An archaic law prohibiting criminal defamation has been repealed in Georgia, writes Matt J. Duffy, an SPJ Georgia member, and member of SPJGA First Amendment, FOI and Ethics Committee. Georgia removed its criminal libel statutes last month, and although the statute hadn’t been used in decades, this protects journalists from being arrested for exercising free speech. Read more here.
Abrahm Lustgarten, an energy and environment reporter at ProPublica, had a seat right on the battle lines of the Western Water Wars. Having previously lived in a small town on the Colorado River, he developed an awareness of the water scarcity problem, especially as the drought got worse. After relocating to California, Lustgarten sought to bring his experience and long-standing interest in the topic to an investigative piece focused on the importance of water in the West.
His reporting led to a nine-part series called “Killing the Colorado,” which ran from May to July this year, and focused not only on the Centennial state but on issues in Arizona, Nevada (Las Vegas), and California. Lustgarten delved into federal subsidies for cotton under the Farm Bill, pollution problems at the Navajo Generation Station, and a controversial “use it or lose it” law further enabling the misuse of water. Reporting the story was not easy; Lustgarten spent more than a year and a half collecting and requesting information, and learning an extensive amount about the history and laws surrounding water crises. “It was an enormous amount of information, like getting an informal master’s degree,” Lustgarten said.
The story began with “Holy Crop,” an in-depth look into how federal subsidies of cotton under the Farm Bill leads to water shortages, as the crop needs billions of gallons of water to be grown. Lustgarten did “everything under the sun” to obtain public records for the piece, he said, drawing upon court documents, litigation cases, land ownership deeds, peer review studies, and economic reporting under the Farm Bill. It was the latter documents that posed the greatest challenge, Lustgarten said. He filed a FOIA request to solicit records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture from the Farm Bill and subsidy program, and waited more than 8 months to receive the information – and incomplete information at that.
The USDA doesn’t release information that the public actually wants to know, said Lustgarten. His reports came back with generalized info about the number of subsidies per town and the amounts granted, but no information about the individuals who received the money. It was, all-in-all, a FOIA failure, according to Lustgarten. The most recent Farm Bill allowed USDA to withhold information, and there wasn’t enough time to take them to court to get the necessary documents. It’s not an unprecedented response from the USDA: the Farm Service Agency denies more FOIA requests than any other segment of the department (about ½ of the department’s total denials), basing most on confidential, personnel, and medical records exemptions.
Lustgarten also reached out to agencies on the state level, but ran into similar issues. In California, a state law is designed to protect utility customers, by keeping the identity of water users secret and collection info on irrigation water districts only, not the users (i.e. people and companies) who get the water. But the documents were not where the real story was. In this case, going into the field and engaging in face-to-face interviews proved most important.
“These stories are, in the end, analysis,” Lustgarten said. “You’ve got to do the deep reporting, and understand the issue or else your story will just be a superficial version. Ask yourself what you personally think about the story, and use that analysis rather than just direct information you are told.” For example, Lustgarten said, once he found out how water law tells farmers to use their resources in a way that is not always sustainable, he exercised his own judgement. He returned to his sources, and asked them, “If the law allowed you to use less water, would you?” Their affirmative answers added yet another layer of depth to the story.
The problem with analysis is that the readers don’t always agree with the journalist’s point of view. For the most part, Lustgarten’s story received great public feedback, with readers welcoming a new and different perspective and a solutions-based story. However, other readers found fault with Lustgarten’s analysis, some arguing cotton is less water-intensive than Lustgarten claimed, others pointing out discrepancies between the Arizona and California laws discussed in the story.
However, Lustgarten’s story did call attention to a growing problem, and invite discussion and debate in the community. “Nothing is more important than water,” Lustgarten said, and finally this underappreciated resource, vital for the economy, environment, and human health, was brought into the spotlight. Here are couple methods Lustgarten used to make his story stand out.
Lustgarten drew on the introduction and implementation of the Farm Bill over time to explain his story, and touched upon the history of the region’s 15-year-drought and environmental dry spell. He researched early Arizona township organizations and supply and demand of resources during wartime, alluding to Civil War practices and an 150-year-old report to Congress by John Wesley Powell.
Lustgarten worked with over twenty groups, including state and federal agencies; from the California and Arizona Departments of Water Resources to the National Weather Service and Environmental Protection Agency. In some cases, the information took up to three years to obtain. The main story these documents told were about money, Lustgarten said, the irony of the government charging individuals and companies less to use more water. To figure out what documents are best suited for the story, Lustgarten said he relied on government experts or lawyers, asking them what kind of state and federal documents were kept related to his topic of interest, and what the specific title and code of the document would be. He talked with FOIA officers at EPA and USDA, trying to identify which records would be most beneficial.
Lustgarten can’t stress the human factor of investigative reporting enough. His one-on-one encounters with farmers, government officials (like the “Water Witch” of Las Vegas) and other members of the community assign a human face to the numbers behind the documents. And the natural landscape has a kind of emotional quality as well, as photographer Michael Friberg brought out in a series “A Wonder in Decline: The Disappearing Lake Powell in Pictures.”
The short story
ProPublica compiled the main points from the series into a notecard-guide, shareable via social media. The shortened stories are posed as a solution-based Q&A, identifying the problems and using graphics, maps, and charts to illustrate statistics. The notecards are an informative way to draw in an audience with perhaps less time or knowledge to dedicate to the full series. Instead of cutting the reporting short, the “Need to Know” article caters to a larger audience who might not have followed the entire series. Most importantly, the notecards point to various solutions for the readers to deliberate amongst each other. And that is how these stories invite and inspire change.
