Oil and Gas Drillers Take on Forest Service in Court Battle to Frack Allegheny National Forest
A federal judge in Erie scheduled oral argument for July 2, 2012 (9 a.m., in the Erie Federal Courthouse) regarding recent motions filed by parties involved in litigation over oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny National Forest. U.S. District Court Judge Sean McLaughlin ordered the arguments in the case, Minard Run Oil Co. v. U.S. Forest Service.
The litigation began three years ago after the Forest Service entered into a settlement agreement with three conservation groups—Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Allegheny Defense Project and Sierra Club. Under the settlement, the Forest Service agreed to undertake “appropriate” environmental analysis of proposed oil and gas drilling projects prior to authorizing access across Allegheny National Forest lands.
The plaintiffs in the litigation, Minard Run Oil Co. and Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, sued the Forest Service and the three conservation groups, claiming the settlement exceeded the Forest Service’s authority to protect Pennsylvania’s only national forest from the impacts of oil and gas drilling.
In December 2009, Judge McLaughlin granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which blocked the settlement from going into effect while the case was being litigated. Both the Forest Service and the conservation groups appealed that preliminary decision. In September 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld Judge McLaughlin’s preliminary decision. According to the courts, because the Forest Service does not own the mineral rights beneath 93 percent of the Allegheny National Forest, the agency cannot regulate access to the mineral estate, even though that access directly impacts national forest lands through extensive road, well site and pipeline construction.
The parties are now at loggerheads about how the case should proceed. As will be explained further below, the conservation groups want Judge McLaughlin to reconsider his preliminary decision because of new research into the history of the creation of national forests in the eastern U.S. The oil and gas plaintiffs want Judge McLaughlin to simply convert his previous preliminary decision into a permanent injunction against the Forest Service. That would effectively bar the Forest Service from attempting to implement any measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of most oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny National Forest—a result that is already contributing to cross-state pollution entering New York.
For example, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) recently filed an administrative complaint against U.S. Energy Development Corporation because of sediment pollution from its oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest. The amount of sediment runoff from oil and gas roads in the Allegheny National Forest is staggering. A recent report by Penn State’s Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies concluded that oil and gas roads in the Allegheny National Forest produce 450 percent more sediment pollution than other public roads in Pennsylvania. The Forest Service should obviously be allowed to regulate to protect our forested watersheds from that kind of reckless pollution.
According to the courts, however, the Forest Service is powerless to regulate this pollution in the Allegheny National Forest. The courts and the oil and gas industry assure the public that this does not mean that oil and gas drilling will go completely unregulated in the Allegheny National Forest because the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) still regulates oil and gas drilling at the state level. Of course, if the PADEP were doing its job, the NYDEC would not have to file an administrative complaint against U.S. Energy for sediment pollution originating in Pennsylvania.
The fact is, the PADEP sees itself as a facilitator of oil and gas drilling rather than a regulator. That is why the Forest Service must be allowed to regulate to protect the Allegheny National Forest—and it is precisely why eastern national forests, including the Allegheny National Forest, were created in the first place.
In 1911, Congress passed the Weeks Act, the first federal law allowing the Forest Service to acquire private lands in the eastern U.S. for designation as national forests. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, flooding and forest fires were rampant throughout the eastern U.S. because of widespread, unregulated clearcutting. One of the primary purposes of the Weeks Act was to allow the Forest Service to regulate to protect these lands and reduce sediment pollution in our streams and rivers.
House and Senate reports published prior to the Weeks Act’s passage, reveal a common theme: that the states had failed to protect these lands and could not be expected to correct the problem. In other words, Congress recognized that the flooding and wildfires caused by unregulated clearcutting were a national problem, not merely a state or local problem. The purpose and intent in passing the Weeks Act was to provide the Forest Service authority to regulate land use so as to protect these forests and watersheds. That authority must include the power to regulate access across the federal surface for the extraction of privately owned minerals.
