Archive for July, 2012

14 Jul

Last Week in Environmental Impact Statements: Bill Williams

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Environmental Impact Statements.

Photo via goldberg.berkeley.edu/art. Some rights reserved.

While Federal agencies are required to prepare Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1502, and to file the EISs with the EPA as specified in 40 CFR 1506.9, the EPA doesn’t yet provide a central repository for filing and viewing EISs electronically. Instead, each week they prepare a digest of the preceding week’s filed EISs, which is published every Friday in the Federal Register under the title, “Notice of Availability” (NOA).

We’ve done the dirty work for you. Below, we’ve located and linked to the EISs referenced in last week’s NOA. Please note that some of these documents can be very large, and may take a while to load.

You can read any available EPA comments on these EISs here.

The EPA is still looking for agencies willing to participate in a new pilot program for electronic submission of EIS filings. To participate in the pilot, agencies should register at: http://cdx.epa.gov

* * *

EIS No. 20120223, Draft EIS, USFWS, TX, Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan, Application for an Incidental Take Permit of 11 Federally Listed or Petitioned Species, Several Counties, Texas, Comment Period Ends: 10/10/2012, Contact: Adam Zerrenner 512–490–0057. Website.

EIS No. 20120224, Draft EIS, FHWA, IL, Illiana Corridor Project Tier One Transportation System Improvements, Will and Kankakee Counties, IL and Lake County, IN, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2012, Contact: Norman Stoner 217–492–4600. Website.

EIS No. 20120225, Draft EIS (Appendices), USFS, AZ, Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project, Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, AZ, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2012, Contact: Martie Schramm 928–635–5630. Website.

EIS No. 20120226, Final EIS, USFS, CA, Creeks II Forest Restoration Project, Proposal to Protect Rural Communities from Hazards by Constructing Fuel Breaks known as Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs), Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, Plumas County, CA, Review Period Ends: 08/13/2012, Contact: Al Vazquez 530–258–2141. Website.

EIS No. 20120227, Draft EIS, USMC, GA, Proposed Modernization and Expansion of Townsend Bombing Range, Acquiring Additional Property and Constructing Infrastructure to Allow the Use of Precision-Guided Munitions, McIntosh and Long Counties, GA, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2012, Contact: Veronda Johnson 571–256–2783. Website.

EIS No. 20120228, Final EIS, NHTSA, 00, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Truck, Model Years 2017–2025, To Reduce National Energy Consumption by Increasing the Fuel Economy of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks sold in the U.S., Review Period Ends: 08/13/2012, Contact: James MacIsaac 202–366–9108. Website.

EIS No. 20120229, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, I–710 Corridor Project, Improvements, from Ocean Boulevard in the City of Long Beach to State Route 60 in East Los Angeles, Funding, Los Angeles County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2012, Contact: Cesar E. Perez 916–498–5065. Website.

 

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20120161, Draft EIS, USFS, NM, North Fork Eagle Creek Wells, Special Use Authorization Project, Operation of Four Municipal Supply Water Wells, Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, NM, Comment Period Ends: 09/07/2012, Contact: Dave Warnack 575–257–4095 Revision to FR Notice Published 5/25/2012; Extending Comment Period to 09/07/2012. Website.

EIS No. 20120196, Draft EIS, NPS, OH, Cuyahoga Valley National Park Comprehensive Trail Management Plan, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, OH, Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2012, Contact: Stan Austin 330–657–2752 Revision to FR Notice Published 06/22/2012; Change Comment Period from 08/06/201 to 8/20/2012. Website.

13 Jul

Insurers Offer Coverage for Solar Developments

Posted by John Renehan in Power Plants, Renewable Energy, Solar Power, Subsidies, Sustainability, Tax Credits, Technology.

Photo by theregeneration. Some rights reserved.

Challenges to “green” energy developments abound. Compared to traditional companies even in the energy sector, means of financing projects are fast-changing, subsidies and tax credits are unpredictable, and data on projects’ returns are sparse. We wrote about trends in venture capital and IPOs for clean technology companies in February in a post recently linked to by The Atlantic, seeing energy storage and generation companies faring well in 2011. The wind industry is still waiting for Congress to vote on extending its production tax credit, and as we covered here, if it is not passed, the industry’s capacity might fall by three-quarters.