One misstep, one decision, one instant can unleash consequences that last a lifetime. Consider April 20, 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion created an environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the fallout from which is still making news. While the first reports were made from the coast, the story has now moved into the courtroom.
Headlines scream breaking environmental news when an oil tanker or truck has a major spill, when a factory is found to be releasing toxic chemicals, or when a wildlife trafficker is caught and arrested (remember the man who tried to smuggle parrots in water bottles?) But what happens after the fact is sometimes overlooked. The court cases, the cash settlements, and the criminal punishments are as interesting as the original stories, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) of the Department of Justice makes reporting on them possible.
ENRD handles cases dealing with civil and criminal statutes related to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Superfund, and other lesser known environmental laws. It also handles conflicts over Native American rights and eminent domain actions to obtain private land for federal ownership. The Division is split into several categories, including Prevention and Cleanup of Pollution, Environmental Challenges to Federal Programs and Activities, Stewardship of Public Lands and Natural Resources, Property Acquisition for Federal Needs, Wildlife Protection, Indian Rights and Claims, and Appellate and Policy Work. The department is split into ten geographic sections nationwide, and is currently managing 7,000 active cases in state and territorial courts.
I personally love looking into court proceedings and digging into legal issues. But there are a few reasons why it’s not attractive to everyone. For one, it takes an incredible amount of patience. The processing time between an original formal complaint and the final decision (then appeals, sentencing or settlement, etc) is months at best, never-ending at worst. During an ongoing case, lawyers, judges, and witnesses fall silent. And the best cases involving big-name companies will likely be settled in private behind closed doors, where confidentiality agreements and sealed documents are no match for FOIA. Of the nine FOIA exemptions, at least five can be used to block a request for information that might come out during a court proceeding: including company trade secrets, witness medical records, law enforcement information, and internal agency personnel rules and practices. Finally, few people enjoy reading through the hundreds of pages of legal jargon that may accompany a case file.
One way to skirt this is to visit ENRD’s online press room, where releases include name of offender, prosecuting agency, details of the crime, and final decision and sentencing. In the last month, ENRD has published the outcomes of BP civil claim settlements, as well as environmental crimes committed by a Norwegian shipping company and an order to reduce emissions at a New Mexico power plant.
However, the press releases alone don’t give journalists a chance to dig deeper. It’s better to get your hands on court documents and sometimes, this can even be done without using FOIA. The Department of Justice puts out documents called “proactive disclosures” under subsection (a) 2 of FOIA, which are posted online automatically without any request from the public, and listed in the FOIA library. This includes final opinions, agency policy statements, FOIA request records, and certain administration staff manuals. Proposed consent decrees awaiting public comment are also available through the site and notices published in the Federal Register. Eleven cases are currently open for public comment, including U.S. v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and U.S. v. Alabama Power Co. Frequently requested records, final opinions and orders, and yearly summaries of litigation accomplishments dating back from 2004, can be found on the Selected Publications site (although no opinions are currently listed). However, that’s not to say all information is readily available.
FOIA @ ENRD
If you do need to file a FOIA request with ENRD, what can you expect? The Justice department handles upward of 60,000 requests per year, but only 70 to 80 of those fall under the Environmental and Natural Resources category. The small number of requests means processing time is slightly quicker than the average for DOJ requests; about 30 days for simple requests, a year for complex, and 10 days for expedited requests. Only 6 ENRD requests were pending at the end of 2014, despite the division having only two full-time FOIA employees.
ENRD has traditionally granted 30% of FOIA requests in full, and given partial grants in another 30%; consistent with the DOJ response overall. Only a small portion (generally less than 5 cases) are denied based on exemptions, while most are denied listing the reason as “no records.” Denials made last year were based on exemption 3, citing 5 U.S.C. § 574 and 28 U.S.C. § 651, and withholding information about dispute resolution communications and confidential mediation documents.
Decreasing Wildlife Trafficking, Increasing Web Traffic
In the past few years, a joint DOJ task force has been focusing on wildlife trafficking cases, and publishing summaries of the cases in a new online database. I find this particularly interesting, not only because some of these stories can involve off-beat characters (i.e. water-bottle bird man), but because illegal ivory/rhino horn/shark fin trading are big problems in developing countries. And it’s not easy to get a look into the black market. More info about each case can be found in the FOIA library or by a records request, including a case caption or name, civil action number, judicial district, and date or year of filing.
Final note: In addition to the DOJ, there are several other sites that keep searchable court records, although access might require a paid subscription. A few of the most frequently used sites are:.
- Public Access to Electronic Court Records (PACER)
- PACER is a national database for federal cases from U.S. district, appellate, and bankruptcy courts. You can search by party involved, by court locale, or with the case locator tool. Documents are available immediately after being electronically filed. PACER requires its members to register for an account, and may charge up to $3.00 for a document. The downsides are that some personal identification information, like name and address, are removed before the record becomes public, and that there are no pre-2004 criminal case documents.
- Lexis Nexis
- Lexis Nexis is another pay-to-use service, but searches also include documents such as newspaper articles and company information related to a specific query. There is a professionals option, which contains documents, dockets, and litigation histories, but users must have a subscription to access. On the other hand, there is Lexis Nexis Academic, which is free, and can search cases by specific citation or parties involved. I’ve usually found this strategy to be hit-or-miss when it comes to how much information is provided, but on the plus side, it’s free.
