Conservation and Legislation 2006
by Andy Mason

Contents:

January February March April May June September October November
2005 2004



November 2006

Good news on keeping roadless areas roadless — Environmentalists scored a major victory in wilderness protection in September when Judge Elizabeth LaPorte of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California ruled that the Bush administration had illegally repealed the Roadless Rule for National Forests.

The Roadless Rule dates back to the last days of the Clinton administration when after nearly three years of analysis and the greatest public outreach in the history of federal rulemaking, the U.S. Forest Service adopted the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, to conserve a large portion of unprotected wildland in National Forests.

One of the most significant public lands measures of the last century, the Roadless Rule protected 58.5 million acres of roadless areas on National Forests and Grasslands from most logging and road construction. The rule was supported by 95% of the 1.6 million individuals expressing their views during the public comment period.

However, the promise of the Roadless Rule was short-lived. As soon as President Bush was inaugurated, his administration began efforts to delay, weaken and overturn it. On the day of his inauguration, Bush ordered the postponement of all federal rules not yet in effect. Later that year, the administration opted to not defend the Roadless Rule against legal challenges, an unprecedented action ignoring the law. In addition, the US Forest Service issued directives significantly weakening the rule.

Legal battles ensued with the states, environmental groups, logging companies, Indian tribes and others weighing in. In the meantime, the Forest Service exempted the huge Tongass and Chugach National Forests from the rule, and in May 2005 the administration repealed the Roadless Rule and replaced it with a state petition process. Again challenged by the states, the Bush administration pushed ahead with its plans, and in August of this year, the first logging in roadless areas began.

However, in September, Judge LaPorte set aside the state petition plan and ruled the administration acted illegally in repealing the Roadless Rule. The Tongass National Forest exemption continues under this ruling, unfortunately. Since then, the timber industry has appealed Judge LaPorte's decision, and the Bush administration has grudgingly suspended planned sales in roadless areas.

What you can do — Clearly President Bush will fight as long as possible to open the National Forest roadless areas to logging. Several federal legislators, including Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, have introduced bills that would make the Roadless Rule the law of the land. This would eliminate meddling and delay in implementing the rule.

Write your federal representatives and let them know the small remaining areas of roadless forests must be protected, and ask them to support a law doing just that.

***********************************************************************
Click here for how to contact your governmental officials

Back to top of page



October 2006

Wolves under fire — One of the premier wildlife species, the wolf is a symbol of the magnificence of the wild lands that remain relatively untouched by humans. They are important in maintaining the balance of nature — a fact we see in NY where deer populations have risen dramatically since the extirpation of this top predator.

Our nation has not treated wolves well, however. Millions were trapped, poisoned or shot during the first half of the 20th century, in many cases encouraged by government bounties and policies. Establishment of the Endangered Species Act (EAS) in the 1970s likely saved the wolf from extinction. After a long and hard-fought battle, wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, where they have thrived. Today, 5000 grey wolves can be found in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the desert southwest — still a fraction of their original numbers.

The Bush administration is pushing to remove the ESA safeguards for grey wolves, clearly a premature action. If this change comes about, wolf management and protections will be left to the states. An example of what would happen under this scenario occurred in January of this year, when the Interior Department signed an agreement giving the state of Idaho management authority over wolves in the state. Less than a week later, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game announced its proposal to kill up to 75 percent of the wolves within the Clearwater National Forest's Lolo district, due to unsubstantiated concerns that wolves were causing unacceptable impacts to elk populations there.

In addition, over the past 3 years, Alaska has engaged in an annual aerial kill where wolves are tracked and gunned down by aircraft. Now the program is set to expand the areas where aerial gunning is permitted and to expand the use of snowmobiles to chase and kill wolves.

The Federal Airborne Hunting Act was passed in 1971 specifically to prevent this sort of aerial wolf kill. However, the Bush administration is unwilling to enforce the law and the state of Alaska claims that its actions are technically legal, because it doesn't allow "hunting" of wolves, but rather the "control" of wolves to protect game populations. This year, 152 wolves have already been killed by aerial shooting. Despite two ballot measures in past years that have banned this practice, the Alaska Board of Game continues to promote wolf kills and is now considering killing plans like these to "control" the populations of brown and black bears as well.

What you can do — Contact President Bush and tell him it is too soon to remove the wolf from the Endangered Species Act. Also insist that his administration enforce the Airborne Hunting Act and put an end to Alaska's wolf killing practice. Be sure to send a copy to your federal legislators and to Alaska's Governor, Frank Murkowski (P.O. Box 110001, Juneau, AK 99811-0001; fax 907-465-3532). An online letter to protect Alaska's wolves can be found here.

Elections 2006 — The November election is approaching, and the contest for governor of NY State will likely bring about a significant change in the state's approach to the environment, for better or for worse. Democrat Eliot Spitzer had an excellent environmental record as Attorney General, following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Bob Abrams. He used that office to sue the federal government and states that pollute NY's air from power plants outside the state. He also pushed for significant improvements in emissions from in-state plants. Other areas in which Spitzer has been active include appliance efficiency, water quality and illegal dumping. Republican John Faso has not made the environment a priority in his campaign, with no mention of it in his "Faso Plan". His record as a legislator was also lackluster, receiving low ratings in the annual environmental reviews provided by Environmental Advocates.

