Coastal Zone Management Bills
The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, led by Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU), will hold a legislative hearing on the following bills:
- H.R. 3223 (Allen): To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to establish a grant program to ensure coastal access for commercial and recreational fishermen and other water-dependent coastal-related businesses, and for other purposes. (Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007)
- H.R. 5451 (Bordallo): To reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and for other purposes. (Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008)
- H.R. 5452 (Capps): To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to authorize grants to coastal States to support State efforts to initiate and complete surveys of coastal State waters and Federal waters adjacent to a State’s coastal zone to identify potential areas suitable or unsuitable for the exploration, development, and production of renewable energy, and for other purposes. (Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008)
- H.R. 5453 (Capps): To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to authorize assistance to coastal states to develop coastal climate change adaptation plans pursuant to approved management programs approved under section 306, to minimize contributions to climate change, and for other purposes. (Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008)
FY 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Geological Survey Budget
- Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Mark D. Myers, Director, U.S. Geological Survey
Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) I know that you all have talked some about the alarming loss of common birds in our country. Alarming it is. I almost can’t believe it. The numbers that I’ve seen are absolutely atrocious. And one thing that I’d like to explore with you real quick, the Audubon Society has stated that the cause of the dramatic decline of birds is the outright loss of habitat due to poor land use, the clear-cutting of forests, the draining of wetlands and sprawl. Now, in light of such a stinging indictment as that, how does the administration justify a 70 percent cut in land acquisition?Hall I don’t know.
Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) That’s a good answer.
Chandler That’s one of the best answers I’ve heard in a while, because I think that’s accurate. I appreciate that.
Interior will decide 71 listing proposals this year, FWS saysAllison Winter, Greenwire reporter
The Interior Department will decide this year on proposed endangered species listings for 71 species, a nearly tenfold increase in the number of species listed in the Bush administration’s first seven years.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall told a House panel yesterday that the administration would chip away at a backlog of hundreds of species awaiting protection. The service will decide on listings for 71 species this year and 21 more in 2009.
There are more than 280 species on the candidate list, whose listing is “warranted but precluded” because of lack of funding or other higher priorities, federal scientists say. And there are hundreds of additional plants and animals on whose behalf environmentalists have filed petitions.
Among species the agency plans to consider this year: the sand dunes lizard, three kinds of mussels, two snails, insects and dozens of plants.
The effort marks a turnaround for the administration that has hesitated to list any new plants or animals. President Bush’s Interior Department has listed only eight species – compared with 62 by the Clinton administration and 56 under President George H.W. Bush. All eight listings came in response to lawsuits.
If the agency decides to protect any of the 92 species on its list for determinations, the long timeline for such considerations would likely move final decisions to the next administration.
“It took us a little bit, but we hope this will help us to get on track,” Hall said. “We slipped out of the mode.”
Environmentalists have criticized the administration for its hesitance in listing species and said that while this announcement is welcome, there would still be a backlog of hundreds of species.
“I think it certainly indicates a little movement, but this is long overdue movement,” said Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity, which has petitioned and sued for the protection of hundreds of plants and animals under ESA.
“I guess that’s a decent baby step, but the listing program has so many problems associated with it, it is really hard to be overjoyed at this point,” Snape added. In wake of scandals
The service is acting after the Interior inspector general found that the department’s deputy assistant secretary had edited scientific decisions on endangered species. The agency is revising seven rulings that former Deputy Secretary Julie MacDonald was involved in, and Hall said the service has a new policy to keep scientific decisions from reaching political levels.
“The department has allowed me to separate and have the science stop with the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service,” Hall said yesterday. “It should not be creeping up to non-scientists.”
The service director is a political appointee required by law to have a background in biological sciences. MacDonald had a degree in civil engineering and no formal education in natural sciences.
‘Weeks’ until polar bear decision
The administration’s most high-profile listing decision, the polar bear, should be made “within weeks,” Hall said. He said the service has completed its work and the Interior Department is reviewing the decision.
“It needs to be reviewed and explained to Interior, it can take a while to understand,” Hall told reporters.
If listed, the polar bear would be the first mammal protected under ESA because of global warming. Hall said the agency has been “trying to make the decision the best it can be,” but still expects legal challenges.
“We expect a lawsuit no matter what decision we make on almost anything,” Hall said.
Suboleski Nomination Withdrawn
Former Massey Energy executive Stanley Suboleski, who was nominated by the president to be the Department of Energy assistant secretary for fossil energy, was scheduled for his nomination hearing before the Senate today. The Office of Fossil Energy funds advanced coal technology efforts and recently received fire for discontinuing the FutureGen coal-tech initiative.