- Free Law Online
- This is an incredibly comprehensive and helpful site put out by the Gallagher Law Library at the University of Washington. It contains a list of databases including laws, bills, court opinions on the federal and state levels (not just Washington state); there are links for each provided by the National Center for State Courts and American Libraries Association. The site also gives suggestions for online law reporters and digests, and publishes a legal research guide for non-lawyers.
How would you judge your Department of Justice or court stories experience? Share your thoughts by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org or tweeting @amayrianne.
It started off as a passing complaint from a former contractor with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; the word “climate change” was taboo. The contractor had been hired to write educational fact sheets about coral reefs, he told Tristram Korten, editor at the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. But every time he referenced climate change, he was told to remove or alter the phrase.
Korten knew if the tip turned out to be true, it would invite an interesting story. How could a state like Florida, rich in biodiversity and threatened by rising sea levels and extreme weather, be expected to protect its environment if a key agency could not address a major threat? Yet the whole story was based off a single source and as any journalist knows; that is simply not good enough. Korten needed more verification, but it would be a challenge. He’d have to prove a negative.
Did the Florida DEP really avoid the term “climate change?”
Korten and the FCIR’s investigation uncovered a major problem. Not only had the terms “climate change” and “global warming” dropped progressively out of public documents year after year, other agencies were boycotting the issue as well. It all seemed to coincide with the inauguration of new governor Rick Scott, who upon taking office in 2011, reorganized the DEP and appointed a new director.
Although there was no explicit order from Scott to the leaders of state agencies and Scott himself denied the claim, the findings kicked off an investigation that is still ongoing. Korten has reported omissions at the Department of Transportation, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Florida Department of Health.
How did he do it? In this case, there was no specific document to request, and no specific law to cite. Government officials refused to grant interviews; instead, Korten received short, dismissive email replies like “DEP does not have a policy on this.” Employees at state agencies were reluctant to talk, or insisted on remaining anonymous, for fear of losing their jobs.
Here are the tools and techniques Korten used to deal with those issues.
An email search. After filing a public records search for the information, Korten and his team employed a tightly controlled email search to look for explicit mentions of communications policies between agencies, or from agency leaders to employees. But the email search was kind of a needle-in-a-haystack approach, said Korten. He didn’t want to spend too much time on a fishing expedition through thousands of emails. However, his search did turn up one piece of evidence, a 2014 email from the Coastal office’s external affairs administrator to a regional administrator, telling him to avoid claiming “climate change” as a cause when he appeared in a National Geographic/Audubon documentary about sea-level rise. If using this approach, Korten advises journalists to request communications in their native electronic format to preserve the original text.
Linked In: Linked In is a great tool for finding current and former employees with various agencies. Because many current employees didn’t want to go on record for this story, Korten relied on finding former employees with valuable insight but no fear of retaliation. The best parts about this social media tool are being able to search by dates employed, and to see connections related to you or to other sources. Many ex-employees still balk at going on the record, however. Journalists can find and contact academics, contractors, lobbyists, and scientists with connections at this agency for more honest insight.
Annual Publications and Reports. Korten and his team obtained the yearly DEP reports from 2010 (the year before Scott took office) up until 2015. This was an easy and convenient way to analyze the department’s priorities over time; as most agencies post their annual reports online for the general public. And there’s a simple technology that makes sifting through a hundred pages of pdf document feasible in minutes: the Ctrl + F (or find) function. Korten and his team ran a keyword analysis of PDF files on DEP’s public website — which included reports, agendas, correspondence and other communications. The result was a noticeable difference over the years, 209 instances in 20 documents in 2010 declined to only 34 occurrences in 2014. And Korten said most of the 2014 instances were merely references to older documents. Korten also suggests getting original drafts of the reports, if freedom of information laws allow. This way, you can analyze what edits were made, including erroneous omissions or rewordings.
Interviews, interviews, interviews. It’s crucial to attempt to get both sides of the story, even if one side refuses to talk. In Korten’s case, the lack of response from agency officials spoke volumes. And every example of censorship provided by an ex-employee served to strengthen the original tip. Korten said most of his networking took place in the state capital, Tallahassee, right at the heart of the government activity.
Korten is most anxious to see how his story and investigation will lead to the reintroduction of “climate change” into the public sphere. He wonders if the “ban” has impaired scientists’ and officials’ ability to carry out their jobs, and to what extent the former administration’s initiatives and laws have been dismantled. He’s hopeful for the future, now that the problem has been exposed.
“The response from inside the DEP was that people, many of whom were scientists, were frustrated with this taboo,” he said. “It’s going to be hard to put that restriction back on them.”
Ashley Mayrianne Jones, SPJ’s summer 2015 Pulliam/Kilgore Fellow, focuses on utilizing FOIA and open government data to improve investigative environmental reporting. Follow her blog for the latest tips, tricks and news updates. Email Ashley or tweet @amayrianne.
Nature-lover or not, almost every child in America can recognize Smokey the Bear, the iconic ursine emblem of the U.S. Forest Service. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn’t heard of efforts to recycle paper, or to prevent wildfires. When it comes to educational material and campaigning — things the Forest Service wants the public to know — communication is free-flowing. But it isn’t always that easy with the USFS; in fact, they are one of the most secretive agencies environmental reporters will encounter.
The U.S. Forest Service, an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, oversees 193 million acres of forest, grasslands, wetlands, and lakes, including private, public and tribal lands. The agency, led by Chief Tom Tidwell, is organized into 9 regions, each with its own FOIA contact. The USFS is responsible for preventing and responding to forest fires, managing over 1,000 campgrounds, and conducting research on ecosystems and climate change. It seems like there shouldn’t be a problem requesting documents and data related to these topics; as past SPJ President and current FOI Committee Chairman David Cuillier put it, the USFS doesn’t exactly protect national security secrets. But for some reason, the agency has been shutting the media out, forming a rift between scientists and journalists.
