Vermont disaster unemployment assistance filing deadline extended to November 21

first_imgThe Vermont Department of Labor is pleased to announce that the US Department of Labor has approved Vermont’s request to extend the filing deadline for Individual Disaster Unemployment Assistance to November 21, 2011. The previous filing deadline for individuals for individuals in Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, Windham, and Windsor was October 7, 2011 and for individuals in Franklin, Lamoille and Orleans Counties the deadline was October 21, 2011. The US Department of Labor notified Vermont today that they have approved Vermont’s request to extend the filing deadlines for all of the counties that were declared a disaster area as a result of the effects of Tropical Storm Irene. The covered disaster assistance period continues to begin on August 27, 2011 and end on March 3, 2012.  The first payable week remains week ending September 3, 2011. An individual must be continuously unemployed as a direct result of the disaster in order to continue to receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance. If eligible, he or she can collect benefits for the weeks during which they meet the necessary criteria. Individuals who experience temporary job loss as a result of the disaster and who do not qualify for State Unemployment Insurance Benefits, such as self-employed individuals, may also be eligible for Disaster Unemployment Assistance. To ensure that all disaster victims have an opportunity to file a timely application for DUA, we request an extension to the DUA application period for Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, Windham, Windsor, Franklin, Lamoille and Orleans Counties creating a uniform deadline of November 21, 2011.   An individual may qualify to receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance if: You were injured in the disaster and are unable to work, whether you are an employee or self-employed.Your workplace was damaged, destroyed, or you cannot work because of the disaster.Your transportation to work is not available.You cannot get to your job because you must travel through the impacted area where means of transportation are not available.You were about to begin working, but could not because of the disaster.You derived most of you income from areas affected by the disaster, and your business is down as a direct result of the disaster. Please call the Vermont Department of Labor’s Claim Assistance Line at 1-877-214-3330 if you are an unemployed worker or self-employed individual who lived, worked, or was scheduled to work in a county that has been declared a disaster area by the federal government to determine you eligibility for Disaster Unemployment Assistance. For more information, please visit www.labor.vermont.gov(link is external).last_img read more

Citing regulatory ‘capitulation,’ federal court blocks construction of Mountain Valley Pipeline through Virginia

first_img FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Roanoke Times:A federal appeals court on Friday struck down two key decisions allowing a natural gas pipeline to slice through the Jefferson National Forest.The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Sierra Club and other conservation groups that challenged approvals by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for a 3.6-mile segment of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.Affected woodlands are in Giles and Montgomery counties and Monroe County, West Virginia. The pipeline’s route through the national forest will also take it under the Appalachian Trail atop Peters Mountain.During oral arguments in May, a three-judge panel raised pointed questions about the Forest Service’s acceptance of Mountain Valley’s assurances that it could control erosion and sediment caused by running a 42-inch diameter buried pipeline along steep mountainsides.“MVP’s proposed project would be the largest pipeline of its kind to cross the Jefferson National Forest,” Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote in the opinion. “American citizens understandably place their trust in the Forest Service to protect and preserve this country’s forests, and they deserve more than silent acquiescence to a pipeline company’s justification for upending large swaths of national forest lands.”Although the court’s decision was tailored to a small section of the 303-mile pipeline, opponents said it could have implications beyond the national forest.Now that Mountain Valley lacks valid permits from the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, some say that calls into question an order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that set the project in motion last October.Earlier in the week, a partner in the corporate venture said completion of the pipeline has been pushed back to early 2019, citing the 4th Circuit’s earlier stay of the permit allowing stream crossings in West Virginia.In its Friday decision, the court said it was sending two decisions back to the appropriate agencies for further review. The first was the Forest Service’s amendment of the Jefferson National Forest Land Resource Management Plan to accommodate the pipeline. The second was a right-of-way through the forest granted by the Bureau of Land Management.It was not clear how long the reconsideration process might take. A key issue in the case was Mountain Valley’s assertion, made during discussions with the Forest Service, that its erosion and sediment control measures would be 79 percent effective. At first, Forest Service officials were highly skeptical of such a rosy scenario.The calculation is a “vast overestimate of containment,” Forest Service officials wrote in comments to Mountain Valley cited in court records. “It is more appropriate to err on the side of worst case scenario, rather than best case. Update the analysis to reflect a … factor equal to or less than 48 percent containment.”Yet later in process, Forest Service officials backed off of the directive and accepted the 79 percent projection. When Chief Judge Roger Gregory asked why during oral arguments in May, it prompted the following exchange:“This is part of the robust back and forth, with the agency asking hard questions,” said Trey Sibley, who was representing Mountain Valley after the company was allowed to intervene in the case.“I’m missing the robust side of this,” Gregory responded. “This seems like a one-way street. I don’t call that robust. I call that capitulation.”Since April, state regulators have put Mountain Valley on notice that its sediment and erosion control measures were inadequate at more than a dozen locations in Virginia and West Virginia. At least one inspection in the Jefferson National Forest found similar issues, according to filings with FERC.More: Federal appeals court delivers blow to Mountain Valley Pipeline Citing regulatory ‘capitulation,’ federal court blocks construction of Mountain Valley Pipeline through Virginialast_img read more

Questions over sex education raise eyebrows

first_imgSunday Star Times 30 June 2013A boys’ puberty quiz asking whether a lack of chest hair indicates a man is gay is raising eyebrows among sex educators. The question was included in a test given to intermediate-aged boys at an Auckland school last week, and came from a sex-ed kit provided by healthcare giants Johnson&Johnson. The school’s principal says the question was designed to “start a conversation” but experts say it has the potential to cause more harm that it’s worth, and is another example of the shambolic state of New Zealand’s sex education curriculum.…..Glen Eden’s principal Terry Hewetson said the quiz was designed to provoke a discussion. Many of the questions were put up as “mythbusters” to give teachers the chance to tell the children the facts.Hewetson said, like all schools, Glen Eden was required to consult with the community every two years about sex education, so parents knew what they were teaching.There had been no complaints from parents about the quiz.He pointed out the reason they were using a Johnson&Johnson quiz was because there was a lack of resources from the Ministry of Education.Educators said that was a problem identified in a 2007 Education Review Office report, but little had been done to fix it.http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/8859178/Questions-over-sex-education-raise-eyebrowslast_img read more