Photo by Geograph. Some rights reserved.

In a very unique new study (put together by Austin Troy and Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne of the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources and J. Morgan Grove of the USDA Forest Service’s Research Division), research suggests that urban tree coverage in Baltimore serves as a deterrent to robbery, burglary, theft, and shooting. The study’s “more conservative spatially adjusted model indicated that a 10% increase in tree canopy was associated with a roughly 12% decrease in crime,” going against earlier theories that more densely planted trees will encourage criminals by giving them coverage to hide in.

Grist rightly points out these findings’ relation to the “broken window theory” (and gets right to it with the Wire references. I’ll spare you those, just go watch that show if you haven’t already!). This theory suggests that the upkeep of an urban environment’s appearance can have a drastic effect in reducing its crime. In this case, the planting and fostering of lush tree life suggests a healthy neighborhood watch, and would discourage criminals by enforcing the idea that the neighborhood is well protected by its community.

This is not a new idea. Similar studies and debates have existed for decades – the University of Washington’s Forestry Department had similar findings in their own study of trees’ relation to inner city crime. Some fast facts from their study include:

• “Public housing residents with nearby trees and natural landscapes reported 25% fewer acts of domestic aggression and violence.^“
• “Public housing buildings with greater amounts of vegetation had 52% fewer total crimes, 48% fewer property crimes, and 56% fewer violent crimes than buildings with low amounts of vegetation.^“
• “In a study of community policing innovations, there was a 20% overall decrease in calls to police from the parts of town that received location-specific treatments. Cleaning up vacant lots was one of the most effective treatment strategies.”

Photo by Roger Jones. 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: https://cdx.epa.gov

* * *

EIS No. 20120157, Final EIS (Appendices), FTA, GA, Tier 1—Atlanta Beltline City of Atlanta, Proposed Fixed Guideway Transit and Multi-Use Trails System, Right-of-Way Preservation, Fulton County, GA, Review Period Ends: 06/25/2012, Contact: Brian Smart 404–865–5600. Website.

EIS No. 20120158, Draft EIS, USACE, NC, Figure Eight Island Inlet and Shoreline Management Project, Terminal Groin Installation and Supplemental Beach Nourishment, Implementation, New Hanover County, NC, Comment Period Ends: 07/09/2012, Contact: Mickey Sugg 910–251–4811. Website.

EIS No. 20120159, Draft EIS, EPA, FL, Jacksonville Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) Designation, Offshore of Jacksonville, FL, Comment Period Ends: 07/09/2012, Contact: Jennifer S. Derby 404–562–9401. Have not been able to locate. Check back here for updates.

EIS No. 20120160, Draft EIS, USFS, CO, Federal Coal Lease Modifications COC–1362 and COC 67232, Adding 800 and 921 Additional Acres, Paonia Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Gunnison County, CO, Comment Period Ends: 07/09/2012, Contact: Nicole Mortenson 406–329–3163. Website.

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: 07/09/2012, Contact: Deborah McGlothlin 559–920–4952. Website.

EIS No. 20120162, Final Supplement, NOAA, CA, Southwest Fisheries Science Center Demolition, Soil Stabilization and Seismic Improvements, La Jolla, CA, Review Period Ends: 06/25/2012, Contact: Edward Horton 206–526–4837. Website.

EIS No. 20120163, Draft EIS, BLM, NM, AZ, SunZia Southwest Transmission Project, Resource Management Plan Amendment, Construction and Operation of two new 500 kV Transmission Lines, Right-of-Way Grant, Lincoln County, NM and Pinal County, AZ, Comment Period Ends: 08/22/2012, Contact: Adrian Garcia 505–954–2199. Website.