The USFS’s recent failure to provide material pivotal in journalist Rhiannon Fionn’s investigation of drinking water contaminants led to the agency being ‘awarded’SPJ’s 2014 Black Hole Award. Fionn told SPJ that she attempted to interview an expert USFS scientist for her story over the course of a year, but was repeatedly redirected to public information officials and eventually told she could only do a scripted interview, which would be reviewed by the Office of Ethics in Washington D.C. Fionn refused, calling the agency’s behavior overt censorship and a threat to the public’s right to know.
The problem is, Fionn is not the only journalist who has encountered this roadblock. Four years earlier, Society of Environmental Journalists member Christy George shared a similar experience. As George was sitting down to interview a USFS scientist from Oregon, he received a phone call from the head communications official in D.C., ordering him to end the interview. There was never any explanation, George says, even though she had requested the interview days earlier and gotten it pre-approved by his supervisors. Read about her experience here.
Photographers, videographers, and documentarians were further threatened by imprecise wording on a set of rules from 2014 that would require a $1,500 permit for shooting projects on National Forest Wilderness land. Although aimed at commercial companies, journalists and other media groups feared for their First Amendment rights and protested for a specific exclusion. Chief Tidwell sent out a memo to agency leaders reaffirming journalism as a public service and giving the green light for news coverage “including, but not limited to breaking news, b-roll, feature news, news documentaries, long-form pieces, background, blogs, and any other act that could be considered related to news-gathering.” Encouraging, but the real issue is the weak and ineffective media policies that make this kind of miscommunication possible.
The Center for Science and Democracy agreed in their 2015 Government Transparency report , shaming the Department of Agriculture as a whole with C- in media policy, and a D in social media. The USDA has not updated its general communications policy since 2003, the report says, and falls short of providing access to drafts and revisions, the explicit right of last review, and whistle-blower protection. “‘Loose lips sink ships’ appears to be management’s motivation.” — one anonymous USDA scientist says regarding the agency’s social media policy, which also stifles scientists’ rights to discuss research and hold personal views.
One doesn’t need to try too hard to find examples of Forest Service’s shortcomings. While the up-to-date budget performance information is explicitly listed right under the agency’s “about” tab, the other reports about regulations and policies were unavailable; the page listed as “under construction” when I attempted to access it earlier this week. As for the USFS FOIA site, it either has not been updated in a while, or all of the “frequently requested reports” are truly from 2008.
By no means does this suggest journalists should give up on requesting information from the Forest Service. But it helps to have some background information on the agency’s track record and to be prepared for common challenges faced in making a FOIA request. Here are some important takeaways from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Freedom of Information report.
– The USDA receives about 20,000 FOIA requests per year, 10 percent of which are for the Forest Service. In 2014, the Forest Service received 1,939 new requests. Of those 1,939 requests, 1,889 were processed. Yet only 825 (45%) were granted the full requested information, 601 (32%) were partially granted, and 248 (13%) were either withdrawn or referred to other agencies or departments.
– Reasons for denials: The most popular denial reason during 2014 was cited as “no records.” The most frequently cited FOIA exemption was Exemption 6, which deals with personal privacy interests. The Forest Service claimed that the information was protected because it dealt with ownership of historic and/or archaeological resources.
– Processing time: The average time to process a simple request is 27 days, whereas more complicated requests take about 50 days. Expedited requests are processed within 30 days (the average being 13 days). Backlogs are common, the ten oldest outstanding requests are between 2 and 3 years old.
– Resources: From 2010 to 2013, the Forest Service maintained a staff of about 75 full-time FOIA employees. But in 2014, the number of staff suddenly dropped to 25. Processing requests cost the agency anywhere between $2.5 and $3 million per year from 2010 to 2013, although litigation fees never surpassed $6,000. However, last year, $25,000 was spent on litigation, whereas only $70,000 was spent on processing requests.
– Record Keeping: The USDA adopted a new internal online database in 2011 to keep track of public records requests. This information is used to submit to the Department of Justice for their annual report and to record and determine the status of FOI requests. Anyone can submit a written request for information pertaining to themselves and their individual request.
The USFS FOIA Service Center can be contacted at 14 Independence Ave SW, Mailstop 1143, in Washington D.C., via fax to 202-649-1167, or via email to email@example.com.
Do you have a Forest Service experience to share? Tweet @amayrianne or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
“And as we all know, Oklahoma has more earthquakes than California,” the seismologist said. But until Michael Corey from the Center for Investigative Reporting attended the American Geophysical Union conference last December, he hadn’t known that. Corey, who had previously covered earthquakes in his home state of California, was shocked. He had a new story.
Using earthquake catalogs and science scripts from the US Geological Survey, the Oklahoma Geological Survey, and the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, Corey mapped seismic activity against state boundary lines. He discovered a surprising truth. Over the last decade, Oklahoma, a state with historically few earthquakes, had progressively become three times more active than California.
See the interactive map.
The question was why. In Corey’s original article from February, he uncovered that the likely cause of the earthquakes was an increase in injection wells, underground tanks where the polluted water from fracking is stored. But the oil companies were “a brick wall” and denied any responsibility, he said, so he relied on scientific studies to look for answers.