What you can do — Be an informed voter and seek out the positions of candidates, including those for State Senate and Assembly. Good sources of information are the NY League of Conservation Voters and Environmental Advocates.

***********************************************************************
Click here for how to contact your governmental officials

Back to top of page



September 2006

Oneonta biomass environmental review continues — The wood-burning biomass electric generating plant proposed to be built in the Oneonta rail yards has received a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Act. This means that the lead agency — in this case the City of Oneonta Planning Commission — has determined that the project will have a significant environmental impact, and that a full review must be done.

The Roundhouse Renewable Energy plant would generate 35 megawatts of power, enough for 35,000 homes. The developer states that the plant will burn about 1,100 tons of wood chips a day, coming from existing logging operations, waste construction lumber, and possibly from fast-growing tree plantations.

A number of environmental concerns have been raised, including the use of up to 360,000 gallons of cooling water per day. This may come from the Oneonta municipal water supply, from wells drilled on site, or from the Oneonta wastewater plant as treated wastewater. Emissions from the plant are expected to be similar to those from 10 or so wood stoves.

Disposal of the cooling water is also an issue. At present the developer plans to discharge it into on-site wetlands, which drain to the Susquehanna River.

Removal of wood that would otherwise be left to biodegrade in the forest could reduce the health of the remaining trees and lower habitat quality for wildlife.

Other issues such as noise, lighting, increased traffic, visibility, etc. have been voiced by city residents.

Ideally the environmental impact statement will expand on these issues and others. It also will look at alternatives to the plant, such as fossil fuel generation, which almost certainly has greater impacts than biomass, including higher greenhouse gas emissions.

What you can do — Stay informed, and participate in the public portion of the environmental review. Comments and opinions can be made now to the City of Oneonta Planning Commission, c/o City Clerk James Koury, City Hall, 258 Main St., Oneonta, NY 13820. City residents can make their views known to their alderman.

New tax benefit for land easements — Although the 2006 NY State legislative session was unproductive in terms of passing the hoped-for Super Bills — including wetland protection, inclusion of non-carbonated beverages under the deposit law, and establishment of a community preservation fund — one little-noticed bill did get through that may have significant impacts on open space preservation in the state.

This legislation provides owners of land protected by a permanent conservation easement with an annual income tax credit equal to 25% of their property taxes. This gives landowners even greater incentive to protect their properties for the future by transferring development rights to land trusts, government, or other non-profits. Until now, tax benefits for these forward-looking individuals had been minimal at best.

The reduction in property taxes does not burden local municipalities, as the credit comes after landowners pay their local taxes. The new tax credit will be available after the state Department of Taxation and Finance promulgates regulations to carry it out.

What you can do — If you presently have land protected by a conservation easement, watch for announcement of the availability of the tax credit. If you would like to be sure your land stays undeveloped and natural for the future, contact a land trust for more information on this valuable tool. Local land trusts include the Otsego Land Trust, (607) 547-2366, and the Schoharie Land Trust, (518) 875-6892.

***********************************************************************
Click here for how to contact your governmental officials

Back to top of page



June 2006

Environmental Protection Fund held hostage in Albany — The NYS Legislature created the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) in 1993 to provide a reliable, dedicated source of funding for a variety of key environmental programs in NYS. The EPF is funded by a dedicated portion of the revenues from the NYS real estate transfer tax, which ensures a reliable stream of revenue to implement EPF projects. Each year, the NYS legislature must appropriate this revenue to the EPF. The EPF is being held hostage! For the first time in 13 years due to political infighting, the EPF is currently being left out of the NYS budget. $200 million is already available to fund the EPF, but is not being dedicated due to political squabbling. Unless the Governor, Senate and Assembly can put politics aside and come to an agreement, the EPF will be bankrupt in the 2006-2007 budget. New York's environment will suffer if this important issue is not resolved.

New York's environment, economy, and public health are dependent upon a strong and fully-funded EPF. The EPF supports numerous programs in every part of the state that have a tremendous benefit to all New Yorkers. A sample of program categories that the EPF supports include:

The EPF must be funded in the 2006-2007 budget. The Governor, Senate and Assembly must agree that our environment is more important than politics. As the 2006-2007 NYS budget is finalized, funding must be appropriated to the EPF to ensure critical environmental programs continue, including funding for environmental education at zoos and botanical gradens.

What you can do — Write Gov. Pataki and your state legislators and urge them to allocate funding to the Environmental Protection Fund in the 2006 - 2007 NYS budget.

***********************************************************************
Click here for how to contact your governmental officials

Back to top of page



May 2006

Environmental issues still pending in Albany — With a budget now in place, the NY State Legislature is turning its attention to other legislation, including some important environmental bills. As mentioned here at the beginning of the legislative session, some of these have come close to passage over the past couple of years, and a good push this time could put them over the top. Also, this is an election year for all State Senators and Assemblymembers, so they should be receptive to hearing from constituents.

Among the bills that are worthy of support are: