Coyote Gulch

Sunday, March 16, 2008

? for President?
Political Wire: "Two new polls show a shift of momentum in the Democratic presidential race to Sen. Hillary Clinton. A new Gallup poll finds Sen. Barack Obama edging ahead of Clinton, 49% to 46%, but within the survey's margin of error. Clinton was stronger in Friday night's interviews which could be a result of some of the recent controversy related to Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and developer Tony Rezko. A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows Obama leading, 46% to 45%, but 'reflects an unusually sharp change from yesterday's results when Obama led by eight points.'"

Political Wire: "A new Zogby poll finds Sen. John McCain has moved ahead of both of his potential Democratic Party rivals in a national general election test. McCain would defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton by six points, 45% to 39%, and Sen. Barack Obama by 5 points, 44% to 39%."

Andrew Sullivan: "Obama Cracks 50 Percent: In both Gallup and Rasmussen.

Pollster.com: "Gallup Poll: National
Obama 48, Clinton 45
Clinton 46, McCain 46... McCain 47, Obama 44"
"2008 pres"
9:29:27 AM

Energy policy: Oil and gas

Drilling in the Baca National Wildlife Refuge near the Great Sand Dunes National Park is drawing a good bit of opposition, according to The Center Post-Dispatch. From the article:

A coalition of environmental groups, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies contend that further study and analysis is needed before drilling is approved on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. Their comments were submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on proposed oil and gas exploration on the refuge. The comments came during a 45-day public comment period on an Environmental Assessment of the drilling proposal. The environmental groups, which include the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition and the Wilderness Society, went so far as to say an earlier environmental assessment (EA) EA should be scrapped and the USFWS should conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement. The coalition urged the USFWS to "make a decision of a need for an EIS immediately so as not to burden other federal agencies, state and local government and non-governmental organizations and the public with additional review of a seriously inadequate EA." The groups asked that the proposed action alternative in the EA, which allows drilling under standards set by the USFWS, be eliminated because it fails, they claim, to protect the refuge "to the maximum extent possible." They say the USFWS should further explore buying the mineral rights from Lexam Exploration, which owns the minerals under the refuge and wants to explore developing them by drilling two 14,000-foot wells on the refuge. Another alternative that sus-pended drilling in the refuge until a comprehensive conservation plan is completed should have been included in the EA, said the environmental coalition. "While this study is woefully inadequate, it acknowledges that significant and lasting damage could happen to the refuge if natural gas development occurs," said Ceal Smith, director of the San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition. "The Fish and Wildlife Service ought to be willing to take a good long look at this project before they risk our aquifer. What really needs to happen here is for the government to step up and buy those mineral rights."[...]

They cited four areas of concerns in their comments: air quality, water quality, groundwater and socio-economics. According to the EPA, a more rigorous analysis needs to be done of impacts on air quality on the nearby Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and other sensitive areas, since the EA only dealt with the issue in general terms. The EPA said the EA fell short in providing enough information on the impact to surface water and wetlands in the area, reminding the USFWS that the purpose of the refuge is "to restore, enhance, and maintain wetland, upland, riparian and other habitats for wildlife, plants and fish species." More information was also needed on the potential impacts to groundwater resources, said the EPA, contnding that the EA did not fully evaluate impacts on neigh-boring communities. "In conclusion, EPA does not believe the DEA provides sufficient information to allow USFWS to determine whether this project will have significant impacts and whether preparation of EIS is necessary." The EPA comments were signed by Larry Svoboda with the agency's regional office in Denver.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
9:06:38 AM