However, it is becoming easier for “green” developers to secure private financing in a functioning market. In January, we posted about a Deutsche Bank study aimed at providing data on the accuracy and reliability of energy audits associated with building retrofits, to encourage private investment in retrofits, the “low-hanging fruit” of carbon reduction. Now, insurers Assurant and GCube Insurance Services are offering an insurance product to help solar developers navigate the risks of mid-size projects, aiming to fill a gap in coverage that has often prevented developers from securing financing.

In particular, Assurant’s product uniquely bundles property and liability coverage with equipment warranty management, allowing developers to move beyond their skepticism and uncertainty toward warranty management frameworks. They offer $10 million of coverage per location – initially limited to photovoltaic projects in the US – ranging from 100kW to 3MW in capacity. Environmental Finance has a detailed description of the insurance product here.

As those behind the Deutsche Bank building-retrofit study did, we can hope Assurant’s product will lay the groundwork for further comprehensive coverage products in other clean technology sectors that might open the floodgates of private financing, maybe making debates like that over the wind PTC unnecessary.

11 Jul

An Elegant New CDP Report on City-Wide GHG Reduction Efforts

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Photo by public domain. Some rights reserved.

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) just recently released a new report entitled “Measurement for Management,” which highlights the efforts of cities across the globe who are committed to reporting their annual carbon emission rates and who are dedicated to taking measures to lower these numbers. As has been previously reported, cities produce 70% of carbon emissions worldwide, while accounting for only 2 percent of the land. But, as has been pointed out by CDP partner and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, “cities are demonstrating that they have the will, the knowledge, and the capacity to set the agenda for climate change action” – the hope being that cities also have the combined resources and collective energy to lead the charge in combating climate change.

This year, 73 cities worldwide are reporting to CDP, with 51 of those city-wide emission inventories.  IN 2009, the U.S. had (perhaps unsurprisingly) the highest number, far and away, of total city-wide emissions reported to CDP, totaling 5,424,529,520 metric tonnes. 53 cities publicly disclosing citywide emissions this year together produce more than 977 million tonnes. These figures can be hard to put into context, but the aim, CDP claims, of collecting and inventorying this data is to organize cities into lowering these figures on a year-to-year basis. Fifty-nine cities have committed to taking a total of 630 citywide actions to lower their emission rates. Forty-seven have committed to reducing energy demand of major buildings in metropolitan areas, 47 will reduce transportation emissions, 38 will work on waste reduction, and 29 will reduce emissions through creative urban land use, creating green spaces, and planting more trees and gardens.

All in all, the report is worth poring through – it’s well organized, full of helpful and interesting charts and graphs, and delivers a solid message at its core: we can reduce GHG emissions through sheer cooperation – not every city is equal in its amount of resources and capital, but each has the capacity to participate, in some way or another, in a larger globally coordinated effort. Some of the greatest cliches are also powerful truths.

10 Jul

FEMA’s Proposed Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Endangered Species Act, Environmental Impact Statements, FEMA, Fish & Wildlife Service, Flooding.

Photo by kevin dooley. Some rights reserved.

Earlier this month, law firm Van Ness Feldman published an Alert detailing FEMA’s plans for revising the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The NFIP was developed in the late 1960s in response to a few seasons of nasty natural disasters. It is a federal program that encourages landowners in participating communities to adopt and enforce FEMA approved floodplain management ordinances. Those communities are then eligible to purchase flood insurance through the program, which is designed to provide a financial alternative to relying on emergency disaster relief. According to FEMA, “the costs associated with flood damage are reduced by nearly $1.7 billion a year” through the program.

Not everyone has been happy with the NFIP, of course. According to Van Ness Feldman, ever since its adoption, the program has faced “ongoing significant criticism,” with critics claiming that it either doesn’t do enough, or does way too much, depending on whom you ask. (For instance, environmentalists have criticized FEMA’s failure to consult with USFWS and/or NMFS on the impact of the NFIP on endangered species.) It is supposedly these criticisms that have driven FEMA to reform the NFIP.

In a mid-May, FEMA filed a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, proposing to evaluate the following proposed action and alternatives in their EIS:

(1) Modify the NFIP based upon changes identified through the evaluation process to enhance floodplain management standards including provisions to address endangered species and habitat concerns. This is FEMA’s proposed action.

(2) Taking no action, which would result in the continued administration and implementation of the NFIP as it stands today.

(3) Discontinue the NFIP, recognizing that only Congress can take this action.

(4) Request legislative authority to remove existing subsidies and cross subsidies for flood insurance policies.