EIS No. 20120164, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, McCoy Solar Energy Project, Development of up to 750-megawatt (mw) Solar Energy Plant, Right-of-Way Grant, Riverside County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/22/2012, Contact: Jeff Childers 760–833–7100. Website.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20120098, Draft EIS, USAF, 00, F–35A Operational Basing, Beddown and Operation of F–35A Aircraft for the Combat Air Forces at One or More Locations throughout the Contiguous U.S. from 2015 through 2020, Comment Period Ends: 06/20/2012, Contact: Nicholas Germanos 757–764–5994. Revision to FR Notice Published 4/20/2012; Change Comment Period Due Date from 06/01/2012 to 06/20/2012.

Photo by Mike Baird. Some rights reserved.

California’s cap-and-trade program, known as “AB32,” is moving closer to its first binding auction. Mandated as part of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, it requires greenhouse gas emissions in California to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.

Recently, the state modified its greenhouse gas / carbon trading market to expand the reach of the program, proposing a formal link between the AB32 cap-and-trade system and a similar program in Quebec. The link, they expect, will expand participants’ trading options and increase liquidity in carbon markets. K&L Gates has a brief analysis of the linked system here.

The programs are similar in many ways. California’s program will at first cover 360 businesses responsible for 85% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2013, the regulations will apply to industrial polluters, and in 2015 to distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels. Its credits were designed to integrate with other cap-and-trade programs. Quebec’s market will include 75 companies mostly in aluminum and mining industries beginning in 2013 and include a much larger group of companies in 2015, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

A joint press release from California and Quebec expresses their expectation that other regions involved in the Western Climate Initiative in North America, especially Ontario and British Columbia, may soon connect their trading schemes with California and Quebec’s, possibly rivaling the European Union’s in size eventually.

The California Air and Resource Board will hold a practice auction in August 2012, and a joint auction with the Quebec market is scheduled for November 14, 2012.

The Green Mien has covered at least one interesting objection to California’s cap-and-trade system: environmental justice groups opposing its “industry-preferred” approach that does not mandate reductions, ignoring that polluters are disproportionately located in low-income, minority communities.

Photo by Titus Tscharntke. Some rights reserved.

This guidance used to be just a glimmer in the commission’s eye. But as of May 17^th, it’s official. That’s when FERC released its Policy Statement on the Commission’s Role Regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

The Policy Statement specifically explains how FERC will provide advice to the EPA for it to rule on requests for Administrative Orders (AO) to operate in noncompliance with EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Last week’s Policy Statement was drawn up with consideration of all comments FERC received on a January 2012 white paper soliciting input on the staff’s position on the topic. (Our original post on the topic describes the standards and the EPA/FERC relationship in a bit more detail.)

Van Ness Feldman’s recent Alert on the topic sums up nicely both the Policy Statement and its implications:

FERC’s new Policy Statement provides that for each such extension request, it will advise EPA whether failure to grant such an extension might lead to a violation of a FERC-approved Reliability Standard.  It will not, however, recommend to EPA that the Agency grant or deny such extension requests, and will not advise EPA on potential impacts that are not within FERC’s jurisdiction over reliability standards. 

[…]

The Policy Statement has a narrow scope limited to case-by-case input to EPA on the potential reliability issues raised by individual generators retrofit or deactivation timelines that fall within FERC’s reliability jurisdiction.  FERC’s input is not binding guidance to EPA.  Moreover, the Policy Statement does not address the broad scope of reliability concerns that industry and policymakers have raised in connection with the Utility MATS rule.  Concerns such as system resource adequacy and safety, coordination to schedule outages among generators within a region, and the potential regional reliability impact of multiple base load generators that choose to deactivate rather than comply with the Utility MATS rule are not addressed in FERC’s Policy Statement.  The limited scope of the Policy Statement may prompt renewed calls by policymakers as well as industry for a more comprehensive, coordinated regional process to address the broader reliability concerns with the Utility MATS rule.

Photo by Andrew Ciscel. Some rights reserved.

This year, the 112^th Congress is set to consider reauthorizing 2008’s Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (known familiarly as the Farm Bill), as many of that Act’s provisions expire in 2012. This bill, a continuation of the 2002 Farm Bill, contained 15 titles covering a broad range of issues. Among other things, it provided grants to develop biorefineries, gave funding to the Rural Energy for America Program, increased benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and established new research initiatives for specialty and organic crops.

