September, 15 2008, 03:58pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Elizabeth Heyd, NRDC, 202/289-2424 or 202/725-0648 (cell)
Federal Court Rules Clean Air, Wildlife, Quiet Must Come First in America's Oldest National Park
Court ruling will ensure safe, enjoyable experiences for all visitors to Yellowstone
WASHINGTON
A federal court ruled today that the Bush Administration's
decision authorizing snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park
violates the fundamental legal responsibility of the National Park
Service to protect the clean air, wildlife, and natural quiet of
national parks, including Yellowstone, for the benefit of all visitors.
The court found that the Administration authorized snowmobile use
despite scientific conclusions by the National Park Service that its
decision would result in significant increases in noise and unhealthy
exhaust, which disrupt the experiences of visitors, and traffic that
harms Yellowstone's wildlife, including bison.
The
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today invalidated the
Bush decision and directed that the National Park Service's substitute
plan ensures all visitors can safely experience the park, and uphold
laws that require stronger protection of Yellowstone's air quality,
wildlife, and natural sounds.
In a 63-page ruling, Judge Emmett Sullivan stated:
"The
Organic Act clearly states...that the fundamental purpose of the national
park system is to conserve park resources and values." page 18
"NPS
fails to explain how increasing snowmobile usage over current
conditions, where adaptive management thresholds are already being
exceeded, complies with the conservation mandate of the Organic Act."
Page 61-62
"...the Court finds that NPS has failed to articulate why a plan that will admittedly worsen air quality complies with the conservation mandate."
Page 60
"...the
Plan clearly elevates use over conservation of park resources and
values and fails to articulate why the Plan's 'major adverse impacts'
are 'necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park.'"
Page 61
"According to NPS's
own data, the WUP [Winter Use Plan] will increase air pollution, exceed
the use levels recommended by NPS biologists to protect wildlife, and
cause major adverse impacts to the natural soundscapes in Yellowstone."
Page 62
The ruling is available at www.greateryellowstone.org.
"I'm
thrilled that this ruling will restore Yellowstone's profound winter
quiet," said Tom Murphy of Livingston, Montana, a Yellowstone guide and
photographer since 1979 and author of three books about the Park.
"Yellowstone's values have been diminished by snowmobiles. There's no
excuse for it when visitors are increasingly choosing modern
snowcoaches that are less expensive and much less disruptive of the
park and other visitors' enjoyment."
"This
is an important victory for Yellowstone and all of America's national
parks," said Sean Helle, attorney with Earthjustice. "Yellowstone is an
embodiment of one of America's great ideas - that our cherished lands
must be conserved and protected. The Court's opinion reaffirms this
principle."
"Beyond
Yellowstone, the court's ruling reaffirms that a cornerstone purpose of
our national parks is to provide opportunities to enjoy nature and
these opportunities must not be compromised, particularly when
protective alternatives are readily available," said Bob Rosenbaum,
attorney with Arnold & Porter.
Because
it has already studied a range of options for providing broad public
access to Yellowstone during winter, the National Park Service is in a
position to develop a plan promptly that enables visitors to continue
enjoying the park this winter in compliance with the court's order. To
ensure visitor experiences remain safe and enjoyable, and the local
economy strong, the Park Service should ensure that the number of
snowmobiles accessing the park remains this year at the daily average
of the past five seasons-approximately 260 snowmobiles per day.
Following that, the Park Service should work with local gateway
communities and businesses to begin phasing down the number of
snowmobiles in the winter of 2009-2010 while promoting expanded visitor
access on modern snowcoaches.
The
public is increasingly demanding the opportunity to enjoy Yellowstone
via snowcoach. Snowcoach use has grown 89 percent since 2002 due to
increasing visitor demand for comfortable and educational park tours.
Businesses have responded with significant investments in modern
coaches that feature guides knowledgeable about Yellowstone's geology,
wildlife and history.
The
court's ruling is consistent with research conducted by the National
Park Service that indicated the need for greater protection for the
park's wildlife, natural quiet, and clean air:
- Even
with an average of 263 snowmobiles per day during the past five
winters, snowmobile impacts have exceeded Yellowstone's noise
thresholds; - Biologists studying traffic-related
impacts to wildlife during these years recommended capping or further
reducing vehicle numbers in order to protect bison, elk and other
animals often weakened by Yellowstone's harsh winters; - The
number of snowmobiles authorized by the Administration-540 per
day-would represent a doubling of current snowmobile use that has
already been problematic and result in: - A tripling
of the area in Yellowstone where visitors would hear motorized noise
for half or more of the visiting day (63 square miles instead of 21
square miles currently); - Degradation of
Yellowstone's air quality with increases in snowmobile exhaust (carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulates, benzene and formaldehyde) of
between 18 and 100 percent; and - More animals being pushed from preferred habitat, impacting their health and increasing mortality.
"This
ruling reaffirms the idea at the heart of our National Park System-that
the duty of Yellowstone's managers is to preserve the Park for the sake
of all visitors, and to place the highest value on protection of
Yellowstone's unique natural treasures," said Tim Stevens, senior
Yellowstone Program Manager for the National Parks Conservation
Association.
"This ruling
will ensure that visitors are not disappointed by air and noise
pollution when they make the one winter trip to Yellowstone of their
lives," said Amy McNamara, National Parks Program Director for the
Greater Yellowstone Coalition. "We take our hats off to the tour
businesses that didn't wait for this ruling. Their increasing
investments in modern snowcoaches are already making it possible for
winter visitors to access and enjoy Yellowstone while protecting it."
During
the past ten years, over half a million Americans sent comments to the
National Park Service concerning Yellowstone's winter management,
making it the most publicly-commented-on issue in the history of the
national parks. A consistent 4-to-1 majority has favored accessing the
park by snowcoach instead of snowmobile.
The
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, National Parks Conservation Association,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society,
and Winter Wildlands Alliance collectively represent over two million
members and challenged the Bush Administration's failure to protect
Yellowstone's resources and values. The organizations were represented
by Earthjustice, a public interest environmental law firm in Bozeman,
Montana, and the firm of Arnold & Porter in Washington D.C.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular