AP Environmental Science

As we have already learned in class this year, roads can disrupt and divide ecosystems. Arizona is trying something new to help drivers and animals. An animal “crosswalk” is going to be opened for the first time in Arizona.

An electrified fence will surround a three mile area of Arizona 260, which is approximately 7 miles east of Payson. The fences only allow the animals to cross the highway at certain spots. Motorists will see large signs and lights flashing at them to warn them an animal , most likely a large one, is going to cross the highway. The signs and lights use infarered camaras and military-grade software to determine whether an animal is about to cross.

Although Arizona is not the first state to use animal crosswalks, they are the first to do it using fencing. The crosswalk will be evaluated in 2 years to see how effective it has been.

Not only will this $700,000 project give animals the chance to cross the highway with aware drivers, but also the camaras can monitor the animals behavior. As well, “electronic global postioning collars” have been placed on elk to see how the crosswalk changes their patterns. The camaras also monitor how fast the cars are traveling and how fast their reaction time is to slow down.

Elk (Photo credit: www.wikipedia.com)

I think that this is a good idea. It doesn’t really cost that much, plus it makes drivers think about how fast they are going. The article didn’t mention whether or not drivers could receive tickets if they were going over the speedlimit. I am not sure if I think that they should, especially if they do slow down in enough time when the signs and lights begin to flash. I think that it is good that it will be evaluated in 2 years because it might effect the way the elk move and their behavior. I guess that we will just have to wait and see.

Arizona Tests Wildlife ‘Crosswalk’ By: Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11954

With democrats taking control of Congress this month, the disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada will not likely happen. Communities such as Ventura, LA, and San Bernardino are glad that the nuclear waste will most likely not be shipped through their towns and into Yucca Mountain.

  Yucca Mountain site (Photo Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org)

Proponents of using Yucca Mountain as disposal grounds believe that “it is a secure alternative to storing waste at nuclear plants and hundreds of other sites around the country.”

The Yucca Mountain disposal site was originally planned to open in 1988; however, with major setbacks a hopeful projection dateof opening would in be 2017.

Opposite sides go back and forth with whether Yucca Mountain will become a nuclear waste disposal site; however, we will not really know until the legislation for one side or the other is enacted.

I think that somehow another disposal method needs to be developed. I don’t necessarily know if disposing of the nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is the right thing; however, I do understand that the nuclear waste needs to be disposed off. Plus not only is it affecting the environment around Yucca Mountain, but what if the waste spills on its way to the site. That would be horrible, but I am sure that proponents would argue how unlikely it is that that would happen plus the containers would be safe, but it depends on your definition of safe.

Is the Yucca Dump Doomed? by: Lisa Friedman http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11948

When I saw the heading of this article, I remember the movie that we watched right before Christmas Break. Right now there are about 200 million cane toads in Australia that have spread 1900 miles from northeast Queenslands to Darwin. Darwin is located in Australia’s tropical north. The cane toads were brought to Australia in 1935 in an attempt to control the cane beetle population.

The cane toads, whose skin is poisonous, have been killed by everything from golf clubs to air rifles. They are currently being caught in traps and plastic bags.

 picture from: http://en.wikipedia.org

Some peopl want the toads to be completely eliminated while some are not ready for them to leave. One lawmaker wanted a national attack on hte toads to be called for. However, this idea was withdrawn because of criticism by animal rights groups.

I don’t know what should be done about the cane toad issue in Australia. I guess that the government will have to take a closer look at what can be done to solve the issue. I am not sure whether the cane toads have done their job, but I do know that they have also decreased other populations. The people in Australia need to come to an agreement on what should be done that will satisfy all aspects.

Australia’s Military Asked to Battle Cane Toads  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa012&articleID=FA93AC46951909A7575D591BC4D85CE6

Snow leopards are on the list of the most endangered big cats. There are only 3000 to 6000 snow leopards that are still in the wild. This is becasue poachers make thousands of dollars off of their coats. They are sold in the blackmarker in numerous places, particularily in China.

The snow leopards movements can be tracked by their communication method with other snow leopards. They leave marks on certain lenadscapes. Some of the marks they leave inlclude: shallow holes that they dig and scent marks they leave behind.

  Snow leopard  (photo credit: http://en.wikipedia.org)

Becuase of these marks, researchers are better able to keep track of the snow leopard population. They are then better able to determine whether and where snow leopards are bing illegally hunted.