The majority of scientists and seismologists were incredibly cooperative, Corey says. They wanted the data to be used and made public, and helped to walk him through the interpretation of the information. However, that wasn’t the case with the Oklahoma Geological Survey, where both the interim director and lead seismologist could not be reached for comment. Corey also relied on court documents, in which a resident sued an oil company, building codes, and state emergency plans to report his story.
One problem was that “induced seismic activity (aka human-caused) is omitted from the USGS hazards model because the agency hasn’t decided how to quantify the risk. Meanwhile, Building Seismic Safety Councils rely on these models to update their code requirements every five years. With old or inaccurate information, Oklahoma’s architecture is left vulnerable. In this case the information is there, but no one really knows what do with it.
Listening to the Science: An Unconventional Way to Use Data in Your Reporting
Corey decided to listen to the data. In a radio broadcast story debuted this weekend, Corey used an audio track to simulate the increase in earthquakes over time. He downloaded earthquake catalog data from the last decade from the Northern California Earthquake Data Center, and translated each data point through a synthesizer. Now each earthquake, represented by a chime-like “ping,” could be heard and imagined, different pitches and frequencies corresponding to stronger or weaker seismic activity.
It was a good alternative for a radio story, in which documents and data could be read aloud but not visualized. By 2014, the audio track is a constant clanging of bells and chimes, illustrating the severity of Oklahoma’s earthquakes. This, coupled with interviews, brought life to a story built primarily on geological data and scientific jargon.
“For the radio story we had to put more emphasis on the human voice,” Corey explained. “With no documents or figures to show, we instead set scenes and characters, and bring in people who have experienced earthquakes.”
Listen to the full broadcast here.
Corey offers some advice to environmental journalists looking to report similar stories.
Get involved. Corey got the idea for his story attending his first geoscience conference. Not only do conferences and events like this generate ideas, they will also link you to important sources.
Seek a second opinion. Scientists, like journalists, rely on multiple sources before stating something as fact. Peer reviewed journals are your best bet, says Corey. This is especially true with oil company stories, where companies employ full-time researchers whose findings may be biased.
Become tech-savvy. In addition to the audio synthesizer track, Corey created visualizations and completed data analysis using tools like Quantum GIS and Python.
Stay modest. “You’re not going to understand everything, so follow up and read about it. Show interest in the topic, but be careful not to write before you understand the issue. You could end up getting a lot wrong,” he warns.
Ashley Mayrianne Jones, SPJ’s summer 2015 Pulliam/Kilgore Fellow, focuses on utilizing FOIA and open government data to improve investigative environmental reporting. Follow her blog for the latest tips, tricks and news updates. Email Ashley or tweet @amayrianne.
“NOAA reaches from the bottom of the sea to the surface of the sun, and touches every aspect of our daily lives,” a 40-minute introductory video (found online) instructs new agency employees. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration posts an incredible amount of its employee expectations and administrative orders online, although locating the information requires patience, curiosity, and a deep dive though hyperlinks and sister sites.
But NOAA makes sure FOIA is something its employees learn about early on. Transparency is one of the few policies that has its own site: complete with training and tutorials for employees, contacts for the media, (actual FOI officers, not just media relations) and the verbatim administrative order complete with a list of descriptive terms and detailed information of who can reject an FOI request, and why.
In 2007, NOAA implemented a new rule closing the gap between scientists and the media. DAO 219-1, gives researchers and scientists explicit permission to share the results, aka “Fundamental Research Communications” of scientific and engineering research with the public, without prior NOAA approval. This includes media interviews, DAO 219-1 states, which can, but don’t have to be, approved and facilitated by public affairs. All information must be “on the record,” although employees can decline the initial interview.
For newshounds, it would seem as though NOAA had thrown a bone to the dogs. But even five years later, the Society of Environmental Journalists noted despite the open information policy, there were problems with additional policy guidelines and a lack of enforcement.
“That guidance document itself is problematic. Section 8, ‘Official Communication with the News Media,’ requires advance approval by the public affairs office whenever NOAA staff scientists give interviews or otherwise make statements about their work. The policy further generally requires public affairs officials to sit in on all interviews unless other arrangements are approved by the public affairs staff.These sorts of limitations on scientists’ communications with the news media (and through the media, the public) are simply unacceptable in a free society.”
NOAA responded, stating an intention to work with counsel at the Department of Commerce (which oversees the agency and implements the DAO) to determine whether changes would be necessary. The most current version is here.
But here’s one issue with NOAA: There’s too much information, at least too much to sift through to find an easy answer to my preliminary question. As an environmental journalist, what can I learn from them? What kind of information do they provide, and what kind of stories can I write using the information? The bottom of the sea to the surface of the sun…it’s kind of a wide range. So what does NOAA actually do?
According to Administrator Sullivan and the NOAA intro video, NOAA’s purpose is to
- maintain commercial fishing so fisherman can maintain a livelihood (includes aquaculture)
- keep environment clean (through work with the US Coast Guard during oil spills)
- maintain natural resource damage assessments, which assess damage and issue regulations regarding natural resources such as shorelines, vegetation, fisheries, animal life
- collect remediation from responsible companies to restore environment after oil spill
- provide climate forecasts to help agriculture determine which crops to plant and when
- monitor hurricanes and extreme weather events and notify and prepare communities
- help satellite operators prepare for disruption during solar weather forecasts
- protect endangered species
- protect life and property and enhances national economy
- monitor aquatic areas for pesticide levels
Recent stories citing NOAA include updates oil spill near Santa Barbara, Calif., and Greenwire’s expose of seafood fraud in aquaculture. But if there’s one thing NOAA has, it’s a wealth of climatic, environmental and economic data, including easily overlooked resources like satellite imagery and arctic ice report cards. The potential for stories is endless, and maybe it’s impossible to cover them all. See the chart below for publication dates and your own story ideas.