There is nothing in the congressional record indicating that Congress did not intend for the Forest Service to regulate private oil and gas drilling activities in eastern national forests. In fact, just the opposite is true. The congressional record reveals that Congress intended the Forest Service to have the same power over eastern national forests as it had over national forests in the western U.S. That would include the authority to require private oil and gas companies to implement reasonable mitigation measures to reduce their environmental impact in the Allegheny National Forest.
Furthermore, the Weeks Act required that the federal government obtain consent from the state legislature prior to establishment of national forests in the state. In May 1911, the Pennsylvania legislature expressly consented to the creation of what would eventually become the Allegheny National Forest. The Pennsylvania legislature said that the federal government would have authority to pass laws that “in its judgment may be necessary for the management, control and protection” of national forest lands. In other words, the Pennsylvania legislature unambiguously turned over the “management, control and protection” of lands that would become the Allegheny National Forest to the federal government.
A century later, the oil and gas industry is attempting to erase this history. Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted Act 13. Most people are aware of this legislation because it stripped local municipalities from being able to pass ordinances aimed at protecting communities from the onslaught of shale gas drilling.
Another provision of the act, however, allegedly “clarified” the 1911 legislation consenting to the creation of the Allegheny National Forest. Act 13 says that the original consent legislation was never intended to allow the federal government, through the Forest Service, to regulate oil and gas companies in the Allegheny National Forest.
Of course, if the Pennsylvania legislature intended such a result, it could have easily inserted such a provision in 1911. Oil and gas drilling had been around for approximately 50 years at that point, so the state legislature in 1911 was certainly aware of the issue. The current state legislature cannot revoke or modify the consent of the 1911 state legislature.
These are just some of the issues that are going to be debated at the hearing on July 2. Show your support for the Allegheny National Forest and sensible regulation of the oil and gas industry by attending the hearing. Contact the Allegheny Defense Project for details regarding hearing.
We need you there to show support for the protection of our Allegheny National Forest. We need you to witness the proceedings. Join us on July 2 at 9 a.m. at the Erie Federal Courthouse (17 South Park Row, Erie, Pa). Call 814-520-4639 if you need more information.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The U.S. reported more than 55,000 new coronavirus cases on Thursday, in a sign that the outbreak is not letting up as the Fourth of July weekend kicks off.
- The U.S. Isn't in a Second Wave of Coronavirus – The First Wave ... ›
- Navajo Nation Has Highest Covid-19 Infection Rate in the U.S. ... ›
- U.S. Coronavirus Cases Top 2 Million as All 50 States Start ... ›
By Jason Bruck
Human actions have taken a steep toll on whales and dolphins. Some studies estimate that small whale abundance, which includes dolphins, has fallen 87% since 1980 and thousands of whales die from rope entanglement annually. But humans also cause less obvious harm. Researchers have found changes in the stress levels, reproductive health and respiratory health of these animals, but this valuable data is extremely hard to collect.