One organization aimed to deture people from poaching snow leopards “works with local herding families to make woll handicrafts sold in Mongolia and in the United States to relieve the economic pressure to poach.”

I think that it sad that people have to resort to killing innocent animals to make money. I do, however, understand that some of the poachers might not be able to take care of themselves and their families without killing the snow leopards. I think that the organization that helps families to make wool handicrafts is a really good idea. It gives them money and doesn’t force them to become poachers.

Protecting the Snow Leopard from Poachers by: Elizabeth Arnold                                     http://www.npr.org/templates/story.story.php?storyId=66267700

According to Study Shows Louisiana Slowly Slipping into Gulf, Louisiana is “sliding” into the Gulf. It is not “sinking.” Why is this such a big issue? Well it will eventually effect the people who live in the area, but for the time being it could disturb the plans for building bigger and better levees.

The area of Louisiana that is being affected is approximately 250 miles long and 180 miles wide. This area includes the delta of the Mississippi. “The bedrock under heavily populated southeast Louisian is breaking away at a glacial speed — at the pace fingernails grow.” Over the past year, this section of the state has slid about the width of two credit cards. The delta of the Mississippi has been build up over the past 8000 years. Over about the last 70 years, over 2000 square miles of the coast of the United States in that area has disappeared. This is through sinking or erosion.

Probably one of the most important questions about the sinking is why it is happening. There are different theories on why this is occuring. One theory is that extraction of oil and natural gas has caused the sinking. We were drilling in that area in the mid and late 20th century. Another theory is that waterways, specifically the Mississippi River, were “straightjacketed by levees.” This means that the floodwaters were unable to reach the soil to replenish it with nutrients.

I think that this needs to be investigated further. It is a serious issue because now it might just be Louisiana, but what if other parts of the United States start to sink. Two credit card widths does not seem like that much, but if you take into account that Louisiana looses that much land every year it is amazing. I wonder what would happen to all those people that live on that land. I mean look at what happened when they had to leave their homes for a short period of time with Hurricane Katrina. Where would they go if they could never go back to their homes and the lives that they have built for themselves.

STUDY SHOWS LOUISIANA SLOWLY SLIPPING INTO GULF by: Cain Burdeau    http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11950

According to new research, the fish and seafood population will collapse by 2048. The marine biodiversity is significantly decreaseing with 29% of marine species already in collapse. The collapse that is estimated for 2048 would effect all marine species, including ocean mammals.

Photo Credit: www.wikipedia.com

Why exactly is a collapsing marine biodiversity important? Well, for starters the ocean would be less able to deal with global climate change, pollution and over-explotation, amoungst other major issues. Plus, seafood would no longer be a part of the human diet. The populations would be gone, thus no seafood to eat for us. There being no seafood for us to eat would also hurt the economy. People would loss out on jobs, which translates into losing out on money.

The population is decreasing due to over-fishing and the ruining of the oceans. Marine-life reserves and no fishing zones should be put in place to help prevent the collapse of marine biodivresity.

   A No Fishing Zone                               

Photo credit: http://www.montereybay.noaa.gov/new/news/italia/asinara.html

Something needs to be done quickly about this. It not only effects wildlife, but it also affects humans. Not only the quality of life for humans is affected (not being able to enjoy seafood), but also what humans do for jobs to support themselves and their families. The oceans being less able to handle major changes also would place a burden on humans. If the oceans cannot support the changes of global warming, etc. something is going to have to change. People are going to have to be more consciencious of what they are doing, i.e. driving a SUV, etc.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11584   Article: Ocean Fish, Seafood Could Collapse by 2048    By: Deborah Zabarenko

It is now being thought that forest fires are not all bad. Some new research indicates that forest fires may actually reduce global warming. Previously, it was thought that forest fires would increase global warming because they released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

                                         Photo Credit: www.wikipedia.com

The fires burn down the trees in the forests, affecting the amount of shading of the ground. More sunlight is reflected back into space for numerous decades after the fire has occured.

The new research shows that the greenhouse gases emitted from the fire and the cooling effect do make a significant difference in global warming because, in effect, they cancel each other out when averaged globally.  However, fires in the northern regions may result in cooler temperatures.

Some people are sceptical because this data is only from 1 fire, the Donnelly Flats fire in central Alaska. This fire burned approximately 16,500 acres in 1999. Some of the tests included were: measurements of incoming & outgoing radiation, carbon dioxide being absorbed or emmitted by plants,  and wind speed. Some similiar measurements were taken from surrounding land that had been burned by fires in 1987 and in 1920.

