standards established by the EPA make it possible for an area previously considered decontaminated to undergo newer cleanup procedures because trace amounts of the pollutant are found with new technology. 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

On November 19, 2012, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) reached a settlement with the town of Hawley and the contractor E.T. & L. Corp. in Stow, Massachusetts.  The town and contractor were accused of removing boulders from the Chickley River, dumping the boulders on the riverbank, and forming a man-made channelization of the river around Hawley. 

All of the actions by the town and contractor caused huge amounts of damage to the ecosystem after Tropical Store Irene.  Their actions violated laws under the Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE), EPA, as well as Trout Unlimited and the Connecticut River Watershed Association. 

After Tropical Storm Irene passed through in August of 2011, MassDEP passed issued emergency certificates to let areas start clearing storm debris, actions that usually require permits under the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) as well as other laws.  The town of Hawley received emergency approval to start cleaning up to storm debris. 

Beginning on November 15, 2011, MassDEP started receiving numerous complaints about Hawley’s efforts along the Chickley River.  Within two weeks, MassDEP took away the town’s emergency certifications and recommended they start hiring a consultant to plan for restoration. 

MassDEP determined that the town and contractor far exceeded allowable measures in the emergency certifications.  The parties violated the WPA because they moved, dredged, and straightened roughly five miles of the Chickley River.  The river’s condition was also worsened compared to before the storm, and the contractor dumped dredged material in areas protected by the WPA. 

The town and E.T. & L directly violated the DFW’s Natural Hertiage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as well.  Parts of the river were protected by the NHESP and Massachusetts Endangered Species Act because a species of dragon fly and the long-nosed sucker fish were protected in these areas of river.  The Chickley River contained cold water that allowed brook trout, brown trout, salmon, slimy sculpin, and long-nose suckers to breed.  NHESP concluded the town’s actions caused significant destruction to the environment. 

The town has agreed to spend $400,000 on a restoration project to the river, and the town of Hawley placed $150,000 in an escrow account to handle maintenance in the future.  E.T. & L. was also required to pay a penalty of $175,000. 

Mary Griffin, the Department of Fish and Game Commissioner, stated: “I am pleased that MassDEP worked with Department of Fish and Game legal staff, our Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and Division of Ecological Restoration to ensure that a robust restoration plan would be the major element of the resolution of this matter.”

Source: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

On Tuesday, November 27, President Obama signed a bill that exempts airlines in the United States from carbon fees imposed by the European Union for every ton of carbon emitted from planes flying in and out of Europe. 

The passage of the bill was commended by Airlines for America (A4A), the trade organization represented the leading airlines in the United States. 

On November 13, 2012, the Senate passed the S. 1956 bill that allows the Transportation Secretary to exempt U.S. airlines flying in and out of Europe from the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).  The bill was passed unanimously by the Senate and by voice vote in the House. 

The bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama because Congress claimed the EU ETS violates international law and U.S. sovereignty.  Additionally, the U.S. claimed that the measure by the EU would counterproductive to current U.S. investments into technology and infrastructure that increases fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. 

Nicholas E. Calio, the A4A President and CEO, stated: “The message could not be any clearer — overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate have spoken:  EU ETS violates U.S. sovereignty and will not do what it purports to as the funds do not have to be used for environmental protection.  There is a better way to improve the environmental efficiency of the airline industry, and U.S.-based carriers are already leading those efforts.” 

The bill was passed by the Senate even though the EU announced it would suspend the requirements on November 12, 2012.  The EU announced it would suspend the carbon enforcement so an international agreement on reducing emissions could be developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), but A4A stated the EU’s decision did not remove the threat of implementing the carbon pricing in the near future. 

A4A reported that the EU law would cost U.S. airlines about $3.1 billion from 2012 to 2020. 

A4A reports that U.S. airlines have led initiatives to reduce emissions compared to other countries, and the trade union also states that U.S. airlines strongly supported policies adopted by the ICAO in 2010.  The new framework called for an annual fuel-efficiency improvement of 1.5 percent ever year up to 2020.  Additionally, the United States has improved fuel efficiency for its airlines 120 percent in the last 30 years.  The fuel efficiency is equivalent to taking 22 million cars off the road. 

Source: Airlines for America