BRISTOL, Pa. – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting public comments on a proposal to allow oil and gas companies to kill bats, including some endangered species, in three states.

Nine companies have requested what's known as an Incidental Take Permit. It would allow them to kill bats from five species for a period of 50 years, as an unintended casualty of pipeline and well-pad construction, which can destroy bat habitat.

According to Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, bats play an important role in Pennsylvania's ecosystem.

"They pollinate, they spread seeds and consume large quantities of nocturnal insects," she explained. "This is a natural ecological niche that's fulfilled by these bats."

The Fish and Wildlife Service holds a series of public hearings this month, including events in the Pennsylvania cities of Houston and Williamsport.

The oil and gas companies say they're developing habitat conservation plans to minimize the effects of well construction on declining bat populations. But Carluccio pointed out that some bats are tree dwellers that roost and raise their young in Pennsylvania forests.

"As a result of that, there is a period of time when no cutting is allowed because of this special time that's needed by the bats as an important part of their life cycle," she explained.

She added that many species, including those listed in the permit proposal, have already been decimated by other human activities and by disease.

"About 98 percent of the hibernating bat populations in Pennsylvania have been lost in recent years just to the devastation of white nose syndrome," she continued. "So, Pennsylvania is on the edge of losing many of these species."

Information about submitting public comments is on the Delaware Riverkeeper website at delawareriverkeeper.org. The comment period ends on Dec. 27.


get more stories like this via email

Businesses large and small are doubling down on their commitment to more sustainable practices, even as lawmakers in North Carolina and other states voice their opposition to Environmental, Social and Governance practices for investments.

North Carolina businesses like TS Designs have decided it is smarter to be at the forefront of the movement, emphasizing transparency and accountability in their supply chains.

Eric Henry, president of TS Designs, said his company has adapted its business model over the years, particularly in response to the challenges of globalization and the negative environmental effects associated with it.

"We decided there's something wrong with that model, when you go outside of your market for product or service, your market delivers," Henry explained. "We grow cotton in North Carolina. So, what we decided to do is just focus on the resources within our community, the state."

The company produces what's known as "Cotton of the Carolinas," a T-shirt made from locally sourced cotton, with a supply chain spanning 700 miles. QR codes on the clothing labels allow people to trace the origins of the materials and the journey of their garment through the supply chain. Henry believes a focus on local farmers puts the planet and people first.

Last summer, North Carolina passed a bill to block state organizations from considering ESG factors in investments and employment decisions. Backers of the bill considered ESG as more of a social issue and argued investments should be made based on the highest financial gains.

Henry countered the term is not a "buzzword," it is a critical business strategy.

"There's 8 billion people on this planet and we need to have as much information to make the best decisions possible," Henry contended. "I don't want to be living in a vacuum. I want as much information as possible. So ESG is very important, how we run our business, how we treat our employees, how we treat the planet. We just have a responsibility."

According to the advisory firm Pleiades Strategy, more than 300 pieces of anti-ESG legislation were introduced in 38 states in the past few years, with 17 of those states signing bills into law.

New maps show the extent of New York State's lead pipe replacement program.

They demonstrate progress in replacing lead service lines, although the state still has an estimated 494,000 of them. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded the state of New York more than $300 million over the last three years for the work but only $104 million has been awarded to municipalities.

Josh Klainberg, senior vice president of the New York League of Conservation Voters, said additional state funds can replace more lines.

"There are 24 projects that were funded from that $104 million that went out, which is great," Klainberg acknowledged. "But as I mentioned, though, there were an additional 85 other projects requesting money as well, totaling $211 million that went unfunded because there's no additional money."

The Rensselaer County Legislature passed a resolution urging New York State to allocate more funding to lead pipe replacement.

The EPA's new Lead and Copper rule expected this October will give municipalities nationwide a decade to replace all existing lead pipes. Klainberg pointed out when it happens, competition for labor and materials will be fierce. The rule's 10-year clock could start in 2027.

State dollars for the work are in the Clean Water Infrastructure Act and the Environmental Bond Act but do not match federal funds. A major challenge to replacing lead service lines is having an accurate inventory. Cities such as Troy are working with homeowners to get the information.

Klainberg emphasized replacing lead pipes benefits a municipality's water infrastructure.

"We spend a tremendous amount of money on that infrastructure," Klainberg noted. "For that last bit, to not consider that part of the overall infrastructure which is the most critical point, this is what I think the rethinking of this inventory project is about."

Beyond national maps, New York's Lead Pipe Right to Know Act requires information about where lead pipes are located to be easily accessible online for New Yorkers to access.


get more stories like this via email

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a month to respond in court to a new lawsuit concerning a factory farm in the central part of the state.

Those leading the legal fight said the case speaks to how worried some communities are about concentrated animal feeding operations. The group Midwest Environmental Advocates represents Portage County residents in a lawsuit claiming the Department of Natural Resources reached an illegal settlement with a large livestock facility for a wastewater permit. At issue is whether the state should have allowed public input.

Adam Voskuil, staff attorney for the group, said as concentrated animal feeding operations gain a bigger footprint, data is becoming clear about the harm to local resources.

"We're seeing concerns over CAFOs in western Wisconsin, too, where there have been significant spills and fish kills," Voskuil reported.

He is referring to a 2019 incident where a settlement was reached with a large dairy operation over a manure discharge. For his clients, Voskuil pointed to 2018 county data showing elevated nitrate levels in private wells, saying it rises above the traditional "not-in-my-backyard" opposition.

The DNR would not comment on the lawsuit but some farm groups say large ag facilities have to adhere to strict regulations as they help feed the world.

Voskuil noted people who live near the sites are not regulators. They are individuals asking for responses to what they feel is a growing crisis.

"I really think that we need to stop just accepting that CAFOs can externalize the cost of environmental contamination onto the communities that live downstream or downwind," Voskuil stressed.

Wisconsin currently has nearly 340 concentrated animal feeding operations as consolidation in agriculture outmuscles smaller, independent farms. Even though the DNR is targeted in the new lawsuit, the agency was being defended by the state in a separate case for maintaining the permitting process for the projects. The suit was brought by industry groups who said they are being overregulated.


get more stories like this via email