With these fires, new trees had to replace the old ones. The newer trees took in more carbon dioxide, resulting in less global warming. It took more than 80 years before the old type of trees took over again.

I don’t really know which side to believe. It makes sense that greenhouse gases and the cooler temperatures would cancel each other out; however, only one place was really studied. I think that it might take a couple more studies before people start to believe this. Plus, I think that more climates and different types of forests need to be studied.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11681  Article: Forest Fires May Actually Cool Climate  By: Randolph E. Schmid

A fence in India that was put up about 3 years ago between the India - Pakistan border is now having some major impacts on the wildlife in the surrounding area. This  fencing was put up to stop “guerrilla activity linked to a separatist revolt.” The fence is about 8 feet high and stretches for about 460 miles in the region, dividing Kashmir.

This fence is not allowing for the free movement that the leopards and the black bears in the area are used to. They are now moving into villages and killing people. They are dragging people from their houses and mauling them.  At least 12 people have been killed by the wild animals. 5 of those 12 were killed last month and numerous others have been injured.

Photo credit: www.wikipedia.com

The number of bear and leopard populations have been increasing since a ban on hunting them was put in place in 1970; however, the number of pine forests have been decreasing, leaving the wild animals no where to go. There are approximately 8,000 leopards in India. The number of leopards in Kashmir is not known, along with the number of black bears in both places.

Control rooms are being set up and the authorities are educating the local people, cautioning them about the issue.

In approximately the last 10 months, six bears and leopards have been killed by villagers and authorities together.

I understand the concern about the militant groups crossing the border, but I think that a new solution needs to be developed. It is not fair that the wildlife in the area is suffering. Plus not only is the wildlife suffering by not being able to move freely and by being killed, but the people are being hurt. They are being seriously injured and even killed. Another solution needs to be found.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11708  Article: Fenced in, Kashmir’s Leopards, Bears Stalk Villages   By:Ashok Pahalwan

In the proposed budget files, FY07, President Bush is suggesting that the United States sell off land to raise money for the national treasury. The land planned to be sold: 800,000 acres of National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands.

According to The President’s Billion Dollar Public Land Sell Off Scheme, “The President’s budget proposal is part of a troubling trend to sell off American natural heritage.” Who mostly opposes this? Everyone from western conservationists to businesses and hunters & anglers to Democratic AND Republican Senators.

The Facts

• 32 states would be affected
• California would have thee most land up for sale with 85,000 acres
• How much money? From BLM Land (approx. 500,000 acres) - $182 million over 5 years, $351 million over 10 years
• Places up for grabs would include: 730 acres of Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in both Oregon and Washington, 1300 acres in Washington close to Sultan’s Canyon.

Map of Columbia River Gorge

I think that it is a ridiculous plan to sell of land that belongs to the United States, even if we do need money (which I am not sure if we do). What if the people that end up buying the land decide to tear down the trees or do something drastic like that. Then ecosysystems would be ruined and wiped out. At least if they are going to sell it, there should be a clause in the document. These places that are being planned to be sold off provide fun for residents of the communities, but also for visitors. This should not be done.

The President’s Billion Dollar Public Land Sell Off Scheme            Information From: http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/notforsale/  Picture From: www.wikipedia.org

Mohave Generating Station, coal power plant in Nevada

The Environmental Protection Agency required coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury pollution earlier in 2006. Many individual states disagreed with this rule and watned the standards to be set highere.  About 12 states have increased the requirements for coal-fired power plants.

One of the states, Michigan, is going to require that plants “to cut 90 percent of mercury emissions by 2015.”

Is it really possible? Yes. In fact, 1 power plant, We Engeries, has already began reducin as much as 90% of its mercury from its emissions. “It is the first in the country to permanently install the necessary equipment.”

Althouh We Engeries in Michigan is doing this, pollution controls will not be needed to be installed accross the US for mayny years to come.

However, some argue that decreasing the mercury emissions from coal-fired plants will not necessarily decrease mercury in the State’s fish.

 I think that is worth a try and even if it doesn’t decrease mercury in the fish, it would probably still help the environment. Plus it might. We won’t know until we try.

States Toughen Federal Mercury Pollution Rules    By: Elizabeth Shorgren Information from: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6444174  Picture from: www.wikipedia.org