… AND, amidst all of that, Title XII of the 2008 Farm Bill introduced a “permanent disaster assistance program” to insurance crops for farmers in the case of natural disasters, etc. A new study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled “Ensuring the Harvest” argues for reform of the Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance Programs on the basis that these provisions are not weighed fairly for smaller, organic farmers, favoring larger industrial farms that focus on planting larger quantities of one or two crops. The report points out that these insurance policies, as overseen by the US Department of Agriculture, operate on a per-crop basis, making it difficult for farmers who grow smaller amounts of many different crops who then have to apply for many separate policies.

In fact, organic farms were only recently given the option of receiving crop insurance, in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 – prior to that Act, these small organic farms were considered too risky to insure. Since then, organic farmers have been forced to pay 5% surcharges as a way to account for the supposedly inherent risks associated with this kind of farming, though as agricultural economist Jeffery O’Hara pointed out in a recent New York Times article, there is no real evidence that there ARE greater risks associated with organic farming.

Meanwhile, a new survey from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation finds that three quarters of Americans support doubling the current minimum amount of financial support given by SNAP, while 70% of study participants said that they have purchased fresh produce from a farmer’s market in the past year (a statistic that supports the UCS study’s claim that smaller, organic farmers deserve more from the reformed Farm Bill). Grist has a nice, new infographic up explaining how Americans need to eat more fruits and vegetables, and how small farms support this effort.

Photo by koolmann. Some rights reserved.

A notice in the Federal Register yesterday provided details on upcoming public listening sessions and initiated a new comment period for the United States Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative’s (USEITI) Stakeholder Assessment, which was published last Friday.

USEITI is the U.S. implementation of, well, “regular” EITI, a global coalition of governments and companies that sets standards for transparency in oil, gas, and mining. The U.S. committed to implementing EITI standards in 2011, as part of our National Action Plan, charging the DOI with the task of developing a plan for the government to disclose revenues from oil, gas, and mining assets. (Sound familiar? The voluntary disclosures encouraged by EITI are similar to those required by public companies under Dodd-Frank’s Section 1504.)

Part of this implementation means forming a Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG), which will be responsible for overseeing implementation of USEITI. EITI Requirement 4(h)(v) notes that the “government may…wish to undertake a stakeholder assessment” as part of forming the MSG, and thus the aforementioned Assessment was born.

Comments on the Assessment are due June 29, 2012.

Photo from http://opencage.info. 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: https://cdx.epa.gov

* * *

EIS No. 20120146, Final EIS, USFS, OR, Jackson Vegetation Management Project, Implementation, Paulina Ranger District, Ochoco National Forest, Crook and Wheeler Counties, OR, Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012, Contact: Jeff Marszal 541–416–6500. Website.

EIS No. 20120147, Final Supplement, USFS, OR, Cobbler II Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project, Updated Information to Revise and Clarify Aspects of the Analyses Presented in the FEIS of October 2010, Proposing Vegetation and Fuels Management to Improve Health and Vigor Upland Forest Stands and Reduce Hazardous and Ladder Fuels, Walla Walla Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest, Wallowa and Union Counties, OR, Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012, Contact: Kimpton Cooper 509–522–6290. Website.

EIS No. 20120148, Draft EIS, USFS, NM, La Jara Mesa Mine Project, Development, Operation and Mine Reclamation up to 20 Years, Approval, Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Cibola National Forest, Cibola County, NM, Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2012, Contact: Keith Baker 505–346–3820. Website.

EIS No. 20120149, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Capitol Expressway Corridor Project, To Construct an Extension of the Capitol Light Rail System from Alum Rock Station to the Eastridge Transit Center, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 07/03/2012, Contact: Eric Eidlin 415–744–2502. Website.

EIS No. 20120150, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, Interchange 5/State Route 56 Interchange Project, Connection between southbound I–5 to eastbound SR–56 and northbound SR 56 to northbound I–5, San Diego County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Manuel E. Sanchez 619–699–7336. Website.