E&E News reports that the White House withdrew his nomination last night, saying that Suboleski asked to be withdrawn “for personal reasons” Monday afternoon.
JW Randolph, Appalachian Voices Legislative Associate, made the following statement before his withdrawal was made public:In 2000 in Martin County Kentucky, despite repeated warnings about the serious violations where the impoudment broke, Massey Energy was responsible for a slurry spill that was 30 times larger than the Exxon Valdez disaster. The EPA called it the “worst environmental disaster in the history of the Southeast.” Massey called it “an Act of God.”Now, President Bush wants to promote a Massey Executive to “Assistant Secretary of Energy (fossil energy).” While we are extremely disappointed, we can’t act as though we are surprised. The promotion of Stanley Suboeski is consistent with the Bush Administration’s vigorous efforts to remove every shred of responsibility and decency from the process of extracting coal, ignoring the human cost at every turn.
By promoting mountaintop removal mining, the Bush Administration and Massey Energy have transferred the dangers inherent in coal-mining from the professional miners doing the work onto the surrounding civilian communnities who now have to deal daily with fly rock, poisoned water, and toxic coal waste. Putting Stan Suboleski at the top of the fossil energy food chain is yet another reckless example of the President rewarding his friends and contributors in the fossil fuel industry, and ignoring the true cost of coal to the people in the Appalachian region.
Senate Investigation Finds Top EPA Officials Supported California Waiver
In a press conference yesterday, Senate Environment and Public Works chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) revealed internal EPA documents from the agency’s deliberations whether to grant California’s Clean Air Act waiver request to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. Administrator Stephen Johnson denied the waiver in December, the day the president signed the energy bill into law.
The documents include a presentation prepared by Chris Grundler, deputy director at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, for Margo Oge, the director of EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality, intended to be given to Johnson. The presentation states “it is obvious to me that there is no legal or technical justification for denying” the waiver, and that in the case of a waiver denial “I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged.”
The documents also include an itinerary for the administrator showing that on May 1, 2007, he received an internal briefing on the California waiver before attending a White House meeting.
*
- I know you are under extraordinary pressure to make the California waiver decision, and I don’t mean to add to it
- But this likely to be among the two biggest decisions you get to make in the job (along with the greenhouse gas rule you are working on)
- The eyes of the world are on you and the marvelous institution you and I have had the privilege of leading; clearly the stakes are huge, especially with respect to future climate work
- I understand the history and the legal standards for this decision – I made a number of them myself while I was there, including the waiver for the LEV program, which these standards would be a part of.
- From what I have read and the people I have talked to, it is obvious to me that there is no legal or technical justification for denying this. The law is very specific about what you are allowed to consider, and even if you adopt the alternative interpretations that have been suggested by the automakers, you still wind up in the same place
- But I think there must be a win-win here, and you should find it and seize it…...for the sake of the environment and the integrity of the agency
- Word is out about the option to grant the waiver for the first three years and then defer the subsequent years. I don’t have the details, but this sounds like the seed for a “grand bargain”, and would put and the agency in the driver’s seat to craft a national solution: something that my automaker contacts and California both say they want.
- You have to find a way to get this done. If you cannot, you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances. This is a choice only you can make, but I ask you to think about the history and the future of the agency in making it. If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged.
An email from EPA’s Climate Change Division Staff, to EPA Climate Change Division Staff, titled “Outcome of Yesterday’s California Waiver Meeting with Johnson,” October 31, 2007
“On compelling and extraordinary conditions, I got to chime in again. In addition to the argument that climate change may exacerbate CA’s tropospheric ozone problem – for which CA has historically demonstrated compelling and extraordinary conditions – I think Johnson now better appreciates that there are additional conditions in CA that make them vulnerable to climate change: water resources (we spent time talking about this); wildfires (the recent news I think is helping to push him); long coast line; largest population; largest economy; largest ag sector…”*
Redacted portion of May 1, 2007 PowerPoint Briefing
Application of Waiver Criteria – Compelling and Extraordinary Conditions**
- EPA traditionally looks broadly at whether CA conditions such that it still needs its own motor vehicle emission program. We have not examined the need and conditions for specific standards or specific air pollution problem
- Congress wanted CA to be afforded “the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare”
- This allowed CA’s CO standards to be less stringent than EPA standards, to facilitate NOx standards that were more stringent than the federal
- CA has submitted an extensive record concerning the impact of climatic conditions on CA, including: coastal resources and erosion, saltwater intrusion on delta areas, levee collapse and flooding, decrease in winter snow pack reducing spring and summer runoff for municipal and agricultural uses.
- CA has submitted justifications based on impact on high ozone.