|NOAA/NCDC||Climate Data and Services||Daily|
|NOAA/NCDC||World Ocean Database||Quarterly|
|NOAA/NCDC||Earth System Monitor The Earth System Monitor is a free publication that reports on NOAA environmental data and information programs, projects, and activities. We no longer have a mailing list. However, you can subscribe to the ESM RSS feed and be notified immediately when the e-version is published.||Semi-Annually|
|NOAA/NMFS||Fishery Market News||Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly and Daily|
|NOAA/NMFS||U.S. Foreign Trade in Fishery Products||Monthly and Annual|
|NOAA/NMFS||Recreational Fisheries Statistics||Annual|
|NOAA/NMFS||Commercial Fisheries Statistics||Annual|
|NOAA/NMFS||Fisheries Statistics of the US||Annual|
|NOAA/NOS||CO-OPS Tides and Currents||Available on a real time basis|
|NOAA/NOS||Web Mapping Portal to Real-Time Coastal Observations and NOAA Forecasts||Daily|
(NOAA Storms and Hazards Portal)
|NOAA/NWS||Weather Forecast||Four times daily: 4 am; 11 am;
4 pm; & 10 pm (local time)
|NOAA/NWS||Warnings, watches, alerts & advisories||Available on a real time basis|
|NOAA/NWS||National Maps||Updated twice daily|
|NOAA/NWS||National Radar Mosaic Sectors||Available on a real time basis|
|NOAA/NWS||Air Quality Forecast Guidance||Shows Air Quality Guidance as 1-hr and 8-hr ozone concentration averages for the N.E. US updated twice daily.|
|NOAA/NWS||Preliminary Climate Data||Daily|
|NOAA/NWS||Hydrologic Observations and Forecasts||Available on a real time basis|
|NOAA/NWS||Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS) network||Daily|
|NOAA/NWS||Graphical Airman ‘s Meteorological Advisory (G-AIRMET)||Updated every 6 hours as required by forecast aviation hazards|
|NOAA/NWS||Hourly Multi-Sensor Precipitation Estimate Web-Based Service||Hourly|
|NOAA/OAR||National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS)||Daily|
Ashley Mayrianne Jones, SPJ’s summer 2015 Pulliam/Kilgore Fellow, focuses on utilizing FOIA and open government data to improve investigative environmental reporting. Follow her blog for the latest tips, tricks and news updates. Email Ashley or tweet @amayrianne.
Big oil, bad air, good reporting: How InsideClimate News reporter Lisa Song stuck with it (and so can you)
For three days, InsideClimate News reporter Lisa Song sat rifling through public records documents in the file-reading room of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The unwavering eyes of a government-appointed paralegal watched her every move, making sure Song did not copy or try to smuggle the papers.
“It was like having a babysitter,” Song said when we met up at the recent Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Philadelphia.
The problem was the records Song was reviewing were supposed to be public — available to anyone — but a miscommunication between her FOIA case record agent and the TCEQ led to Song flying from Boston to Austin to read the information. She could have copied the documents and returned to Boston, but would have been expected to pay $3,400, she said.
Song was looking at communications among Texas state toxicologists, in order to report on a story about the state’s recently weakened chemical guidelines and the potential ramifications on air quality.
The eventual story, a year-and-a-half-long series published in collaboration with the Weather Channel and the Center for Public Integrity, was titled “Big Oil, Bad Air.” The story exposed major air pollution within the Eagle Ford Shale, a 400-mile-long stretch of oil and gas drilling sites.
Companies are required to report certain air emissions to environmental agencies under the Clean Air Act. But Texas doesn’t require all of the production facilities to file emissions data with the state; instead, they allowed a “self-audit” policy. However, using air permits granted to some of the other companies, Song and her team discovered other sites had permission to release almost 190 tons of toxic chemicals like benzene and formaldehyde every year.
It wasn’t an easy investigation, Song recalls. Texas is an “oil and gas state,” so even government agencies are dealing with financial conflicts of interest, as agency leaders such as those at the TCEQ are appointed by the governor himself and other officials have financial incentives to support the industry. She and her colleagues filed over fifty open records requests for investigation reports, oil and gas pollution inventories, enforcement actions, agency communications and personnel files, a dozen of which were state attorney general’s office because the TCEQ wanted the documents withheld, she said.
It’s becoming a growing problem, according to Song, and not just in Texas. Regulations and disclosure rules vary among states, but environmental journalists are meeting a lack of transparency from agencies across the board. Face-to-face interviews with EPA officials are almost nonexistent, and email is the preferred method of communication; A reporter who tries to call a source at the EPA will most likely be shuttled through public information officers and media relations. FOIA requests can take a year or more to be granted. Song spent three months trying to get an interview with EPA, who in this story should have stepped in when the Texas state agency failed. And in her personal experience, the USDA and U.S. Forest Service are even more elusive.
But oil companies are the worst. Although she didn’t have to deal with the trade secret problem associated with most of these oil-and-gas stories, she faced backlash and allegations from the public relations arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Song’s colleague David Hasemyer also faced challenges. Officials from the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission of Texas (also involved in the story) refused to grant interviews. At one point Hasemyer was berated by an agency spokesperson for attempting to call TCEQ inspectors at their homes and was physically stopped from approaching a commission chairman at a public meeting.