EIS No. 20120151, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Sparring Bulls Project, Proposes Timber Harvest, Non-commercial Fuels Reduction, Prescribed Burning, and Watershed Improvement Activities, Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT, Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012, Contact: Leslie McDougall 406–295–4693. Website.

EIS No. 20120152, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, San Diego Freeway (I–405) Improvement Project, between State Route 73 and Interstate 605, USACE Section 404 Permit, Orange and Los Angeles Counties, CA, Comment Period Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Tay Dam 213–605–2013. Website.

EIS No. 20120153, Draft EIS, NOAA, 00, Southeastern U.S. Shrimp Fisheries, To Reduce Incidental Bycatch and Mortality of Sea Turtles, Tidally Influenced Waters and Substrates of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic and its Estuaries of LA, MS, AL, and NC and extending out to the limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, Comment Period Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Michael Barnette 727–824–5312. Website.

EIS No. 20120154, Final EIS (Volume 1, Volume 2), USFWS, MT, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, To Provide Alternatives and Identify Consequences, Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips Counties, MT, Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012, Contact: Laurie Shannon 303–236–4317. Website.

EIS No. 20120155, Final EIS, USFS, NC, Uwharrie National Forest, Proposed Land and Resource Management Resource Plan, Implementation, Montgomery, Randolph and Davidson Counties, NC, Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012, Contact: Ruth Berner 828–257–4862. Website.

EIS No. 20120156, Draft Supplement EIS, USFS, AK, Bell Island Geothermal Leases, To Update Analysis in the Programmatic EIS to Address Roadless Concerns, Consideration for Lease Approval, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK, Comment Period Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Sarah Samuelson 907–789–6274. Website.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20120073, Draft EIS (Volume 1, Volume 2), USACE, CA, Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project, To Remediate Seismic, Seepage, and Hydrologic Deficiencies in the Main Dam, Spillway and Auxiliary Dam, Kern County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 05/22/2012, Contact: Tyler M. Stalker 916–557–5107. Revision to FR Notice Published 03/23/2012; Extending Comment Period from 05/07/12 to 05/22/2012.

EIS No. 20120130, Final EIS, USFS, CA, Algoma Vegetation Management Project, Proposing to Protect and Promote Conditions of Late-Successional Forest Ecosystem on 4,666 Acres, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Siskiyou County, CA, Review Period Ends: 06/11/2012, Contact: Emelia Barnum 530–926–9600. Revision to FR Notice Published 05/04/2012; Correction to Title. Website.

EIS No. 20120142, Draft EIS, USN, 00, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Activities, To Support and Conduct Current, Emerging, and Future Training and Testing Activities along the Eastern Coast of the U.S. and Gulf of Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 07/10/2012, Contact: Jene Nissen 757–836–5221. Revision to FR Notice Published 05/11/2012; Extending Comment Period from 06/25/12 to 07/10/2012. Website.

EIS No. 20120143, Draft EIS, USN, 00, Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Activities, To Support and Conduct Current, Emerging and Future Training and Testing Activities off Southern California and around the Hawaiian Islands, CA, HI, Comment Period Ends: 07/10/2012, Contact: Alex Stone 619–545–8128. Revision to FR Notice Published 05/11/2012; Extending Comment Period from 06/25/12 to 07/10/2012. Website.

Geomagnetic storm in Alaska. Photo by NASA Goddard Photo and Video. Some rights reserved.

The most pressing natural disaster concern for 2013? We have all read about the risks of climate change, of earthquakes and tornadoes, of nuclear fallout, of the December 2012 apocalypse. But the sun has not managed to top the list. Next year, the sun is expected to reach a peak eruption period, which is associated with powerful sun storms that shoot charged particles into space. When those particles hit the earth and its magnetic field, they create currents that the electrical grid picks up. That can cause voltage fluctuations, overheating, and permanent damage to transformers, which could mean widespread blackouts. (The Wall Street Journal has an article on the topic here).