Researchers work with trained dolphins to learn more about their sensory abilities, seen here testing a dolphin's hearing. Jason Bruck / CC BY-ND
A Lot to Learn From Hormones<p>When sampling the blow, we are looking for hormones in mucus as these can be used to gauge psychological and physiological health. We are specifically interested in <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0114062" target="_blank">hormones like cortisol</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2018.04.003" target="_blank">progesterone</a>, which indicate stress levels and reproductive ability respectively, but can also help determine overall health.</p><p>Additionally, blow samples can detect <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2FmSystems.00119-17" target="_blank">respiratory pathogens</a> in the lungs or nasal passages - blowholes evolved from noses after all.</p><p>This health analysis is especially important in areas with oil spills as the chemicals can cause hormonal problems that harm <a href="https://www.carmmha.org/investigating-how-oil-spills-affect-dolphins-and-whales/" target="_blank">development, metabolism and reproduction</a> in dolphins.</p><p>Hormone samples can provide scientists with valuable data, but collecting them from intelligent and unpredictable animals is challenging.</p>
Cetacean Collaborators<p>To build a drone that can stealthily collect spray from moving dolphins, we needed more data on their eyesight and hearing, and this is data that couldn't be collected in the wild nor simulated in a lab.</p><p>We worked with dolphins at facilities like Dolphin Quest in Bermuda, which provides guests opportunities to learn about dolphins while allowing <a href="https://dolphinquest.com/about-us/our-story/" target="_blank">scientists access to animals for noninvasive research</a>. Here the dolphins can swim away if they choose not to work with us, so we had to design the study like a game; the way a kindergarten teacher entertains a class. If the dolphins aren't interested, we don't get to do the science.</p><p>Over the course of hundreds of sessions, we sought to answer two questions: What can dolphins hear and what can they see around their heads?</p><p>To test dolphin hearing, we set up microphones and cameras to record dolphin behavior as we played drone noise in the air. We analyzed the responses to each noise – such as how many dolphins looked at the speaker – and used these as a proxy for their ability to hear the sounds.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5f31daf07a652b8d64a093b993ee4e96"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UjmQeH3vXHI?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Robodolphin doesn't look like a real dolphin, but it doesn't need to in order to train our drone pilots. C.J. Barton / Oklahoma State University / CC BY-ND<p>To build robodolphin, we worked with dolphins trained to "chuff" or sneeze on command to measure spray characteristics. We used high-speed photography to see the dolphins' breath as it moved through the air. Then we conducted high resolution CT scans of a dolphin head and 3D-printed a replica of a nasal passage.</p><p>Now, we have a complete robodolphin and are tweaking its sprays to be nearly identical to the real thing. This will allow us to determine how close we need to get to collect the samples, and therefore, how quiet our drone needs to be.</p>
The replica dolphin blowhole was designed from a scan of a real blowhole passage, and the spray it produces closely matches the real thing. Alvin Ngo, Mitch Ford and CJ Barton / Oklahoma State University / CC BY-ND
A Bit of Practice, Then Into the Wild<p>In the next few months, we will test flights over robodolphin with existing drones to determine the timing and strategy for collection. From there, we will fabricate a low-noise drone that can fly fast enough and with sufficient maneuverability to capture samples from wild dolphins. Like a video game, we will use the visual field data to develop approach trajectories to stay in the visual blindspots.</p><p>We plan to test our drones on a truck-mounted robodolphin moving down a runway, then using a boat to simulate realistic conditions. The next steps will involve ocean testing with dolphins trained for open ocean swimming. These tests will determine if our devices can catch and hold the hormones as the drone flies back to a researcher's boat.</p><p>Finally, we will deploy the system to collect data on wild dolphins. Our first goal is to test resident dolphins – animals that live on the coasts and deal directly with boat and oil industry noise – which will allow us to learn more about stress resulting from human impacts.</p><p>Those samples are a way off, but if all goes well we will have a specially built drone capable of flying long distances and capturing samples undetected in a few years. The samples collected will allow researchers to do better science with impact on the animals they study.</p>
- Drone Footage Captures Rare Finless Porpoises in Hong Kong ... ›
- Brazil's Amazon River Dolphin Faces Extinction After Fishing ... ›
- 10 Surprising Dolphin 'Superpowers' - EcoWatch ›
Sunscreen pollution is accelerating the demise of coral reefs globally by causing permanent DNA damage to coral. gonzalo martinez / iStock / Getty Images Plus
On July 29, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a controversial bill prohibiting local governments from banning certain types of sunscreens.
- Your Guide to Reef Friendly Sunscreens - EcoWatch ›
- Hundreds of Sunscreens Don't Work or Have Unsafe Ingredients ... ›
- FDA Study: Sunscreen Chemicals Seep Into the Bloodstream ... ›
By Kelli McGrane
Oat milk is popping up at coffee shops and grocery stores alike, quickly becoming one of the trendiest plant-based milks.
