On November 16, 2012, Australia’s Environment Minister, Tony Burke, announced requirements to protect over 2.3 million square kilometers of ocean environment.  The area of protected ocean now becomes the largest protected area of sea in the world. 

Praising Australia, Burke stated, “Australia is a world leader when it comes to protecting our oceans, and so we should be, we've got responsibility for more of the ocean than almost any other country on Earth.”

Some commercial fishers expressed their outrage over the reservation of the marine environments, but the Australian government has taken several measures to ensure fishers are least affected by the marine sanctuaries. 

Burke stated, “Even though the new marine reserves have been designed in a way to minimize impacts on industry and recreational users, the Government recognizes that there will be impacts on some fishers and we will support those impacted.”

Additionally, the Australian Government has allocated about $100 million for fisheries adjustment assistance. 

The management plans will follow the schedule below:

·  the plans will address how the reserves should be managed, what types of gear can be used in the reserves, and what activities cannot occur in the reserves

·  while the development of the management plans occur, temporary arrangements will be made for commercial and recreational fishers

·  no “on the water” changes will be made for users of the area from November 17, 2012 until the new management plans become effective in July of 2014

·  all areas with existing management policies will continue to follow the regulations until the new management policies take effect in July of 2014

The new marine reserves are established in the following large marine regions:

Coral Sea Region

This region covers an area half the size of Queensland and is an important nesting site for green turtles as well as an important habitat for sharks and predatory fish. 

Southwest Marine Region

This area stretches from South Australia to Shark Bay in Western Australia.  It is an important breeding ground for species like southern right whales, blue whales, and the Australian Sea Lion. 

Temperate East Marine Region

This area stretches from the southern-most boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to Bermagui in New South Wales.  This area is home to the endangered grey nurse shark and threatened white shark. 

Northwest Marine Region

This is an area between the border of the Western Australian/Northern Territory and Kalbarri in Western Australia.  The area is home to the largest fish in the world, the whale shark, and provides protection for migratory humpback whales. 

North Marine Region

This area extends as far west to the border of the Northern Territory and Western Australia and includes the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Arafura Sea, and Timor Sea.  This area provides refuge for migratory seabirds, and threatened flatback, hawksbill, green, and olive marine turtles use the area as a resting area. 

Source: AU Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

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

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