Regulators are now grappling with what action to take. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is coordinating efforts to research the impacts of solar storms to develop a response (you can read FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller’s comments on the matter to the Bulk Power System Conference here). Among the possibilities being considered, regulators could require the industry to install blocking devices on transformers, for example, or just to add monitoring devices. Some scientists caution, though, that too little is known about the threat to warrant spending hundreds of millions of dollars on blocking devices. Meanwhile, the nation’s biggest grid operators and power generators are collecting data proactively on their systems’ vulnerabilities and abilities to respond to potential damage.

In testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Joseph McClelland, Director of FERC’s Office of Electric Reliability, emphasized the impact of major solar storms historically. In 1859, a solar storm left the telegraph system useless and burned multiple telegraph stations to the ground. The northern lights could be seen as far south as Panama. A 1921 storm had similar effects, but still the electrical grid was in its infancy.

Only in 1989 did particles from a solar storm of any scale hit modern electricity-transmission lines. A barrage of particles hit electrical systems from New Jersey through the province of Quebec, and within minutes most of the province was dark. The 1989 storm, though, is estimated to be only one tenth the size of the 1921 storm. Stay tuned for regulatory proposals and updates.

Photo by Phillip Perry. Some rights reserved.

As reported by E2 Wire’s The Hill, as well as Oxfam itself, the International relief and development organization has recently filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the SEC for “unlawfully delaying the issuance of a Final Rule implementing a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that requires disclosure of payments from oil, gas and mining companies to the United States and foreign governments.”

Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which mandates the rulemaking, states that “[n]ot later than 270 days after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Commission shall issue [the resource extraction disclosure] final rules.” According to Oxfam, that deadline worked out to be April 17, 2011, making the SEC more than a full year late in complying. The Hill reports that the suit is asking the court to compel the SEC to issue final rules within 30 days.

The proposed rule (“Disclosure of Payments By Resource Extraction Issuers,” SEC 34-63549) was issued by the SEC on December 15, 2010, and has been fought tooth and nail by the oil industry ever since. You can see comments on the proposed rule – both for and against – on Knowledge Mosaic’s Laws, Rules, and Agency Materials page.

While no case filings are available yet, you can follow the progress of the lawsuit here: Oxfam America, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Photo by fmschmitt. Some rights reserved.

Troubling news for the U.S. tourism industry arrived this week in the form of a new report filed by the United States Geological Survey on the Historical Shoreline Change in the Hawaiian Islands. The report monitors shoreline changes on Kauai, Oahu, and Maui, Hawaii’s three most densely populated islands, over the last century. In this time,  9% (about 14 miles) of the coastline of these islands has disappeared, and 70% of their beaches show signs of retreat. Maui is showing the highest rate of decay, with 81% of its beaches showing signs of erosions.  The study reports varying rates of erosion depending on the island and the beach; the range runs the gamut from a few inches per year up to a few feet per year, depending on a multitude of factors including degree of tourism in the area, vulnerability to coastal storms, and the ever-increasing rise of sea level.

“The inevitable fate of the Hawaiian Islands millions of years into the future is seen to the northwest in the spires of French Frigate Shoals and the remnants of other once mighty islands, ancestors of today’s Hawaii, but now sunken beneath the sea through the forces of waves, rivers, and the slow subsidence of the seafloor,” explained USGS Director Marcia McNutt in an agency press release.

So what’s the solution? Obviously the findings of this report hold a great significance to the future of the Hawaiian way of life, both the indigenous Polynesian culture and the booming tourism industry of the islands. The common practice of re-building beaches with imported sand is also dicey in the Hawaiian islands as, because of its geographical remoteness, imported sand is 10 times more expensive than the global average. William J. Aila Jr., Chairperson of Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources recommends, above all else, moving commercial construction and infrastructure away from the beaches and towards the mainland. ”This will vastly improve upon public safety and will ensure that Hawaii’s beautiful beaches will be protected from inappropriate shoreline development.”