- Is Oat Milk Gluten-Free? - EcoWatch ›
- What Nutritionists Think About Starbucks' Three New Plant-Based ... ›
- 6 Alternatives to Milk: Which Is the Healthiest? - EcoWatch ›
"Emissions from pyrotechnic displays are composed of numerous organic compounds as well as metals," a new study reports. Nodar Chernishev / EyeEm / Getty Images
Fireworks have taken a lot of heat recently. In South Dakota, fire experts have said President Trump's plan to hold a fireworks show is dangerous and public health experts have criticized the lack of plans to enforce mask wearing or social distancing. Now, a new study shows that shooting off fireworks at home may expose you and your family to dangerous levels of lead, copper and other toxins.
- No Social Distancing or Mask Requirement at Trump's Mt ... ›
- Trump's Fireworks Show at Mt. Rushmore Is a Dangerous Idea, Fire ... ›
By Ashutosh Pandey
Billions worth of valuable metals such as gold, silver and copper were dumped or burned last year as electronic waste produced globally jumped to a record 53.6 million tons (Mt), or 7.3 kilogram per person, a UN report showed on Thursday.
Environmental and Health Hazard<p>Experts say e-waste, which is now the world's fastest-growing domestic waste stream, poses serious environmental and health risks.</p><p>Simply throwing away electronic items without ensuring they get properly recycled leads to the loss of key materials such as iron, copper and gold, which can otherwise be recovered and used as primary raw materials to make new equipment, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions from extraction and refinement of raw materials.</p><p>Refrigerants found in electronic equipment such as fridge and air conditioners also contribute to global warming. A total of 98 Mt of CO2-equivalents, or about 0.3% of global energy-related emissions, were released into the atmosphere in 2019 from discarded refrigerators and ACs that were not recycled properly, the report said.</p><p>E-waste contains several toxic additives or hazardous substances, such as mercury and brominated flame retardants (BFR), and simply burning it or throwing it away could lead to serious health issues. Several studies have linked unregulated recycling of e-waste to adverse birth outcomes like stillbirth and premature birth, damages to the human brain or nervous system and in some cases hearing loss and heart troubles.</p><p>"Informal and improper e-waste recycling is a major emerging hazard silently affecting our health and that of future generations. One in four children are dying from avoidable environmental exposures," said Maria Neira, director of the Environment, Climate Change and Health Department at the World Health Organization. "One in four children could be saved, if we take action to protect their health and ensure a safe environment."</p>
Europe Leads the Way<p>While most of the e-waste was generated in Asia (24.9 Mt) in 2019, Europe led the charts on a per person basis with 16.2 kg per capita, the report said.</p><p>But the continent also recorded the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/the-eu-declares-war-on-e-waste/a-51108790" target="_blank">highest documented formal e-waste collection and recycling</a> rate at 42.5%, still below its target of 65%. Europe was well ahead of the others on this front. Asia ranked second with 11.7%.</p><p>The authors said while more that 70% of the world's population was covered by some form of e-waste policy or laws, not much was being done toward implementation and enforcement of the regulations to encourage the take-up of a collection and recycling infrastructure due to lack of investment and political motivation.</p><p>"You have to think about new economic systems," said Kühr.</p><p>One approach could be that consumers no longer buy the products, but only the service they offer. The device would remain the property of the maker, who would then have an interest in offering his customers the best service and the necessary equipment. The maker would also be interested in designing his products in such a way that they are easier to repair and easier to recycle, Kühr said.</p>
- Dangerous Chemicals From E-Waste Found in Black Plastics From ... ›
- Electronic Waste Study Finds $65 Billion in Raw Materials ... ›
- Electronic Waste: New EU Rules Target Throwaway Culture ... ›
- COVID-19 Masks Are Polluting Beaches and Oceans - EcoWatch ›
- Plastic Packaging Use Increases During the Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Worsens Thailand's Plastic Waste Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Plastic Waste Polluting the Environment - EcoWatch ›