An email from Bill Wehrum to staff at EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality and the Office of Air and Radiation, titled “CA Vehicle GHG Regulations,” March 15, 2006
”... —I took another look at the briefing materials from late January. I think we should assert the existence of preemption and propose to deny the waiver based on the absence of compelling and extraordinary conditions…we will need to consult with our interagency breatheren before going forward with a Fed. Reg. notice. I’ll get this started once we’ve touched base with Marcus.”
Climate Change and Vulnerable Societies: A Post-Bali Overview
Witnesses
Panel I- Harlan Watson, Ph.D., Special Representative and Senior Climate Negotiator, Bureau of Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
- His Excellency Ali’ioaiga Feturi Elisaia, Permanent Representative of the Independent State of Samoa
- Mason F. Smith, Charge d’affaires, a.i. of the Republic of the Fiji Islands
- Mr. Charles Paul, Charge d’affaires, a.i., Republic of the Marshall Islands
- His Excellency Masao Nakayama, Permanent Representative of the Federated States of Micronesia
- Her Excellency Marlene Moses, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Nauru
FY 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Budget
We are here today to review the Administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2009 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.WitnessSince this is the Bush Administration’s final budget proposal, let’s ask ourselves a simple question:
Is EPA better able today to protect people and communities from serious public health and environmental problems than it was when this Administration took the reins?
The answer is a resounding “No.”
The Bush Administration’s proposed budget for 2009 represents a 26% decline in overall EPA funding since the Administration’s first budget was enacted, when adjusted for inflation. Budgets are about priorities – this shows the low priority that the Bush Administration places on environmental protection.
- Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
The nominations of Stanley C. Suboleski, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy), and J. Gregory Copeland, of Texas, to be General Counsel, both of the Department of Energy
The White House withdrew Stanley Suboleski’s nomination the night before the hearing, saying that Suboleski asked for his nomination to be withdrawn “for personal reasons” Monday afternoon.
Food for Thought: Sustainability from Counter to Compost
Today, Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee will start a process to look into the choices our nation makes on food and agriculture and how those choices affect our environment, specifically the “carbon footprint” of how we grow, raise, transport, package, dispose of and otherwise provide sustenance to Americans and people around the world. And while changing the way the world creates and consumes energy is the most effective way to combat global warming, so-called “lifestyle” choices like the food we eat will play an increasing role in how to make immediate cuts in the pollution that causes global warming.
In today’s hearing—entitled “Food for Thought”—this hunger for knowledge on food and the environment starts by looking at the food service industry, and specifically at the food choices and serving options Congress makes available right here in the House of Representatives. For millions of Americans, the cafeterias that serve food in hospitals, universities, major employment centers and schools deliver the meals to get them through the day, but the environment is often an afterthought in the face of swarms of hungry patrons looking for calories instead of low-carbon food.
Witnesses- Dan Beard, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), House of Representatives
- Carina Wong, Executive Director, Chez Panisse Foundation
- Patricia D. Millner, Ph.D, Research Microbiologist in the Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory and Environmental Microbial Systems Laboratory, USDA
- Tom Kelly, Ph.D., Chief Sustainability Officer, University of New Hampshire Office of Sustainability
FY 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Budget
- Stephen L. Johnson, Director. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pressed by House panel, EPA chief defends waiver decision (02/26/2008) Katherine Boyle, E&ENews PM reporterU.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson defended his rejection today of California’s waiver request that would have allowed state regulation of motor vehicles’ emissions of greenhouse gases in the wake of the release of agency documents showing that top EPA officials strongly disagreed with him.
Appearing before the House Interior and Environment Subcommittee, Johnson said climate change is not a unique California problem and the state’s petition for a Clean Air Act waiver did not meet the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” required by law.
“Every time another governor, another state representative talks about the need for their state to address global climate change, they’re actually making my very point on the California waiver,” he said.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released documents showing EPA staff members strongly supported granting the waiver.
A presentation prepared for the director of EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality, Margo Oge, urged Johnson to grant the waiver and suggested he would face great outside pressure to deny it.
“If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged,” the presentation says. “You have to find a way to get this done. If you cannot, you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances.”
It is “obvious” there is “no legal or technical justification for denying” the waiver, says the presentation prepared by Chris Grundler, Oge’s deputy director at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Michigan.
Johnson said he only became aware of the presentation when Congress requested documents on the waiver decision.
“It was never presented to me,” he said.
Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) pressed him, asking if Oge ever raised the issues in the presentation.
But Johnson again denied seeing the presentation, although he didn’t say whether Oge raised those points.
“I received a lot of comments from my professional staff, and they presented me with a wide range of options,” Johnson said. “One of the options was denial. One of the options was to grant the waiver.”
Johnson said he will issue a final decision document on the waiver by the end of the week.