On November 14, 2012, conservation groups filed a suit against the federal government for lifting protection of wolves in Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service originally handed responsibility of wolf management over to the state, even though the Kill-at-Will Wolf Policy is now allowed throughout most of the state of Wyoming. 

Conservation groups claim that wolves are only offered limited protection in areas not covered by the Kill-at-Will Wolf Policy, and they also claim that huge numbers of wolves will be killed and stop the recovery of the wolf population in Wyoming.  The group filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Franz Camenzind, a retired Ph.D. wildlife biologist living in Jackson Hole, stated: “Wyoming’s wolf-management plan is poor policy, weak in its protection of wolves, and based on flimsy science.  Wyoming's plan sets a very disturbing precedent for other states by abdicating management responsibility of a native wildlife species over approximately 85 percent of the state.”

A total of 49 wolves have been killed in Wyoming since the state took over management plans on October 1, 2012.  The killings were performed by state hunting exercises and by private citizens in the “predator zones.”  The number is likely higher because of unreported kills, and the number has already severely reduced the wolf population.  There were only about 328 wolves in the state before the state took over management plans. 

Wolves within the predator zones can be shot, snared or trapped, and the wolves can be pursued by helicopters, planes, ATVs, and snowmobiles.  Wolf pups are even allowed to be killed in their dens. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has denied Wyoming the right to manage their own wolf population in the past because of strict anti-wolf laws in the state, but the state is now virtually free to do what it wants with the wolves in the predator zones.  Conservation groups and independent studies state the reintroduction of gray wolves into the northern Rockies has helped increase the region’s economy and restore ecological balance.  

Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director with the Center for Biological Diversity, stated: “Like past versions of Wyoming’s wolf plan—which were rejected by the Fish and Wildlife Service—the new plan fails to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of these unique animals. The decision to remove protections for Wyoming’s wolves failed to rely on best science. It’s a tragic political intrusion into what should be the scientifically guided management of an important endangered species.”

Source: EarthJustice

On November 8, 2012, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) fined DARN Properties, LLC in Milford for violating state asbestos regulations.  The company was fined a total of $28,372.50 in connection with a renovation project in September of 2011. 

During the renovations, the Mass DEP performed an inspection to make sure any possible asbestos was removed correctly.  During the inspection, it was determined that DARN Properties, LLC removed floor tiles with asbestos and disposed of the tiles in an open-air dumpster on the property. 

Once the Mass DEP discovered the asbestos violations, it required DARN Properties to contact the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards immediately and hire a licensed asbestos contractor to follow protocol in handling, packaging, and disposing of the asbestos tiles.  The dumpster as well as all affected areas on the property were decontaminated as well. 

The Mass DEP fined DARN Properties for these specific violations: “Failing to notify Mass DEP of a demolition/renovation operation involving asbestos-containing materials; and for the improper removal, handling, packing, labeling and storage of asbestos-containing waste materials.” 

State regulations, as well as federal regulations, require companies to notify the Mass DEP or their state’s environmental regulatory agency before the removal of the asbestos begins.  Proper removal and disposal procedures are particularly important with asbestos because the fibers can cause serious health problems. 

The company is required to pay an assessed penalty of $8,500 immediately.  The rest of the fine will be suspended ($19,872.50) if the company follows proper protocol and has no other violations for an entire year. 

Lee Dillard Adams, the director of Mass DEP’s Central Regional Office, announced: “Owners involved with building renovation work must be fully aware of their responsibilities under the regulations to ensure the proper removal, handling, packaging and disposal of asbestos-containing materials.”

He went on say, “Failure to notify Mass DEP of asbestos removal, and to follow prescribed work practices is an extremely serious, and ultimately a costly oversight that potentially exposes workers, tenants and the general public to a known carcinogen.”