Fortunately the journalists prevailed, even leading to an air pollution monitor being installed in nearby Karnes County, Texas, and a criminal inquiry into the actions of two inspectors named in the story. It’s a cautionary tale for other states that are eager for fracking’s rewards, Song and her colleagues wrote in a report to Investigative Reporters and Editors, who in addition to SPJ, nominated the story for an award.
One of Song and Hasemyer’s infographics was awarded a 2014 Sigma Delta Chi Award from SPJ.
Song shares how they did it:
- Campaign contribution disclosure statements from the Texas Ethics Commission
- Civil lawsuits on fracking and air pollution.
- State legislation that aimed to strengthen or weaken air pollution regulations.
- Science and engineering studies about fracking and public health published in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings and government reports.
- Transcripts and videos from public hearings
- New source review air permits
- 12 trips to shale drilling regions in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana
- Scientists and engineers from universities, consulting firms, regulatory agencies, environmental groups and industry
- Most public officials and industry representatives refused to speak on the phone or to meet in person, and only answered questions via email
- Residents in Eagle Ford affected by pollution
- Data Analysis
- TCEQ databases of citizen complaints and “emission events”—unexpected releases of toxic gases from industrial plants.
- TCEQ Central Registry with information on oil and gas permits, violations and accidents
- TCEQ Toxicology Division Page, which explains how the agency sets chemical exposure standards
- EPA TRI Explorer for Chemical Release Reports
Reporters don’t need to live in Texas to replicate this story for their own hometown or beat. Refer to your state or region’s database of emission releases and review the Clean Air Act for more information.
The majority of my posts this summer will focus on federal environmental agencies, laws and policies. However, for most journalists, we are far more likely to report local news: the pollution-producing factory that came to town, the sudden increase in bacteria in a nearby lake, or the decrease in funding for science programs at the city’s middle school.
The stories that hit us and our audience the hardest. The ones we remember.
I grew up in Merrimack, a moderately sized suburb in southern New Hampshire known for moose, maple syrup, and New England’s Anhueser-Busch brewery. I remember the first environmental story I heard about my hometown, even though it occurred more than a decade ago, when I was 12 and more concerned with reading Tiger Beat than the newspaper. As I think about the story now, I wonder how I would go about reporting it, now knowing the resources and information available.
In March 2004, a beaver dam on private land was mysteriously demolished. Within a week, four other dams, these on town-owned conservation land, were also destroyed. The Merrimack police partnered with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department to locate the suspect responsible for destroying the dams, a crime that carried a fine of $5,000. As a result of the lost dams, beavers abandoned the wetland area, the water level sank by four feet, and fish and bird populations were threatened. Environmental officials predicted it would take two years for the ecosystem to recover.
Read the original full story from the NH Business Review here.
While it’s not the hard-hitting news breakthrough that would shock a nation, my town reacted. I remember residents who lived near wetlands forming a makeshift neighborhood watch committee to prevent further damage to dams. Others got to work patching the dams to reverse the damage. School kids adopted the beaver as their favorite animal. People suddenly cared. The community came together and created an online forum (high-tech in those days!) to share updates until the suspect turned himself in.
But what if this story had happened in 2015? How would I go about reporting it, who would I contact, what documents would I request, and what would my impact be? As an experiment (I am half-scientist, after all), I decided to see if I could recreate the story and retrace the journalists’ steps using public information available now.
Step 1: The Police Report
My first step in investigating this local crime begins with those first on the scene: police. Merrimack Police Department keeps a well-maintained website, which includes PDFs of daily call logs, up-to-date press releases, and even a map illustrating where each category of incident (vandalism, in the case of the beavers) incident occurs. A request for the suspect’s criminal record if convicted from the NH State Police Department may prove difficult, costly, and time-consuming, but could also make for an interesting story.
However, nothing outweighs speaking to the actual officers: Merrimack lists contact information for general inquiries, as well as emails for captains and lieutenants. As for the police report or the arrest record for the suspect, these require an in-person trip to the station and can be complicated by Fifth Amendment rights during an open investigation.
Step 2: The Law
So…the we called the police. What now? Destroying beaver dams sounds cruel, but is it illegal? A simple Google search (literally, “NH law beaver dams”) turns up the original wording of the official-sounding “TITLE XVIII FISH AND GAME CHAPTER 210 FUR-BEARING ANIMALS Beaver Section 210:9.” Past cases and violators can be found through the NH State Court’s new E-court Project, although the system was implemented only a few years ago and doesn’t include the 2004 case.
Step 3: Moving Up the Ladder
The law is regulated at the state level through the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. A quick glance through the Department’s website uncovers an interactive map that illustrates state-owned wildlife conservation areas and a copy of the state’s mandated wildlife action plan listing policies for land and resource management, as well as research and conservation plans for animals like beavers. The Law Enforcement Division’s mission statement is promising to those seeking information, citing an “obligation to respond to the increasing public demands in a timely and respectful manner. To be successful, the mission must be administered without prejudice, always mindful that in the execution of their duties they act not for themselves, but for the public. The enforcement division’s patrol map also names the particular official responsible for Merrimack (area 41).
Step 4: Follow Up and Impact
Don’t let the investigation stop here. A look into annual police reports or statistics from other towns or the state police can uncover patterns and elevate the story to a state or regional level. Or maybe there’s no larger meaning, but at least checking can add some extra practice in requesting and locating information.
How would you report the story differently in your own hometown? Who else would you contact, or what other information would you seek? Have you encountered a particular office or agency that was difficult to cooperate with? Share your own hometown story in the comments section here or email me or tweet @amayrianne.