(5) Modify the NFIP based upon changes identified through the evaluation process to enhance floodplain management standards including provisions to address endangered species and habitat concerns and request legislative authority to remove existing subsidies and cross subsidies for flood insurance policies.

Comments will be accepted on the Notice until July 16, 2012.

Learn more about the NFIP: FEMA on the basics, NFIP evaluation, and NFIP reform. You can also read about recent changes to the NFIP approved in late June by Congress as part of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2012 (see Title II).

7 Jul

Last Week in Environmental Impact Statements: Infections Diseases and Nuclear Plants

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Environmental Impact Statements.

Photo by Anosmia. Some rights reserved.

While Federal agencies are required to prepare Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1502, and to file the EISs with the EPA as specified in 40 CFR 1506.9, the EPA doesn’t yet provide a central repository for filing and viewing EISs electronically. Instead, each week they prepare a digest of the preceding week’s filed EISs, which is published every Friday in the Federal Register under the title, “Notice of Availability” (NOA).

We’ve done the dirty work for you. Below, we’ve located and linked to the EISs referenced in last week’s NOA. Please note that some of these documents can be very large, and may take a while to load.

You can read any available EPA comments on these EISs here.

The EPA is still looking for agencies willing to participate in a new pilot program for electronic submission of EIS filings. To participate in the pilot, agencies should register at: http://cdx.epa.gov

* * *

EIS No. 20120212, Draft EIS, BLM, NM, Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Cibola, McKinney, Sandoval, Torrance, and Valencia Counties, NM, Comment Period Ends: 10/03/2012, Contact: Angel Martinez 505–761–8918. Website.

EIS No. 20120213, Draft EIS, FRA, IL, Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Program Tier 1, Improvements, Several Counties in IL and St. Louis County, MO, Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2012, Contact: Andrea Martin 202–493–6201. Website.

EIS No. 20120214, Draft Supplement, NPS, 00, Yellowstone National Park Draft Winter Use Plan, Addressing the Issue of Oversnow Vehicle Use in the Interior of the Park, Implementation, WY, MT, and ID, Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2012, Contact: David Jacob 303–987–6970. Website.

EIS No. 20120215, Draft Supplement, NRC, NY, Generic—License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New Information, Westchester County, NY, Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2012, Contact: Michael Wentzel 301–415–6459. Website.

EIS No. 20120216, Draft EIS (Appendix), NOAA, OR, PROGRAMMATIC—Portland Harbor Restoration Plan, Restoration of Injured Natural Resources, Multnomah County, OR, Comment Period Ends: 10/08/2012, Contact: Jeff Shenot 301–427–8689. Website and website.

EIS No. 20120217, Final EIS (Volume 1, Volume II, Volume III), BOEM, 00, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012–2017 Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248: Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, TX, LA, MS, AL and Northwestern FL, Review Period Ends: 08/06/2012, Contact: Gary Goeke 504–736–3233. Website.

EIS No. 20120218, Final EIS, FRA, NY, ADOPTION—East Side Access Project, Transportation Improvements, To Provide Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, New York, Queens, Bronx, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties, NY, Review Period Ends: 08/06/2012, Contact: Michelle Fishburne 202–493–0398. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has adopted the Federal Transit Administration’s FEIS filed 3–9–2001. FRA was not a Cooperating Agency for the above final EIS. Recirculation of the document is necessary under Section 506.3(b) of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations. Website.

EIS No. 20120219, Final EIS, USFS, NM, Santa Fe National Forest Travel Management, Proposes to Provide for a System of Road, Trails, and Areas Designated for Motorized Use, Santa Fe, NM, Review Period Ends: 08/06/2012, Contact: Julie Bain 505–438–5443. Website.

EIS No. 20120220, Final EIS, BLM, NV, Hycroft Mine Expansion Project, Proposes to Expand Mining Activities on BLM Managed Public Land and Private Land, Approval, Humboldt and Pershing Counties, NV, Review Period Ends: 08/06/2012, Contact: Kathleen Rehberg 775–623–1739. Website.

EIS No. 20120221, Draft EIS (Appendices), USACE, CA, Mather Specific Plan Project, Development of Large Scale Mixed Use Development to Promote Economic and Wetland Conservation Opportunities, Sacramento County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2012, Contact: Kathleen Dadey 916–557–5250. Website.