If you’re a property owner or contractor and have questions about materials containing asbestos, procedures for asbestos removal, or regulations on asbestos, you should contact the Mass DEP for more information.  You can call 617-292-5500 or write:

1 Winter Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Mass DEP helps enforce clean air and clean water standards, the management of solid and hazardous waste, and the preservation of wetlands and beaches. 

Source: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Following one of the worst droughts in history, several states asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waiver the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)—which requires a certain amount of renewable fuel in standard fuels—in order to provide economic relief.  The EPA released its decision on November 16, 2012. 

According to the EPA, there is no evidence that “severe economic harm” has been caused by the droughts, and thus the agency has decided not to waiver the RFS.  The EPA made its decision after an economic analyses and modeling was performed by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). 

The economic analyses looked directly as the financial harm caused by the drought to the agricultural sector and energy sector.  The EPA and USDA concluded that lifting the mandate would only reduce current prices by about one percent.  Additionally, the EPA and DOE concluded that lifting the mandate would not impact household energy costs at all. 

Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, stated: “We recognize that this year’s drought has created hardship in some sectors of the economy, particularly for livestock producers.  But our extensive analysis makes clear that Congressional requirements for a waiver have not been met and that waiving the RFS will have little, if any, impact.” 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) requires the EPA to make renewable fuel standards and make sure all fuel used for transportation contains a certain amount of renewable fuel.  The mandate can only be lifted if the EPA finds that serious economic harm is caused by the RFS.  No such evidence was found. 

The EPA reported that that it looked at the harm to state and regional economies as well as the national economy during the years of 2012 and 2103, but no evidence of severe economic harm was found. 

The recent waiver request is the second such request submitted to the EPA since the EPAct was passed in 2005.  The state of Texas asked for a waiver in 2008, but the EPA also denied the request. 

This year’s request is the first time multiple states have asked for relief.  The drought experienced in 2012 was one of the worst in history. Although the Dust Bowl drought in the 1930s and droughts during the 1950s were even worse, the drought in 2012 caused severe damage to crops and significantly increased costs for feeding and raising livestock.  Some have blamed the droughts on global warming. 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

On November 9, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services declared that the last unlined landfill in the state stopped operations.  Before officially closing, the Farmington landfill made improvements to grading and drainage, and a low-permeability soil cap was put into place. 

Thomas S. Burack, the NH DES Commissioner, made note that a large percentage of landfills in the state used methods that affected the land, air, water, and human health before the Department of Environmental Services was created in 1987. 

Burack noted that before the formation of the DES, “Residents [in most towns] brought their trash to the “town dump,” where it was burned in the open or in low-tech incinerators, or dumped on the land directly.”  He went on to say that “Partially burned and unburned waste was often left uncovered, inviting vermin and posing a risk of disease transmission.”

Open burning stopped in New Hampshire by the mid-1980s, but many of the landfills remained unlined.  Most landfills would simply cover the trash with soil by the end of each day, and 108 unlined municipal landfills were still operating in 1987.  All these landfills contaminated groundwater—some more than others. 

State and federal laws encouraged New Hampshire municipalities to stop operating unlined landfills by the early 1990s, but the closing of the landfills put a large amount of financial burden on some towns because of capping, drainage, and groundwater monitoring requirements. 

In order to address the financial strain, the Unlined Municipal Landfill Closure Grant Program was passed in 1994.  Under the grant, towns became eligible for a 20 percent matching grant if they closed their unlined landfill properly.  The program was embraced more and more, and with the closing of the last unlined landfill in Farmington, the program has provided $30 million to a total of 116 towns to help close 107 unlined landfills. 

Thomas Burack praised the closing of the last unlined landfill, but he made clear that the state still faces huge challenges in solid waste management.   The state still needs to address how to reduce the overall amount of waste and how to increase recycling and composting.  Additionally, the state needs to embrace more waste-to-energy technologies, land-filling procedures, and incineration techniques.

The state of New Hampshire is responsible for roughly 1.3 million tons of solid waste each year.  It is estimated that each person is accountable for about four pounds of solid waste every year. 

Source: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

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