When an environmental story breaks, there’s one agency that always seems to get called for comment: the Environmental Protection Agency. “Environment” is in the name, after all. EPA handles between 9,000 and 12,000 Freedom of information requests each year, according to FOIA.gov, ranking it 15th among all government departments and federal agencies in amount of records requests. Their track record for processing and granting requests, when compared to other departments, isn’t half bad. It’s also not good. Out of over 12,600 total active FOIA requests in FY 2014, the EPA processed 10,130; or 80%. Processed doesn’t mean granted, however, and by the end of the calendar year, over 2,500 requests were still awaiting a decision.
Those aren’t the odds a reporter wants, but better than the 103,480 records sitting in backlog at the Department of Homeland Security or the 3,373-day-old request awaiting a decision at the Department of Defense.
Explore more FOIA stats here.
How does FOIA work at the EPA?
The EPA presumes government openness, its website claims, releasing national information and making discretionary decisions regarding state, private and possibly exempt requests. Filing a FOIA request is “neither complicated nor time-consuming,” the resource page reads. Experienced reporters would tell you it’s a false claim. Even though the agency promotes government transparency and provides several online resources, it remains one of the most difficult to contact or obtain information from, according to Christy George, former president of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Like with other departments, FOIA requests must be made in writing, either through snail mail or FOIAonline. The agency has twenty days to respond, but the clock starts ticking only after the specific information to be requested has been identified and any fees paid. Journalists may be charged $0.15 per page for photocopying after the first 100 pages. The 20-day response period can be extended by fee waiver proceedings, appeals processes to the National FOIA Officer, or with “large-scale” projects that require information from multiple agencies.
Nine exemptions may exclude your information of interest from being released by any department.
- Classified national defense and foreign relations information.
- Internal agency rules and practices.
- Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
- Trade secrets and other confidential business information.
- Inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges.
- Information involving matters of personal privacy (protected under the Privacy Act or containing sensitive personally identifiable information).
- Information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records:
- Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
- Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication.
- Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
- Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source.
- Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement, investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.
- Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
- Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
- Geological information on wells.
Number nine seems problematic, as many stories analyzing oil wells and fracking would need to rely on this information. But a larger challenge, says journalist Michael Corey from the Center of Investigative Reporting, is getting through the “stone wall” of trade secrets and noncompliance of large industrial companies. Companies the EPA has the power to regulate, but not the power to expose.
Contacting the EPA
EPA is divided into ten regions, each with its own Regional Freedom of Information Officer. Contact information is listed on the EPA’s official website along with a map in case you don’t know your particular region’s number or officer.
Requests can also be made through EPA headquarters, and nearly 2,000 records are every year. Surprisingly, Regions 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) and 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI) are just as busy as headquarters, if not more so, but grant a higher percentage of requests per year. The general consensus among environmental reporters, says Inside Climate News reporter Lisa Song, is that regional staff are more helpful than EPA headquarters, which communicate almost completely by email and consistently shuttle interviews through public information officers rather than expert scientists and officials.
Find your region and contact office here.
Find the agency organization chart here.
What is the EPA doing to improve FOI?
Under new administrator Gina McCarthy, EPA is releasing an increasing amount of data online (see some cool resources below). According to the 2015 Chief FOIA Officer’s Report to the US Justice Department (required of all agencies), embracing digital information has led to the release of over 300,000 online records since 2012. National topics include: climate change, lead, asbestos, and a Reduce, Reuse, Recycle initiative. EPA reported last year that only 67 FOIA requests were denied and the time for expedited processing was reduced to 6.8 days.
However, the digital side also has its pitfalls. Question 16 of the report asks, “Do your agency’s FOIA professionals use e-mail or other electronic means to communicate with requesters whenever feasible?” Yes, says the EPA; which for journalists, also means that mere email responses from public information staff often take the place of face-to-face interviews with knowledgeable scientists or officials.
Read the entire report here.
My Environment is very neat and personalized link to track air and water quality, pollution levels, energy use, and health information for a given state, city, or zip code. The app also offers comparisons to previous years and compiles the data into graphical form. The My Maps extension creates downloadable interactive maps. If you have time, be sure to click on the plus signs and “Learn more” links to find deeper information. For example, this map below displays the water quality in my hometown, and clicking on the little blue symbol reveals the name of the company responsible for the toxic releases: JCI Jones Chemicals (no relation to yours truly). The raw data is also available for download.
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). This online collection includes factsheets, research findings, and policy guidelines dating back to 1976. Documents can be downloaded for free or paper copies can be ordered if in stock and available. However only five documents can be ordered within a two-week time frame and fees might apply for requesting out-of-stock documents from the National Technical Information Service.
The Environmental Database Gateway. A metadata collection of information from geospatial and nongeospatial sources, linked to an information resource and web-based map viewer. Data can be found via a simple or advanced search and the “reuse” capability means users can output and embed search content.
Developer Central. This website features over forty pages of apps created by third-party web developers based on EPA data. Top apps include “Right to Know” and “EPA UV index.” Most apps include source codes, and the original datasets can be found on the “Data Showcase.”
Environmental Protection Agency Website. Explore the agency’s official site to find a list of their associated research facilities, laws and executive orders, and financial and budget information and history.
Now that you have these resources, how will you use them in your next story? Tweet @amayrianne with your ideas.
Ashley Mayrianne Jones, SPJ’s summer 2015 Pulliam/Kilgore Fellow, focuses on utilizing FOIA and open government data to improve investigative environmental reporting. Follow her blog for the latest tips, tricks and news updates. Email Ashley at email@example.com or tweet @amayrianne.