EIS No. 20120222, Final EIS, BOEM, 00, PROGRAMMATIC EIS—Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program—2012–2017 in Six Planning Area, Western, Central and Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Cook Inlet, the Beaufort Sea, and the Chukchi Sea, Review Period Ends: 08/06/2012, Contact: James F. Bennett 703–787–1660. Website.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20050514, Final EIS, NIH, ME, National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, Construction of National Biocontainment Laboratory, BioSquare Research Park, Boston University Medical Center Campus, Boston, MA, Review Period Ends: 01/09/2006, Contact: Valerie Nottingham 301–496–7775. In Support of this Final ESI, NIH is publishing a Final Supplementary Risk Assessment for the Boston University National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL). The wait period will end on 08/06/2012. Website.

EIS No. 20100269, Final EIS (Haven’t been able to locate – any reader tips?), USAF, ND, ADOPTION—Grand Forks Air Force Base Project, Beddown and Flight Operations of Remotely Piloted Aircraft, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), ND, Contact: Doug Allbright 618–229–0841. ADOPTION —The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration adopted partial of the U.S. Air Force’s Final EIS filed with EPA. The FAA was a cooperating Agency on the USAF’s EIS therefore, distribution was not necessary for this adoption and there is no comment period.

EIS No. 20120207, Final EIS, USACE, LA, WITHDRAWN—Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Restoration, To Develop a Comprehensive Ecosystem Restoration Plan to Restore the Lake Borgne Ecosystems, LA and MS, Review Period Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact: Tammy Gilmore 504–862–1002 Revision to FR Notice Published on 06/29/2012: Officially Withdrawn by the USACE. Website.

6 Jul

The Scramble to Regulate Fracking

Posted by John Renehan in Air Pollution, Fracking, Gas and Oil Leases, Hydraulic Fracturing, Oil and Gas Sector, Oil Shale.

North Carolina, now open for fracking. Photo by US Fish and Wildlife Service, some rights reserved.

As the risks and potential benefits of fracking become impossible to ignore for local and state governments, communities are taking action to address the shale gas development that seems inevitable in many places. At the state level, North Carolina’s legislature voted to override Governor Beverly Perdue’s veto of Senate Bill 820, opening the doors to fracking and shale gas development in North Carolina and establishing a regulatory framework. In addition, Colorado local governments are attempting to address air quality issues from hydraulic fracturing and imposing temporary moratoriums.

In North Carolina, Governor Perdue vetoed the fracking legislation for its inadequate environmental protection, though she expressed support for shale gas development in general. To override a veto requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of the General Assembly. The Senate voted 29 to 13 to override the veto, and with Republicans needing every last vote in the House of Representatives, a five-term Democrat accidentally pushed the wrong button to open the state to fracking. A do-over was not granted, perhaps because the vote took place late Monday night in a marathon 36-hour legislative session. Details on the legislation can be found in a McGuireWoods memo here.

Separately, (thanks to a Davis Graham & Stubbs memo for its insight) local governments in Colorado have imposed temporary moratoriums banning fracking until better regulations addressing air quality and other environmental impacts are developed. Localities in Colorado cannot ban oil and gas operations altogether, but many are stepping up their efforts to regulate environmental impacts associated with oil and gas operations, an area whose jurisdiction is uncertain. Colorado and other states are trying to pass statewide legislation to preempt local regulation, but the jurisdictional uncertainty remains for now.

3 Jul

Monsanto Plants Seeds in Congress

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Agriculture, GM Foods.

Photo by thrig. Some rights reserved.

Monsanto’s dollars are doing more than just paying Hugh Grant’s hefty salary (No, not that one. This one.) According to Mother Jones, lobbying by the agricultural giant has recently won some significant legislative victories.

Mother Jones ties the company’s millions of dollars in annual lobbying expenses to two major events in Congress: 1) The defeat of an amendment requiring labeling of foods containing GM ingredients; and 2) A provision added to the 2013 ag spending bill that would allow farmers to plant GM crops even during legal appeals of the USDA’s approval process – even if a federal court orders that the crops not be planted (see Sec. 733 of the bill).

Food for thought.

On a related note, did you know that Knowledge Mosaic now has lobbying data? You can draw your own conclusions by checking out our search page. To whet your appetite, here is a report of Monsanto’s lobbying expenses from last year – it includes the lobbying firm, agencies lobbied, amount spent, and more.

Newer Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 207 other followers

%d bloggers like this: